BAYLY TRIAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22294, 21 June 1934, Page 8

BAYLY TRIAL

DOUBLE MURDER CHARGE CASE FOR . THE DEFENCE COUNSEL’S LENGTHY ADDRESS (Pe« United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 20. Mr Nor the ro ft continued his address to the jury this morning when the Supreme Court hearing of the Ruawaro murder charges was continued. Counsel nas already spoken for a day and a-half, and to-day is the twenty-sixth day of hearing. Again the court was crowded, many being unable to gain admission to the public portion, w'hile it • is only with difficulty that the, officials have been able to check the number of persons wishing to get in the front portion of, the court, where accommodation is keenly sought. After addressing the jury for 14 hours Mr Northcroft had not concluded when the court rose this evening. He is expected to occupy alb to-morrow before he ends his address, while it is probable that the jury will spend all Friday visiting Ruawaro. To-day counsel advanced the theory that, a third party might have been at Lakey’s on the fatal Sunday He declared that the guns and bones might have been deposited at Bayly’s by this third party to divert suspicion from himself. Later turning to the legal aspect of the suspected murder when no corpse wag discovered in this connection Mr Northcroft advised' the jury that if no corpse were found the circumstantial evidence that a murder had been committed must be as strong as direct evidence. Counsel contended that Bayly, had he been a guilty man, would have gathered the incriminating, material, taken it away at night, and hidden it where it never could have been found. Yet the Crown put forward the fantastic theory that Bayly, knowing where the material was, . took the extraordinary course of leaving it where it was, where it could easily be found. Had Bayly, knowing he was suspected, known the guns were in the swamp, would he have left them there ft single night? Clearly he would have removed them and thrown them in the lake. Bayly’s dog had caught a dog on his place. If that dog was Wright’s the Grown view wag that Bayly must have gone to Wright’s and abducted it. How could the dog have got to Bayly’s? It must have gone there with the owner or with someone familiar with it. When asked by the police what he thought the prowler was doing, Bayly said he thought lie was a sneak thief. Had Bayly bad guilty knowledge of the guns he would have suggested that the man had been: there possibly to plant incriminating material. But the evidence showed that Bayly had made not the slightest attempt to connect the intruder with the planting' of material. ; , 1 Counsel said there . were two methods of conducting a police investigation. One was to-follow every clue, every piece of information, with an open mind; the other, to look for a suspect and then, having found one, see what clues could be found to fasten guilt on that suspect. “ I am bound to point out to you that,the second. method waa followed in this case,” he contended. The danger of the second method was that clues leading to the right person were ignored or rejected because they did not fit in fastening guilt on the suspect. ‘ When the police had started on a false assumption,which was shared by - the settlers of the district, false evidence could easily be built up by the settlers unintentionally in their efforts to help the police. Such procedure enabled the real criminal to place false clues where the police could find them. There was no doubt that suspicion had attached from the.first to Bayly. Because of his honest statement that he could give no information in regard to Lakey because they Were not friendly. Later marks were found, on which, a.sinister interpretation was placed. When, the wheels and frame. Were found the. police attached a meaning : to them, in accordance with their preconceived theory. Theu came, October 19. and the elaborate search of Bayly'S. So imbued were the police with the theory that, the,-, accused.-badr taken Latey’s body away and hidden it that they searched the sheep. dip,. while they also' assumed that, paint marks, at Bayly s had to be blood, marks. They had critically examined ho other farms, and inspected no Other knives. They had concentrated all their attention on the accused; oblivious of the possibility that there; might have been someone else conCe Counsel then reviewed the results of the police visit to Bayly’s with a search warrant. What significance could be attached to the minute smears of blood on the sledge, and the small spots of blood on Bavly’s trousers? - Knowing the police susBayly, had he been guUty. eould have easily removed the blood from the trousers and sledge. Yet, so unconcerned was he that he went to Auckland for two days, making no attempt to remove these allegedly incriminating objects. . ' If the pea rifle cartridge was in the pocket of Bayly’s trousers it would not have fallen. The fact that it fell pointed to the fact that it .was not actually in the pocket. Had the .shovel seen in the cowshed had any sinister import .would Bayly have left it there? All he had to do was to swill it in the. dip or push it in the cow dung to remove any deposit On October 21 the police found neither the pea rifle nor the shotgun at Bayly s. It might be said they were then in tin. swamp, but they were not. They were -taken from the swamp on Octobei 30, and were then quite bright and untarnished. “ Can you point to any evidence that they were not in the swamp? . asked his H Counsel said he invited the jury to conclude from the fact that the guns •were bright and free from rust,,that they could not have been in the swamp for You can draw certain inferences, but to state it as a fact is a different matter, observed hia Honor. . ~ At the request of Mr Meredith, All Northcroft explained to the jury that Dr Gilmour’s view that death was due to asphvxia was contained in Ins lepoit and not in hia evidence in the lower court. “It was very unfair of jou. if Di W mour did say in the lower court that death . was due to drowning, to suppress that, observed his Honor. , , Ar -v Ttl . My Meredith then stated that Mi mi tncroft had said that nothing had been found to justify Bayly s arrest. \M.ien bo was arrested bones had been found b.V Detective Allsopp in Bayly s garden at q o'clock that afternoon. „ , , “ Mr Northcroft said that the Crown had not only ignored the real significance o the cherry pipe found at Lakey a mt had asked the jury tobebeve that £ f ra £ f ment found at Bayly’s was a portion ot Lakey’s pipe. The Crown had further to.d neither the jury nor the defence that il had Lakey’s pipe in.its possession. Counsel then referred to the movements of the cars reported to the police, winch had not been fully investigated. This was an important and disquieting factor in the eiu.e. Because the police had satisfied themsdves that Bayly’s car had not been out of t it shed they attached no importance to_ the movements of cars as they did not fit their theory of Bayly s guilt. After referring to the disappearance f Bayly’s ammunition, counsel said that when the police recovered the guns in the swamp they should have made investiga - tions to see if they had been recently placed there by some other person. Similarly, when Bayly told them that his ammunition was missing, they should have made some inquiries.. Instead they made no effort to follow this up as a clue. Alter the police had seized further quantities of innocent material during the oxcc.nti o iJ of their second search warrant Bayly hart left the farm, “His nerve goes, he is distraught, and • he writes a note to Bis wife, apparently indicating suicide. Then he wanders off and he finally wanders into Ins sohcitoift office,” declared counsel, who added that his solicitors had informed the police that Bayly was in Auckland. Ihe police then arrested Bayly on a charge of murdering Mrs Lakey, because at that time they were afraid of making a laughing stock of themselves if Lakey turned up alive. There was then no evidence to show that Lakey was not alive, while there was then, as ■ noAV. not a shred of evidence to connect Bayly Avith Mrs Lakey’s death. “When Bayly is safely secured in prison, then, and not until then do the police begin to find material which by any

stretch of imagination' could incriminate him,” declared Mr Northcroft.' Up till the time that Bayly had been imprisoned the Crown had no evidence against him. Counsel then detailed the findings in the orchard and sheep dip after Bayly s arrest, adding that the police had then found a false tooth at Lakey s house in a place they had previously searched, which he suggested was not there before. Counsel said he would then show how the-' Crown had sought to improve the case since the Police Court bearing. In the loiver court only, two witnesses had said there was froth about Mrs Lakey’s face, and uoav six or seven witnessses described as froth what they had previously said was simply blood. Another matter was Mrs Lakey’s method of Avashiilg her boots. If she washed at the pond, that might have given rise to an innocent explanation of her death —namely, that she had a seizure and fell into.the water, Dr (rumour and Dr Waddell had said that Mrs Lakey died from asphyxia, but this did not suit the Crown’s purpose,-so Dr Grtmour noAv carried the evidence a step further and declared that death Avas due to drowning. \ “It is certain that much important evidence has been lost sight of by the police, Avhich might, had it been pursued, have not only proved Bayly’s innocence, but might have proved the real circumstances under which this tragic mystery developed,” declared counsel. It Avas obvious that the crime had not been premeditated, and it was obvious that there was a third person at Lakey’s that Sunday, Avho Avas not Bayly. That third person might not have committed the crime, but might have been driven under circumstances to the desperate expedient of hiding traces of the crime. That third person must have,been some person known and acceptable to the Lakeys. The preparations for the eA’ening meal included, preparations for a third party. There Avere three plates out. There Avas also the point to which the police, attached no importance—the preparation in the spare room Avhere a spare bed Avas made up. A set of lower false teeth, which clearly did not belong to the Lakeys, Avas found at the house. Apart from all those circumstances, and the most important evidence of the arrival of a third person, Avas the return of Lakey’s gun. It was possible that some altercation, occurred. Mrs Lakey, an excitable A\ T oraan, might have rushed put and loaded the pea rifle. It was clear that the procuring of Lakey’s rifle and ammunition could not have been done by Bayly, .who did not know, where they were. Upder the circumstances, of a quarrel, anything ; might have occurred. Lakey might have attempted to take the pea rifle. It was possible in the excitement Mrs Lakey herself fired the rifle. There waa possibly a struggle in which Mrs Lakey received blows. An altercation of the most innocent character at its inception could have developed into one of a most desperate character. Before the Crown could invite the jury to believe that Bayly committed the crime, they must bring forward some proper circumstance showing that Bayly was in contact with the.Lakeys. They had not done so. At the same time they had ignored the circumstances which shrieked some other third person at Lakey’s. Mr Northcroft said it vyas clear that the wheels had been moved in an effort to hide them, as they bore blood. Attempts had been made to remove traces of Blood on the implement shed. The. milk cans had. been taken to the road for the purpose of gaining time. Whoever did it must have been a strong man capable of carrying the cans, as Lakey’s sledge was discovered standing in the cowshed loaded Avith skim milk. "On the very facts as we have them at Lakey’s, there is a much more probable view to be taken from the set of circumstances than that which the Crovyn hag invited you to take,” declared counsel. “I have suggested to you a base on which there can be erected an infinite variety, of reconstructions of the crime not involving Bayly.” Mr Northcroft theu referred to the prowler at Bayly’e on the evening of October 25. It was certain there was someone there, and the indications were that it was not somebody living in the district. It was not his (counsel’s) intention to establish Bayly’s innocence by the inference that other settlers, such as Wright, Stevens, and Sanson, Avere involved. The indications were that Avhen the police commenced to search the swamp where the guns Avere found they were not searching for a body, but as a result of f information which might well have originated from some person with a guilty knowledge who desired the police to find the guns on Bayly’s property. "1 come then to the bones#found at Bayly’s,” continued Mr Northcroft, who said that apart from the ash from the oil drum, which contained , bones AArhich might be innocent, ■ there was no. evidence against Bayly at the time of his arrest. The evidence was found after he was arrested. "I put it to you that this intruder, after his experience on October 25 Avhen he was chased by Bayly, was put in some difficulty to place more material at Bayly’s, But when Bayly was safely under arrest the police began to find things at his place three or four days later.” Counsel then detailed the results of the police searches at Bayly’i before he was arrested. On resumption after the luncheon adjournment Mr Northcroft stated that it would be shown that the presence of bones at. Bayly’s property showed’ that they could not have been placed there by Bayly, The police had been at Bayly’s on November 16. some weeks before Bayly was arrested. Bones began to be found. They then took two bottles of charcoal. There Avas no hone in that charcoal. If the Crown’s theory was correct it was ' amazing that neither bone nor the ashes of bone were found then. The defence declared that this charcoal represented ash from the boiler Ayben pigsvvere killed. The charcoal had yielded a piece of lead, but this might well have come from an old lead-headed nail. Mr Meredith had admitted that it might Avell have cmne from an old lead-headed nail or a piece of flashing. Mr Meredith had admitted that lead could haA-c come from the debris in a number of innocent ways. On November 16 Detective Findlay had taken deposits from right across the cowyard, and all that A\-as obtained comprised infinitesimal quantities of bone dust " We knoAV the whole place Avas searched over and scrapings taken,” continued counsel. "Detective Allsopp took five scrapings, all of which were negative saA-e one from a drum. At the bore of tha_t was charcoal ash, with bonecinst, burnt "nails and staples. There Avas also lead. There is nothing inconsistent Avith what Bayly said was the use made of the drum after he cut it. He told the police that he cut it to heat an iron. Yon baA r e there miscellaneous bits of nails such as those from a packing case Avhich Bayly told the pqlice had been used iu a fire there. That exhausts all that Avas found on November 16. Anything which looked like ash charcoal Avas taken, but no bone was found. Any bone found subsequently must be regarded with the utmost suspicion. The bone found later was found in the positions Avhere it must have been found during this search if It were there then. During a further search on November 29 everything had been thoroughly inspected. The scrapings where the drum stood and also the two parts of the drum ivere taken, and again nothing suspicious was discovered. In other. Avoids, the detectives bad been over the place again and again. If anytmng incriminating were to be found it would have been found then. After Bayly was arrested we start to get tlie material found Avhen searches for this very class of material had been already earned out. One exhibit taken by Detective Bayhss and other detectives has been described as obtained from the cowyard. there i=> no evidence of bone fragments. this exhibit has been washed. Can you believe the bone fragments have been in the cowvard, trampled in mud and dung, Horn the‘middle of October till the middle ot December? I don’t hesitate to suggest, using the language of the that u c!g3t indications of salting. Mr Meredith said a. large number came * r< "T quite expected that point,” replied Ms Northcroft. “The police themselves have made no attempt to put in one container the bones they got in the dip and in the other container the bones got in the cowyard.” , ~ _ T ~ ... After further argument, Mr Borthcrott said he was prepared-to read the evidence of every constable on this quesvou had better do it,” re marked his lionor. " I repeat that the bone found on that occasion is the clearest proof that someone deposited the bone at Bayly s place in an effort to assist the police to get evidence against Bayly,continued counsel, aaßo- reiterated the point that if the material had been lying in the yard and in the dip for six weeks it would not bear its present appearance. "The same observation applies to. the lighter, he continued. “If that lighter had lain in the dip, could it possibly have remained in this condition for that time? Even the Avadding in the bottom waa comparativeljr clean.”

“ The finding of ‘ material in Baylj r ’s garden was almost more mysterious,” continued counsel. . “The Crown had invited the jury to believe that Bayly had concealed material about the sheep dip and cowshed, and had dug it into the garden. The police had been looking everywhere for Lakey’s body. Constable Elms arrived at Bayly’s at mid-day on October 16. The garden then must have been, according to the CroAvn theory, conspicuously freshly dug. Next day the detectives visited Bayly’s as did Constable M'Eacheru, who had lunch there. During the same iveek other police officers, including Chief DetectiA'e Sweeney, had visited Bayly’s, while on Saturday the police arrived with a search Avarratit, inspecting the property thoroughly. ret beneath their eyes was a t piece ot ground newly dug in Avhich it AVas uoav said incriminating evidence Avas found. Actually the garden had not been dug then. When the police did commence to dig the garden they went straight to the small area, 10ft by 10ft, where the material was found.' "All that is found there is negative,” continued Mr Northcroft. Ail that was found Avas. rubbish commonly found, after a domestic bonfire. lliere was also {omul bone-resting on sods. This was such a small quantity that it could easily have been diobod in without disturbing the appearance of the garden. In other Avords, it could easily have been placed there by a person other than Bayly. When the police arrived they went straight to the place and commenced to dig. The whole vegetable garden hud been neglected. That might have been accidental, but it strongly suggested that some one had placed the material there, and then through an indirect channel communicated with the police, as he (counsel) had suggested had been done Avith regard to the guns. Mr Meredith said the police had dug the Avhole garden. , , . . Mr Northcroft replied that the Avhole garden had now been dug by the defence at his orders, so unfortunately, he could not judge, but he Avould read the record of the evidence to slioav how much garden had been dug. He read portion of Detective Allsopp’s evidence. “ The point 1 made is this. The police Avent to the garden, and at the vei-y point where they started digging material is found,” he continued. “ The point is too significant to overlook. The point been made that bone had been found with wood ash in each instance. Ash is a good fertiliser, and Bayly used it frequently. Wherever • bone had been placed it would have been found in conjunction Avith the ash throughout the garden.” , There was one curious matter in relation to the teeth. False teeth were very resistant to fire. Of a set of 13 teeth only four had been found at Bayly s. Lakey’s upper set had one tooth missing. There was found on October 16 a spare tooth at Lakey’s house. This tooth did not harmonise with the rest ot the teetn. When the police found the teeth at Bayly’s and compared the loose tooth Avith these they found that they did not fit, so another loose tooth had been theu conveniently found at Lakey’s. „ , «It is a most extraordinary thing, he continued. " How does that tooth come to be found at Lakey’s in December at a place the police bad thoroughly searched. Another fact Avas none of the lower teeth nor part of the jaw had been found. Of all the bones of the skull found all related to the upper portion and none related to the loAver portion. Ihe only part of the CroAvn case which survived cross-examination was that a small portion of a human skeleton had been found at Bayly’s concealed in extraordinary places, and on that alone the jury was any evida.oa on which yon are entitled to.aay that Lakey is dead at all? ” he continued. Although there be evidences of a crime and that circumstantial evidence links the accused person with that crime, circumstantial evidence cannot, be nsed, or must be used Avith caution, to prove there has been a crime committed. In other words, there roust be a corpse or the existence ot a corpse demonstrated By proper evidence before a person can be , convicted or m After reading authorities to support his contention, counsel said that unless the fact that a murder had been done av<is proved the body must be found. Circumstantial evidence must be as cogent as direct evidence in identifying the remains before any jury was justified in concluding that there Bad been a minder let alone concluding there had becn a murder by the accused person. The jurj would have to be definitely satisfied in the first place that the remains were thosei of Lakey. The judge Avould direct the jury ° U “ t The P jm-y will be directed properly; you can rest assured of that, observed said that counsel was entitled to bring the judges attention to any matter on which the -jury should be "lf G counsel is correct,” . rejoined his :Mr- f Northcroft said that the jury had to consider whether Lakey might even now reappear in some obscure part ot New Zealand or even have gone overseas. It was for it to say whether Lakey was dead. It Avas on the evidence of the experts alone that the jury was invited to form the view that the relics exhibited represented one body. , Counsel then quoted from sev'eral volumes passages relating to expert evidence. It was notable of all the bones positively identified as human, he said, that all but four or five came from the upper part of a skull which was the commonest form of human relic to be found. “ I suggest to you that these are the remains of a few casually collected bones collected for the purpose of burning and scattering on his property, declared counsel, a\Bo said that any oily vegetable resinous material coming in contact with dry bo.nes in a fire would give a charred bubbly appearance. The charred bubbly material bad been said to occur only Avhere muscle -was present on the bone, yet on one exhibit the bubbly material covered a portion of broken edge of bone. None had been found in the interior of tho skull. Avhere it would be expected if the skull bad been burnt Avith the brain tissues inside; There Avas every reason to believe that these bones were a miscellaneous, collection Avhich could easily lie picked up anywhere to provide a false scent, not to lead to ths conviction of Bayly, but to divert suspicion from the person responsible. The Crown had advanced the nrouositinn that all the bones had been burnt at the same time and for the same length of time, but this coni'! not be supported, concluded Mr’ Northcroft.

After counsel had intimated that the point on which he was about next to embark was a lengthy one, the court adjourned.