STRIKER MARKINGS

Northern Advocate, 15 June 1934, Page 6

STRIKER MARKINGS

IMPRESSIONS ON SHELL FOUND IN ACCUSED’S POCKET. OTHER. EXPERIMENTS EXPLAINED, CONSISTENCY CLAIMED. (Special to ".Northern Advocate.”) AUCKLAND, This Day. Proceeding with his evidence in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, at the hearing of the Bayly case, Dr. Dennis Brown, a. Bachelor of Science ■and a Doctor of Philosophy, said that photograph No. G showed one end of the striker pin of the Winchester. In this lie marked two indentations in the bottom right-hand corner of the strik-er-pin, which he labelled A and B, because they were in the right position to account for features A and Bin photograph No. 4, These two photographs were related, mirror fashion. On the shells he fired from the Winchester rifle there were a series of fine lines in the right hand corner of the striker-pins. There was a similar group or impression on the shell found in accused’s pocket. Dr. Brown added that these lines were too faint to come out except under strong magnification. Ho photographed a test shell from the Winchester rifle and it was necessary to use a magnification of G 8 diameters to bring out those fine lines. He also took a photograph of the corresponding corner of the shell, which showed a series of parallel lines in the corner, which had the same spacings and were of the same number of those which he fired from the Winchester rifle. Mr Meredith: “What is your opinion? Could shell 70 have been fired from the Spandau rifle?” —“That would be impossible. The striker marks are totally different.” “And what about the other rifle?” •—“I am convinced that shell exhibit 70 was fired from the rifle which Avas recovered from the swamp.” Further magnified photographs of striker marks were exhibited by witness. Mr Meredith: “As a result, of these further photographs, Avhat is your opinion as to the rifle in Avhich the shell. exhibit 70 was fired?” —“They reinforce my conviction that this shell Avas final from the sAvamp rifle.” Witness said lie had taken a photomicrograph of the striker mark on a shell (containing a spider Aveb. His Honour: “This was the shell found in Lakey’s garden?” Mr Meredith: “That is so, Your Honour.” Witness said he had compared this shell Avit-h two shells lie had fired from the Spandau from Bayly’s place. His view Avas that the shell found in Lakey’s garden Avas fired from the Spandau—the photographs Were consistent with that vie Av. A shell Avhich Avas found at Bayly’s stops, and which was handed to wiiness by Constable Mills, Avas fired from Bayly’s Spandau rifle, according to witness’s examination of enlarged photographs.

SEVENTY-SIX FIRED. SPANDAU COMPARISONS. - Witness said 70 shells were fired altogether and handed to him by the police. He fired seven Spambui shells himself. Sixteen of the shells ho received wore Span da u shells. Witness produced envelope cases, in which he had filed photographs and particulars of the individual shells under discussion. He laid micro-photographed all the 70 shells and mounted them in one book. He had compared with photographs of the shells found in Bayly’s denims with all the 70 shells and had not found it (he same as any of these oi lier,s. He had com pared all the striker marks from shells from Spandau rifles with the marks on the shells found at Lakey’s and had not found any with which it ■could bo confused. Among all the 70 he had not found such similar marks as would lead one to suppose they had been fired from one rifle. He had made a comparison of the marks on the Spandau shells and he had not been able to find any two that could be compared with each other, but (here were some in which the striker impression did not convey any definite rings at all. His Honour: “Was there any characteristic mark - on the shell found in Lakey’s garden?”-—“That lias a certain system of rings quite dissimilar from Hie system of rings found on any of the other Spandau shells.” Answering Mr Northeroft, witness said lie had photographed the two pieces of cut wood with the light cast in such a way as to show up the grooves and ridges, Mr Northeroft produced a diagram to illustrate curves and ridges, and the effect of special lighting upon their appearance. Witness said it would be almost impossible practically to arrange the lighting so that the shadow fcl at the centre of the grooves. •

LIGHTS LOWEEED.

I* NOTCH I RAI’HS SCREENED. The Court presented an. unusual scene Avhen, at this stage, lights were lowered, to enable Mr Northcroft to throw on a. large screen hung on a stand lantern slides of photographs of the surface of cut wood from Lakey’s implement shed and Bayly’s cowshed. Mr Northcroft, with a pointer in hand, questioned witness on details of grooves’ appearing in slides shown on the screen. Mr Northcroft: ‘Ms this apparently a simple enlargement of one of your own photographs'” —“Yes, but I think a certain amount of detail has been lost in the enlargement.’’ Mr Northcroft continued to ask how much of each groove was in light and how much in darkness, as he said that was the only means of testing the comparative measurements. in most cases witness said the light and shade' were about equal. Mr Northcroft put it to witness that a “No. I’’ marked against the side of one of the photographs indicated nothing at all, and was purely imaginary. Witness said it marked the position of a. line which was on the wood and which was brought out in another photograph. Another photograph was thrown on the screen, and witness picked out a small mark on it. “No Importance.” Mr Northcroft asked why a certain mark was not shown on the photographs, and witness said the photograph had not been designed to show it. He attached no importance at all to the line marked No. I. Witness agreed that the marks of any one steel of the type exhibited would make marks approximately similar to those of any other steel. The steel he bought in Queen Street could just as easily have made those marks. In his opinion there were a large number of steels that could have made these marks. Mr Northcroft: “Can you attach the slightest importance to those steel 'marks on the wood as indicating that the owner of that particular steel made these marks?” —“From the marks themselves it would be impossible to say what si eel made the inn rks.” Witness said his original remark was fair, that the mark was consistent with having been made by that steel. He agreed that the marks would not be of Hie slightest use in fixing the. identity of the steel. Grouping Of Lines. Mr Northcroft questioned witness at length regarding tin l degree of curve apparent among certain of the Hues seen in the photographs. Regarding the grouping of certain lines, and seeming variations, he considered that a certain alteration in the direction of particular lines could occur because of the complicated movement of* knife action. Witness admitted that there was a group of parallel lines with a group of converging lines next to it. I’ossibly this eonld arise because one’ group would lie virtually formed before the other group commenced. Witness said it was a feature of importance, but lie had not told the jury about it. If he had told the jury all he had considered, he would have kept them for a long time. Mr Northcroft remarked that the case had already gone on for four weeks, and objection would not have been made to an extra half-hour from an expert witness. Mr Xorthcroft: “Did you draw M’r Meredith's attention to it?’’—“No.” Mr Xorthcroft suggested a, bar of soap as an easy medium for an experiment to show how, with one cut, there could lie made a group of converging lines and a group of parallel lines. The witness agreed to make such experiment this morning when the court resumed.