“THE SAME KNIFE”

Northern Advocate, 15 June 1934, Page 6

“THE SAME KNIFE”

EMPHATIC OPINION RESULTANT CUTS. ON BA US OF SO A I*. DR. BROWN’S 11,LOST RATIONS. (.Special to “Northern Advocn'e.”) A met,AND, This Day. Bars of limisehold soap were used by Hr. Dennis Brown in an etlort (o demonstrate him con verging and parallel lines could be made with one cut of a knife when he continued answering defence counsel’s ipiestions at the continuance of the trial this morning. Three bar:: of soap were used by the witness, who, after making cuts, maintained (hat tic had made mil only converged lines, but also diverging lines. This was emphatically denied by Mr F. H. Northeroft, senior defence counsel, who had asked that the experiment be carried mil in from of the jury, (.Toss-examination of Dr. Brown was followed with interest by men a fid women, who crowded into the public parts of the court. As has been daily the custom of some of the public, Crowds of men and women leaned over the wall at the side of the court to catch a glimpse of Bayly ns lie arrived.

Dr. Brown was si ill under iToss-ex-amhiatioii when (lie hearing o) Hi'! Bayly case was resumed this morning. Mr X’ortlieroft: “I think you yesterday admitted that on one of your photographs a group of lines on the right-hand side of (ho wood-cut were parallel, whereas the group on the other side were converging.’” — 1 ‘ Ves. ’ ’ ‘‘'raking the diagram which I drew on the blackboard, in which I tried to show how a group of lines converged and another group are parallel, I think you admitted both sets of lines could not be done at the same time ? ” —‘ ‘ Ves, lint only it the case is as extreme as you show on the blackboard.” ‘‘You now say it has to be an extreme case. 1 ” —‘‘I think I can show yon how it approximates it.” ‘‘You told us last night you Avcre willing to carry out experiments.’” — ”1 carried out several.” “in conjunction Avith Professor Worley .’ ’ •’ —‘ ‘ Xo. ’ ’ “You discussed tin; matter of these experiments with him?” —“Xo, I did not. ’ ’ ‘‘Did you see him last night?”— “XT, 1 saw him yesterday afternoon at the adjournment when the Court concluded.' ’ “I suppo'so you discussed with him the matter of the experiments which I brought up yesterday afternoon?” — 1 ‘ Yes. ’ ’ “Well, will you please show us how you get this state of a (fail's, the parallel and converging lines on the same piece of wood?” —“Yes, I will be pleased to. I Avonld like a clear space on the edge of the tabic to carry out the experiment. ’ ’ Dr. Brown was then permitted to sit at the end of the table in front of the doek and carry out tests with a knife and several liars of soap. Converging And Parallel. With three bars of household soap and a table knife, Dr. Brown endeavoured to demonstrate how he could got converging ami parallel lines with the same cut of the knife. “1 artiiicially made six turns on the edge of this knife,” explained Dr. Brown. “Five are in one direction and Hie other is a. burr on both sides of the blade.” Dr. Blown then went to the bench in front of the dock - and made the cuts. “I may have to have one or two attempts,” lie said. “There,” said Dr. Brown as he completed the first cut. “There are three converging and the other three are not only parallel, but diverging.” Mr Northcroft: “Is this a' good sample, or do you want to do another ?” Dr, BroAvu: “I would like to do another, ’ ’

After two .more efforts Dr. Brown said: “I cannot strike tlio happy medium. Sometimes they :ire converging, sometimes diverging, lull, these demonsi rote how it mu lie done, ft is clear that with a few more trinls yon would strike tlu> happy medium and get them parallel. I have actually done more than yon have asked. However, 1 think we have it in my last effort.’ ’ Mr Northeroft: “That is the one you would like to be presented to the jury as the test one?” Dr. thrown: “No. I would like (hem all presented. 1 will also make a eut with the other side of the knife just for a record. That shows .ridges, the other grooves.” His Honour: “To get to the point, are you able to say that these cuts [were made with that particular knife?” Compatible Signs. Dr. Brown: “it would not bo scientific to say that that particular knife made the cuts.” His Honour: “The knife has been produced and shown to the jury in an effort to show that that is the knife that made these cuts. Are you prepared to say that?” Dr. Brown: “Xo, I have never said Hint.” His Honour: “All you can say is that the same knife was used on the implement shed and on the separator room ? ’ ’ Dr. Browy: “That is what 1 am trying to present.” His Honour; “Your evidence does not go beyond that?” Dr. Brown; “The knife is compatible with having made the cuts.” Mr Northeroft: “Do you say beyond the possibility of doubt that the two cuts on the implement shed, and the separator room were made with the same knife.”’ Dr. Brown: “Millions of knives would have to be examined before one : would be found that would (it the giooves as well.” Mr Northeroft: “Then you are emphatic ? ’ ’ Witness: “Yes.’’ Hnder further cross-examination, Dr. 'Brown repealed that lie had performed much more than he had been asked to do. He had made marks on liars of soap which were ipiite convincing. Onus On The Jury. All Nollhciofl; ‘‘l See. Well, 1 he jury is to judge on the results of your experiments and vom evidence,”’-- ‘ ‘ Vos, ’ ’ “II is a mat lor of opinion and com rnonsense and no science is involved in understanding this.”’- —“'Yes, the jury can judge as well as scientists.” “Now, Dr. Brown, the piece of wood was taken from Bayly’s separator shod on December 1” at vmir sui'ocs.l inn ’' ' -“Yes,” “This piece of wood is your intellectual baby. II is your piece of evidence? 1 No, it is not my inlelleciual -baby, Mr Northeroft. ' ’ “Well, I he police never found if. You found, it yourself —‘ ‘ Yea. ” “Well, pardon me using the expression, Doctor, perhaps it was not appropriate. ’ ’ More Screening. At (his stage Mr Northcrol'l had the lights extinguished and further I,'intern slides of wood-cuts thrown on the screen in order to cross-examine Dr.

: Brown »•«> 11 «-«• i■ 11 i 1 coinci<i*MM'fs ill lines : ;iml ridges. j Counsel slid Hint in two cases where L'.vo photographs of wmid-cuts were jjoined to.u'otlier, two lines or ridges j were not in alignment, j 'Witness admitted Hint there, was a 'difference in alignment, j .Mr Xorl In-rott: “Where a question o( identity is involved, ;is there is in I this case, these matters must .be abso- • lute and not he mere calculations?”j “ No, not with complicated wood marks, where some lines take a com- | plicated, form, due in n turn of tin* | the wrist.” i “ But there is a certain degree of uncertainty’”—“l allowed for that in making my calculations.” “Did yon get the poliee to collect knives in the IDmtly district to sec if any made marks like those?” —“No.” Further Questioning. j In reply to further cpiestioning, Dr. (Brown said it was his opinion that if j Jhiyly’s knife had been appreciably j worn or sharpened before being handled to him, it might possibly have made the marks found on the piece of wood taken from Lakey's implement shed. ‘‘Von asknme the wood was cut by this knife, and then you assume the knife was sharpened afterwards ” i“I have never assumed the wood was cut by the knife." I “Looking at Hie micro-photograph, lean you say one part was sharpened laud not the other?"—“No, 1 think the ! whole blade was sharpened at Hie same | time. " j “ Did you do any other comparative 1 work on the piece of wood from | Lakey’s shed, apart from Hie piece I you micro'-photographed !’ ’ —‘ ‘ No, because 1 only saw prospects on the one piece.’ ’ “Did you examine the piece of wood i which came from the wood of the I frame of the carl wheels?” —“ Ves. 1 jgave it a cursory examination.” j “Only a cursory examination? Why, ! the photograph shows that there are three completely detached marks which would be perfect specimens for the criminal investigator to examine?” j—“l considered the particular piece you refer to, and decided that it was hopeless to attempt to microscopically examine it in relation to the knife, as there were no distinct marks. It was hopeless, as the piece of wood was hacked about in so many places in a small area.’’ “Did you light on the piece of the wooden rail? Hid you liin] it?"—“No, i Senior-Sergeant Diunie showed the piece of wood to me. I examined this piece of wood to the exclusion of the others, because it was the only isolated and distinctive group of knife mark's.” Shells and Striker Marks. After having cross-examined Dr Drown nearly all yesterday afternoon and most of this morning on the woodcuts and knife, Mr Northcroft at 12..10 commenced to cross-examine him on the iiiauy cartridge shells and striker marks thereon. “Why did you cut oil’ the top of the photograph of one shell?” —“To call attention to the impression of the striker pin.” “That may be, but it conceals the fact of an extraordinary difference in length?”—“Yes.” “What is the difference?” —“One is a sixth longer than the other.” Two pictures were shown on the screen, one at the left being a microscopical enlargement of the test shell fired from Bayly’s rifle, and oii the right one of the shells which dropped from Bayly’s trousers. Mr Northcroft: “You say there are five definite characteristic grooves in Hie left-hand photograph. Is there anything at all on the other even remotely resembling it?” —“Yes, there are slight vestiges. I consider they are slight signs.” Dr Brown added that in one photograph tin 1 striker pin might have been fouled by deposits or combustion. In all the test firings he had always .seen that the striker pin was clear. Owing to the inconsistency of the copper, there would lie accidental marks which vary owing to the different ways copper crumpled up. The court adjourned for lunch. CROWN RE-EXAMINATION. Mr Xortiicmfl was still cross-exam-ining Dr. Brown when the hearing was resumed this afternoon. .However, at 2.10 p.m. his cross-examin-ation had concluded and Mr Meredith then commenced his re-ex'.i minalion of witness. h’eplying to Mr Meredith Dr. Brown (said accidental marks were those which did not occur on more than the into cartridge l . They were different on every cartridge and were differenl on a succession of cartridges. (Proceeding).