MURDER CHARGES

Southland Times, Issue 22351, 16 June 1934, Page 6

MURDER CHARGES

THE BAYLY TRIAL CROWN CASE ALMOST ENDED DR. BROWN CROSSEXAMINED (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, June 15. Further cross-examination of Dr D Brown occupied the Supreme Court this morning when the hearing of the murder charges against William Alfred Bayly was resumed. To-day is the twenty-second day of the hearing The Crown is expected to call at least two more witnesses before the case for the prosecution closes. The Crown case will probably not be completed until to-morrow morning..

An extremely close cross-examin-ation of Dr. D. Brown on all points connected with his microphotographs occupied the greater part of to-day s hearing. During prolonged questioning, Mr Northcroft elicited admissions that certain ridges shown on the' photographs of cuts on the timber from Bayly’s separator room shed and from Lakey’s implement shed did not exactly correspond. Neither _ did the notches on Bayly’s knife in its present condition correspond with marks on the timber. Counsel commented on the tact that no micro-examination had been made of the cuts on the wheels and frame. Professor F. P. Worley expressed the opinion that both cuts had been made with the same knife, although he could not say that the knife was Bayly’s. He corroborated Dr. Browns conclusion that the shell which fell from the pocket of Bayly’s denims had been fired by the Winchester rifle recovered from the swamp. Mr Northcroft questioned Dr Brown on the parellel and divergent lines on wood. Dr Brown said that where one group of lines were parallel and another grouu converging, the marks must have been done by separate cuts if the divergence was extreme. Witness had made further experiments last ni«ht but not in the presence of Professor Worley. He had, however mentioned the point to Professor Worley. Dr Brown then produced a knife with which he said he had artificially made six turns: also four bars of soap. Holding the bars of soap in one hand he made cuts with the knife, cutting with a partial rotatory movement. it 1 can get one set converging and one set diverging it is only a matter of further ‘trial to get one set converging and the other set parallel, declared the witness. “I have actually done more than you have asked me to. At the request of Mr Northcroft, witness marked portions of the test bars of soap where he considered the experiment had succeeded. In reply to his Honour, witness said the point he had tried to make was that the same knife made the cuts m the implement shed and the cuts m Bayly’s separator room. That was his C °“WiU l vou sav that is so without any possibility of doubt?” asked counsel“l think what I said was that you would have to take a million kmv®s to find one capable of making cut , replied Dr Brown. Witness admitted that on the piece of soap cut in Court he had not got parallelism and convergence, but divergence and convergence. That was the nearest he could get.

Lantern Slides Again. After further questioning, Mr Northcroft again employed lantern slide , light in Court being turned out. He examined witness on the question of scale asking Dr. Brown the distance SSsXown on the screen represon cd on the wood. Dr. Brown said the length of marks shown represented about half an inch. “If it was possible to show marks of over half an inch it would surely be possible to show a foot of wood? asked counsel. , Witness agreed. The photographs were designed to show the type of thing on which he had based his calculations so the Jury could draw their own conclusions. “That is just what I propose they should do,” remarked counsel. Mr Northcroft pressed Dr. Brown on further points in connection with the wood-marks as shown in the slide made on superimposed photographs of wood from the implement shed and wood in Bayly’s separator room. Witness agreed that certain grooves did not coincide. “There is not perfect agreement,” he admitted. The difference measured about one-twelfth of an inch. “These lines have a certain degree of vagueness and uncertainty as to their position;” suggested counsel. “Which I have taken account of in my calculations,” said witness, who added that taking the same number of lines at random chances were a million to one against them agreeing. Do the lines of the two photographs coincide as to alignment?—No they do not.

Witness said he had collected a dozen kitchen knives gathered in his own house and those of friends for the purpose of seeing if he could get any which would fit the lines as well as the knife exhibited. He did not complete the work. He had not got the police to collect knives in the Huntley district for the same purpose. Counsel then exhibited a slide silhouette of the knife on a superimposed photograph of one woodcut. Witness admitted he could find no notch in the knife now corresponding to groove No. 1. There was also nothing on the knife corresponding with groove No. 4. The notch in the vicinity of groove No. 5 was definitely to the right of the groove. “My opinion is that if the knife had been appreciably worn or sharpened before coming to me it may possibly have made the marks on the first piece of wood,” continued Dr. Brown. “That is as far as I can say.” Further questioned on the same lines, witness said there was a slight notch on the edge of the knife corresponding with groove No. 6 which was appreciably to the right of the notch. .There was another notch in the knife to the right of the groove with no corresponding groove. Witness could not tell by microscopic examination whether one portion of the edge of the knife had been sharpened more than any other portion. He could find nothing coinciding with the wood-cuts on any other portion of the knife notwithstanding very characteristic markings. Notches on Knife. Witness said the notches on the knife could not be seen with the naked eye, but he had been able to see characteristic marks with the eye on timber from the implement shed. He had photographed only one portion of this timber where he could see markings with the naked eye. He had also been shown timber from the frame wheels and given it a cursory examination. “Can you tell us why you did not make a comparative examination of the timber marks on the knife?” asked counsel. “I did not see any isolated area with characteristic marking such as I saw on the wood,” replied Dr. Brown, who added that there were too many marks in close conjunction and therefore in his opinion it was hopeless to attempt

to associate them with any other object. Dr. Brown showed Mr Northcroft portion of the cut on the timber in Bayly’s separator room he had photographed. “If you look here you can see a group of lines with the naked eye.” “Why did you not examine these microscopically?” added counsel. “Because they were too thick,” replied witness. He did not think he could get a satisfactory photograph of characteristic marks. For this reason he had not compared marks with the knife. “I do not attach much importance-to comparison of the wood with the knife which may have been altered,” continued Dr. Brown, who admitted that he had made no microscopic comparisons of other marks on the wood with other portions of the knife. Such comparison would take six months. The work he had done had taken all his spare time as he carried out other duties all the time. “I am not reproaching you,” observed counsel. Mr Northcroft then turned to the question of the cartridge shells. Witness agreed that factors to be considered were the shape of any peculiarity in the striker marks and also the position of lighting during microphotographing and the magnification of the focus of the microscope. He would not agree that if the centre of a mark was in focus, the upper edge would be out of focus. They would not be in the best possible focus. It was important, therefore, to have these taken at the same focus suggested Mr Northcroft. “Have you tried in each photograph to get the same place in focus?” said Mr Northcroft. Witness said that in some photographs the focus was general. He agreed that the two photographs of the striker marks showed different length. “Size is important in any comparison, is it not?” asked counsel. Witness said the marks in this particular rifle varied in length owing to a difference whether the fore pin struck the cartridge or the looseness of the pin itself. • “The way this photograph is cut and mounted conceals the extraordinary difference in length,” remarked Mr Northcroft.

Witness agreed that one mark was one-sixth longer than the other. Counsel then displayed a double slide of enlarged striker marks from the shell in Lakey’s rifle and the shell which fell from Bayly’s trousers. “Is there anything at all remotely resembling that one shell?” he asked after indicating certain grooves on the floor and striker marks on the shell. Witness admitted that there were only very slight vestiges of these grooves on the other. Mr Northcroft then pointed to a series of five lines on one shell. “Is there anything of that sort on the other?” asked counsel. Witness: No. Witness added that there was an explanation regarding these lines. “In other words your explanation is that the mark had been made on one shell by the striker which at the moment possessed different characteristics from the striker, which struck the other shell,” observed counsel. Dr. Brown concurred. Witness agreed he had not confirmed his assumption that the striker pin might be fouled by dirt and carbon by the expi rements. “If you have one mark on one shell you have not on the other, that would be sufficient to disprove identity?” asked counsel. “I think not,” replied witness, who said that inconsistency in copper was possible. The play in the pin might cause variation. Comparison of Shells. On the resumption Mr Northcroft again showed a double slide test of the shell fired by the Winchester and the shell which fell from Bayly’s denim. Witness said he had not drawn his conclusions from those two photographs alone, as the copper varied in hardness from the cartridge. There were accidental marks on each in addition to characteristic marks. Counsel suggested a true comparison of the shells could be made by placing them alongside one microscope on the same focus and similar lighting. “That would be ideal,” replied Dr. Brown, who added that special microscopes were made for that purpose. .He thought there were more of these instruments in New Zealand. The instrument he used needed photography to make a comparison. . Re-examined by Mr Meredith, Dr. Brown said he meant by a characteristic mark, a mark which could be observed on every shell or a large proportion of shells. These characteristics were traceable to the striking pin itself. Accidental marks which would not occur on more than one cartridge were caused by the manner in which the copper crumpled when struck. These were not the same on each shell. Witness then divided into each category marks decipherable on the photographs produced. “I am convinced that shell exhibit 70, given to me by Detective Sneddon, and the test shell from the Winchester found in the swamp, were fired by the same rifle,” declared Dr. Brown. “You were asked if parallel lines and convergent lines could be made by the same knife cut and you gave the opinion that they could. What does that depend on?” asked Mr Meredith. “It means that one group had been complete a fraction of a second before the other group commenced,” replied witness, who said there was no limit to the varieties of actions of the wrist in shaping with a knife. To imitate the marks photographed .it would be necessary to exactly imitate the action of the hand which made them. At Mr Meredith’s request, witness again demonstrated the marks on soapbars to the jury, explaining the action required to produce each.

Comparison of Shells. In reply to his Honour, witness said he fired 17 test shells with the rifle found in the swamp. “Were the striker marks in your opinion identical?” asked his Honour. “Yes,” replied Dr. Brown. “Your opinion is that the striker marks on these are identical with that on exhibit 70,” continued his Honour. “Yes,” replied Dr. Brown. Witness said he had examined 190 cartridges and fired 76 other rifles and had found none comparable with exhibit 70. “You are quite certain about that? asked his Honour.

“Quite certain,” replied witness. Witness then detailed the persons who assisted him to take and develop the photographs, describing what part of the operations they had taken. Professor Frederick Palliser Worley, of Auckland University College, said he had examined the bottom soil of Lakey’s shed and also an upright in Bayly’s separator room. He saw cut wood from Lakey’s bearing marks similar to the marks on the cut on other timber. From a visual inspection he would say the cuts on both timbers were made with the same instrument. Witness had taken no microphotographs, but had seen those taken by Senior Sergeant Dinnie and Dr. Brown.

“Having examined those microphotographs of the two pieces of wood, what is your opinion?” asked Mr Meredith. “The conclusion I reached after a very careful examination was that they were made with the same knife, but by opposite sides of the same knife,” replied Professor Worley. His opinion was based on the fact that one piece of wood bore a number of ridges and made irregularities on the knife, while the other bore the grooves

which were likely to be made to correspond with the ridges if the other side of the knife were used. In the case of the wood from Bayly’s, the knife had been used in the direction right to left. On the other timber the direction of the cut appeared to be left to right in the photograph. He agreed that if the same knife made the two cuts, the inclination*of the knife on the second timber was much greater than on the first. Professor Worley demonstrated to the jury with photographs how he considered the inclination of the knife changed during the cutting action. “I have made experiments in placing together photographs of the cuts from Lakey’s and Bayly’s,” continued Professor Worley. “My considered opinion is that the correspondence and distribution of the lines, also the character of the lines, is so great that the two sets of cuts were made by the same knife. I considered the probability of the cut being found which would agree with the cut on the wood from Lakey’s as closely as does the cut on the wood from Bayly’s. I say that if 30 wood cuts were examined every day in the week, every week for a year, there would be a possibility of one being found in 100 years which would correspond as closely. It was not likely that one could get absolute agreement between the two photographs because the projections on one side of the shade did not necessarily correspond with the notches on the other side. Witness could not say anything in regard to the probability of steelmarks having been made by the steel photographed. I can only say the marks appear consistent with having been made by that steel, he stated. Professor Worley said he had seen a silhouette of the edge of the knife. The marks on the edge of the blade were consistent with having been made with the marks on the wood, although there were marks on the wood not represented by the notches on the blade.

“I do not consider the agreement sufficiently close for me to find more than that the marks are consistent,” he added. “I do not find proof that the marks were made by the knife. All I can say is that the marks are consistent.” Witness had photographed shell exhibit 70 and also the test shells fired by the rifle recovered from the swamp. He had also examined photographs of the striker pin of the Winchester rifle. “My conclusion was that the test shell from the swamp rifle was fired by the same rifle as fired exhibit 70. I consider the evidence absolutely conclusive,” declared Professor Worley who detailed 25 characteristic marks on which he based his opinion which corresponded with each shell. Witness was requested to show these marks to the jury on unmarked photographs. “I would like the jury to have a magnifying glass. Some of the marks are exceedingly fine,” he remarked. “It is one of the things one would require an hour to do.” “Take your time and do it thoroughly, professor,” instructed Mr Meredith. As Mr Northcroft requested the explanation to be placed on record as evidence, his Honour asked witness to state the points clearly enough to be recorded. Professor Worley then indicated on photographs the points on which he based his opinion. After comparing the photographs of the shell found in Lakey’s garden with the test shell fired by Bayly’s Spandau rifle, found under Bayly’s steps, witness came to the conclusion that the shell from Lakey’s garden was fired by the Spandau rifle. The shell found under Bayly’s steps was also fired with the same rifle. The Court adjourned till to-morrow morning.