BAYLY TRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22293, 20 June 1934, Page 8

BAYLY TRIAL

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE CROWN THEORIES DISCREDITED EXPERT EVIDENCE CHALLENGED (Fn United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 19. The most important points in the Crown’s theory regarding Lakey’s death — the disposition of his body—were traversed by Mr E. H. Northcroft to-day. Counsel for the defence dealt lengthily with the allegations that the body was transported on wheels of a sledge to Bayly’s, where it was subsequently disposed of. He also referred to the evidence of smoke seen at Bayly's cowshed, and then discussed the accused’s cream returns, which he described as» overwhelming proof of his innocence. Towards the end of the session he analysed the expert evidence, declaring that there was no shred of evidence that the accused had b-'en at Lakey’s farm since the end of 1932. ~ . Counsel hag not yet finished addressing the jury. During the day he made frequent references to a second visit by the jury to Ruawaro which, it is assumed, will take place at the conclusion of the address before his Honor sums up. Notwithstanding heavy rain and a northerly gale, large crowds of men and women, packed the court, the women in particular' evincing great interest in the proceedings. Mrs W. A. Bayly wag again present, as was the accused’s father, Mr Frank Bayly. . , , , ~ Continuing, to deal with the cartridge cases, counsel said..they had been identified by experts in such circumstances as made identification almost incredible. The shell found in Lakey’s garden was old and tarnished, and appeared to the police to haye no bearing on the case; yet now, it was identified nositively. Mr Northcroft then read a legal authority, which stated that there was no kind of testimony less free from bias than that of experts. While he did not attack the witnesses’ honhsty, he did most strongly attack the cogency of their arguments. "Experts, with the utmost honesty and .he utmost desire to be fair, find the things thev are looking for, declared counsel, "The most honest witnesses come to court and make statements they honestly believe to be true, but which are influenced by stronger minds then their own.” , , ■ , , In respect of the shell found at Bayly s, there was no satisfactory observation made of it at the time, while no statement had been taken from Bayly. There was not a scrap of evidence that it actually fell from his pocket at ' all. It fell from clothes being lifted from the cot. 'lt was possible that it bad been picked up by the children, who might be collecting such things. had said “ that would be from my rifle, a speculative . remark which would be expected from a man who had been shooting cently. It was possible that there had been confusion in handling the sheila and replacing them in their containers. Nothing had been advanced to clear up the possibility of confusion while the shells were inspected at Auckland. The Crown had said it was possible that Bayly, when at Lakey’s on the Tuesday with the searchers, might have dropped the shell found there. If Bayly did have such a shell from the rifle, and while at Lakey’s picked. up the cartridge shell, he might consider it of no importance, and tlieiv have thrown away by mistake the shell he had in his own pocket, retaining • the shell fired from- Lakey’s rifle that he had picked up.

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SHELLS ‘‘There are some significant elements in the photographs of the shells to which I would like to draw attention/ continued counsel. The Crown had invited tlie jury to conclude that the two shells, had been fired from the same rifle. Yet it was utterly impossible to make a proper comparison of the two sheik by putting them in the microscope one after the other- : This could, only be done with a forensic microscope, with which both shells,could be seen simultaneously at the same focus, in the same -condition, and with the some lighting. One double photograph, on being printed by the defence, showed an extraordinary difference in the length of the striker mark. It was unfortunate that when the Crowns, witnesses mounted these photographs,,fully a quarter of an inch had been cut, off one mark. Dr. Brown had accounted for the failure of coincidence in one shell by declaring that the striker which fired shell 70 had been clogged with dirt. Professor Worley had not agreed with this explanation. Dr Brown had found, five points; of > resemblance between two shells; yet. Professor Worley declared “that-he had found 25. “But neither drew your attention to the points of dissimilarity,” continued counsel. “ I invite you to go .over the shells, and I suggest that you will find that the experts’ identification has been based on chance similarities of lights and shadows on photographs taken under different conditions. Not the slightest significance can be attached to these cartridge shells at all.” , ' Mr' Northcroft said that when the police arrived. Lakey’s dog was tied. Whoever tied the dog must have been familiar with it, and that nerson could not have been Bayly. If the dog had been at the ‘house when an altercation occurred, it would have made a noise which would have attracted' Lakey’s attention. Had the dog been at the cowshed and come up with Lakey, again it would have made it impossible for Lakey to walk into a trap. _ ' ' , Counsel said that when Brader was at Lakey’s on the Sunday afternoon Lakeys best double-barrelled shotgun was not in the house. It was Inter found in the swamp with the pea rifle* Whoever returned with it to the house that afternoon, it could not have been Bayly, whose relations with Lakey were not such as to suggest that he would have been lent a gum He had Calvert’s gun at his house at that time. Again, Bayly could not have got Lakey’s ammunition without ransacking his house. _ Whoever took the ammunition was acquainted with the iao£ the house. No acceptable view could be taken, ho matter how the theory of an ambush was examined, continued counsel, who asked why Airs Lakey was .put in the water. Why should not the ' person, whoever he was, have used the pea rifle to kill her? ' “If Bayly could not have removed Lakey’s body in the manner suggested by the Crown, then the whole case collapses, proceeded Air Northcroft, who had the wheels and frame brought before the jury. “ Half the spokes of the wheels have "one. Can you believe that a vehicle 1 fn that'state could have rbeen used to convey an 11-stone man down the hill from Lakey’s house? The ground over which the vehicle is supposed to h«e & befen taken was sodden, the I lade with a heavy man, would have made definite cuL in the turf, while the cow droDPings would have been cut completely in half. 8 The wheels would also have left characteristic marks in several place which must have been crossed.

crown Theories disputed Counsel suggested that some tragedy occurred near 'the wheels, which resulted • fVipir becoming blood*stsinGd. person responsible then ran the wheels downhill, meaning to, conceal them, in a patch' of titree, but found the fence there. He then left them under the wattle tree. That man could not be Bayly, who knew the wheels' could not be taken to the titree there Mr Northcroft added that the juiy would be taken to Ruawaro a .second time to have an opportunity of see'ng the titree. Wheel marks were traced a certain distance, but not nearer the boundary, than 69ft. There was no, justification for the view that' the wheels had been taken to the fence, and to take the wheels down the paddock and transfer the body to the sledge would be a remarkable pi oceeding, which would be extremely likely to be observed,, considering the exposed i nature of the paddock.. • Counsel then asked the jury to examine the photograph of the boundary fence which, according to Detective Sneddon, was in good order, with the-wires taut, to lift the inert body of a heavy man would tax the strength of a strong man, and Bayly was a small man. •‘I-suggest that the body could not be put through the fence; it would have •to be lifted to the height of the fifth wire/ 9 continued counsel. If this body

had been disgorging blood, and had been handled in any way, that very handling would cause it to give out blood, and there would be blood everywhere. There was none. There was not a blade of grass disturbed. The sledge was never brought nearer than 9ft to the fence. If it had been used in the way suggested by the Crown, it would have been driven to the fence, the body lifted over, and placed directly on it. “ INNOCENT CIRCUMSTANCES ” " The Crown is hard put to it to conjure up innocent circumstances and make them look sinister against Bayly,” declared Mr Northcroft, referring to the accused’s action in placing four head of stock in the paddock where the sledge marks were. “ Why should Bayly want to tread out the marks after they had been observed, measured, and pegged. Had Bayly wished to see what the police were doing, he could have walked across the paddock instead of just. opening the gate and driving the beasts in. “ All Bayly’s working clothes were taken by the police on October 21. They were all in normal, soiled state when examined by the pathologists. Not a spot of blood was found on them except for a few stains. Not a stain of blood was found on the coat, boots, or shirt. Ihe only blood found was on the trousers, which were covered by oilskin. “The Crown must have known that those clothes proved beyond possibility of doubt that Bayly was not involved in the transfer of the body in the manner suggested; yet not a word was said about them,” declared Mr Northcroft. When the police indicated the stains on the sledge which they considered to be blood, but did not take the sledge, Bayly made no effort to remove the stains. When the police returned, the sledge was in the same condition. The two stains of blood on the sledge were the minutest smears, not even drops, and any harmless explanation would account for them. “Apparently the Crown thought at first that the body had, been taken away in a motor, car and not destroyed,” he proceeded. “Following a ; report that a strange motor car had been seen, the Onewhero River had been . extensively dragged, while the police satisfied themselves that Bayly’e car had never ;been out; The next theory entertained by the police was that Lakey had been cut up and boiled. Even now, realising that there were many gaps and difficulties in regard to the theory of burning, evidence by Furniss regarding the condition of Bayly’s copper was brought to court, notwithstanding that the police knew Furniss was mistaken. The police had seized a chopping block, chopper, and hacksaw, all of which proved to be innocent. AN IMPOSSIBLE EXPLANATION “The madness of that theory lies in this fact: That the operation of cutting up a body, cutting away the flesh, and boiling it could not have been done without leaving a most ghastly mess,” declared Mr Northcroft. “It must have been perfectly obvious to the police that Bayly’s place had never been the scene of .such activities.” The Crown now asked the jury to believe that Bayly used a destructor for incinerating the body. No witness in the Police Court' gave an opinion that it was possible to burn a body in such a furnace. . Experiments made; later showed that it took eight hours to destroy the body of a sheep. The experts worked on the assumption that Bayly had increased the efficiency of the furnace by using two sheets of corrugated iron. “If you put the drum on the concrete and put the sheets of' iron with it you will see that the sheets of iron were never used with it. The smoke marks do not start until 12 inches above the edge of the / drum,” declared counsel. “The police have never taken the trouble to see if they -fit. By no process of reconstruction could the sheets of iron he used with the drum in that way.” , The drum and sheets of iron were set up before the jury, as were the drum and iron used by. the Crown experts. In conclusion, Mr Northcroft contended that the wire it had been suggested was used for holding, the sheets had not been heated. ' . On resumption after the luncheon adjournment Mr Northcroft asked the jury ;to consider whether it was likely thatthe drum, would be stood on concrete blocks, as it had no holes at the bottom to give a draught. Its position on the blocks would make it unstable, while if it were raised it. would become cumbersome to place the body in it as the Crown had suggested had been done. It was utterly impossible for the Crowns reconstruction to be justified. It was on the assumption that the drum was placed on blocks and the fire fanned with sheets of Iron that the Crown’s tests were made. The Crown had : completely misconceived the position. The iron had .been heated at some time during the ordinary farm operations such as heating branding irons. , • , , Counsel said he would then discuss the time within .which Bayly was supposed to have done what the Crown alleged. The experiments were carried out on a false assumption. The Grown had staked all on a fallacy which could have been avoided had an ordinary precaution—a simple measurement-been taken. Until the Crown had carried out its experiments no one knew how long it would take to burn a human body. No murderer would adopt such a grotesque course, as an attempt to burn a corpse which might be found on his hands. After comparing the respective sizes of a man a sheep, Mr Northcroft said that Herbert and his employee Brooker had given the police information that they had seen smoke at Bayly’s cowshed in December after Bayly’e arrest. There had been a fire,at Bayly’s a fortnight previously, the oil drum being used to heat water to scald a pig. It was possible that Herbert and Brooker contused that Sunday with the critical Sunday. The position of the smoke- seen against the hillside might easily, have misled them as to the point of origin. . , . ... , “The photograph produced is positively misleading,” declared counsel, who. suggested that the jury should go to Hmbert’s and look across towards Bayly s. They would then see that the photograph gave a false impression of the view from Herbert’s. Herbert and Brooker had stated that the smoke hung low about the cowshed. That week-end there had been hard southerly weather with bursts of strong wind. . , Counsel then read the distances of the homes of other settlers from Bayly s cowshed. “ How is it then that no other settler saw smoke that day? he asked. « Such a fire would be a beacon for manj hours into the night if not until next ™Counsel said that if Herbert saw smoke three-quarters of an hour before. dar there were serious discrepancies in tne Crown case as Lakey was still alive at 6 HiJ S Honor remarked that he thought ■ the evidence was that a man was seen at that time. .-. . .... “My friend in opening said u was Lakey,” replied Mr Northcroft, . “A man presumed to be Lakey, interjected Mr Meredith. „ _ “I am prepared to accept that, replied counsel. “ Can it be suggested that • Bayly murdered 'Lakey, took the body away to where he had a fire burning, and then returned, leaving horribly incriminating evidence in broad daylight, to turn out LaW’s house? ” After contending that 1 there was no wood fuel at Bayly’s Suitable to use in the drum as suggested, Mr .Nor the toft said that all the human bones found by the Crown weighed in all 4.7 ounces out of a total of 160 ounces in the human frame, or 3 per cent. Even allowing f.oi all the bones which might be human there was only 5 per cent., but the adclitional 2 per cent, might just as easily have been animal bones. Where nave the rest of the bones gone? ” he asked. On the Crown’s view Bayly burnt the corpse, and scattered the bones in this extraordinarily foolish manner.

Counsel said that all the bones found were those nearest the exterior of the body which it would be expected would burn away. Clearly there must be a large mass of-bone material. If Bay<} had burnt the body there was an insoluble problem. Had Bayly committed the crime he had an extraordinary hiding place for the majority of the bones. Yet he had placed some of the hones in four places where they were easily found. Had Bayly wished to conceal the rifle or shotgun there was no bett-r place of concealment than the lake adjoining his property,'where at one place there was only a small swampy margin between the grass and the water. No dragging or searching could ever have found them. In the same way, had Bayly desired to dispose of the watch he could have thrown it into the lake or conveyed it out of the district. Bayly was supposed to tear the lighter to pieces and then put pieces in the dip where it would easily be found. Mr Northeroft next referred to Bayly s cream returns, which, he submitted, formed proof of the accused’s innocence. The figures showed a general increase over the month from 70lb to 841 b. The drop

which occurred at the week-end when Lakey disappeared was the smallest decrease of all. The factory manager had detailed how the fluctuations in the supply were caused, the farmers withholding their cream for their own butter. As the Bayly’s were coming to the city early in the week, it was highly probable that an explanation of this small decrease waS that they were going to make butter to give to friends in town. “These figures do not show that Bayly was engaged in some desperate task that weekend, but that his farming operations proceeded in a normal manner,” contended My Northcroft, who stated that if Bayly had followed his ordinary practice he would have had a cup of tea on returning from Calvert’s and would then have done his milking, with the result that he would be milking when Herbert claimed that he saw the smoke. The cows_ could not be milked if burning were going on in the cowyard. “ You have here overwhelming proof of Bayly’s innocence,” counsel submitted, adding that Bayly’s cream was graded superfine throughout the period. The knife marks not only did not form a link in the case against Bayly, but discredited the case presented by the Crown; declared counsel. The Crown had said a knife had been sharpened, with the result that its condition had been altered since the marks were made. “ I challenge the soundness of the conclusions the Crown has drawn from the treatment of the knife itself,” he declared. “ What has obviously been done is that somebody shaved the wood at Lakey’s -to conceal blood stains. That calls for an exceedingly sharp knife,. I suggest that the sharpening of the knife to that acuteness occurred before it was taken to do the work. When Detective Allsopp first saw the knife it was very sharp, and.it is difficult to believe that two days later the edge had been worn off. As Bayly had not been home during those two days he had not used it about the farm. “ Was it believable,” continued counsel, “ that during the two days Bayly had worn the edge off the knife and then sharpened it again? There were shavings at the two places—Lakey’s and Bayly’s. The Crown had been driven to attempt to make a comparison between the woodcuts. What reason would there be for such a proceeding as cutting away the bloodstains nt Bayly’s ? The cutting on the upright was in the separator room where there were ample water, cloths, scrubbing brushes and other material with which to remove any sinister stain. If a body had been dragged on the ground would it not have left a stain two feet above the floor, and if it had been carried over the shoulder it would be considerably higher above the ground. If there had been further blood it must have been removed by scrubbing. Why, then, would this stain have not been removed similarly? Counsel then produced microphotograpbs of the cuts. “ I suggest that it is a physical impossibility for a blade in one stroke to make the two sets of lines running in different directions,” he declared. “It is possible to get one set of lines converging and one diverging, but it is a physical, impossibility to get one set of lines diverging and one set parallel with one cut of a knife."

Mr Northcroft declared that the calculation as to the probability of the marks having been made by 'the same knife was absolute nonsense. It was a desperate effort to prop up the theory conceived by Dr Brown. Counsel referred to the assumption that the knife was not used at right* angles to the timber, next detailing the marks on the wood, cut by cut. He said that the photograph was prepared to prove that Bayly’s knife had done the cutting at Lakey’s. It was not until Hr Brown was placed under cross-examina-tion that he had to admit that it proved nothing of the sort. No attempt hao been made to examine any knives in the locality other than Bayly’s. That was a very serious omission by the police; It had teen admitted that every steel of a very common make would have made similar marks to those in Lakey’s shed. An examination had been made of Bayly s sheath to see if there was any blood on it. If any had been brought before the court there was only a microscopic smear of blood on the knife for which a dozen explanations were probable. If the knife cuts had been examined by scientists in the proper way they would have plotted the areas of all the cuts and photographed them all. If they had done that and had found, notwithstanding many characteristic cuts, many groups where there was no coincidence, that would have ueen overwhelmingly negative proof. The experts in this case had gone about their work in a way calculated to bring about one result only. Their task had been to obtain matter to demonstrate to the jury the point the Crown wanted demonstrated. "If the views offered by me are worthy of-- acceptance in the slightest -degree 1 suggest; to you that there is -not; a- schap* of evidence anywhere to suggest ••that Bayly was ever anywhere at Lakeys since Christmas, 1932,” concluded counsel “The case for the Crown cannot stand up unless it can show that Bayly was at : Lakey’s on that fatal Sunday night. ih?s matter, which was to be a dramatic climax to the Crown’s case, has collapsed entirely. There is nothing to show that Baylv was at Lakey’s place at all.