RUAWARO MYSTERY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20329, 12 June 1934, Page 4

RUAWARO MYSTERY.

Mrs Lakey Did Not Die by Drowning.

DOCTOR’S STORY. (Special to the " Star.") AUCKLAND, June 11. The opinion that the injuries to Mrs Lakey could not have been caused by a fall was expressed during the trial of William Alfred Bayly by Dr Macfarland, who conducted the first postmortem examination on her body. The witness held the view that Mrs Lakey did not die by drowning and that the blow which she had received on the face could have caused her death. Death must have resulted either from a knock-out blow or from a knock-out blow and suffocation. Dr Waddell, who was present at the post-mortem in question and who followed Dr Macfarland in the witness box, said his conclusion was that when Mrs Lakey’s head was placed in the water she was still alive. Bayly is charged with murdering Samuel Pender Lakey and Christobel Lakey at Ruawaro on October 15. The Crown Prosecutor, Mr V. R. Meredith, with him Mr F. McCarthy, is prosecuting, while Bayly is represented by Messrs E. H. Northcroft and L. P. Leary, instructed by Mr R. B. Lusk. His Honor Mr Justice Herdman is on the Bench. The fourth medical man called was Dr A. A. Macfarland, of Huntly, who conducted the post-mortem . on Mrs Lakey on October 16 in conjunction with Dr Waddell, of Hamilton. They were both present when Dr Gilmour conducted another post-mortem on October 19 and assisted Dr Gilmour. At the first post-mortem, the body* was examined for external marks of violence and the chest was opened. The stomach and its contents were sent to the Government Analyst for chemical examination.

Witness gave evidence regarding abrasions, but said that there were no bruises on the face. Mr Meredith: You know that it was seen when Mrs Lakey was lifted from the water that frothy blood was coming from her nose. What opinion, then, would you give as to the cause of death ? Dr Macfarland: If those were the facts I would say she died from drowning.

Mr Leary: When you first saw the body about 1.30 p.m. on October 16, did yon notice any bloody froth?—No. Were you told about it?—No.

When did you first know of it? Before the lower Court?—l was ill at the time of the lower Court hearing and I did not give evidence. Where did you learn about frothy blood or bloody froth?—l don’t know exactly. Did you learn about it during the course of this trial from the newspapers?—l think I did. And that is the first you knew of this frothy blood?—I suppose that is right. . I suppose you were very interested to find out the cause of Mrs Lakey’s death ?—Yes. Did you question the settlers as to where she had been found?—Yes. Did you ask what her appearance was?—l saw her myself. When you saw her about 1.30 that afternoon, was there anything coming from the nose?—Y'es. Blood-coloured fluid. Saw no Froth. Was there anything that would suggest blood-coiourcd froth?—l never saw any froth. What is it like? —It is like a foam about as big as a small onion. It would have been a quite unmistakable thing?—Yes. I did not see any. Well, if the froth increased after she was taken out of the water would you expect to see it?—Yes. There was no froth. Did you discuss this matter with anybody there?—No. Did they draw your attention to anything?—No. I put it to you. doctor, that you found no trace of drowning in the unfortunate lady?—l would not say that. Wei!, vou saw nothing to lead you to that opinion?—No. Was there any water, in .the lungs? No. I put it to vou that the signs were those of asphyxia as opposed to drowning ?—Y es. His Honor: What was the cause of death?—l had not determined it. Mr Leary: You are prepared to sav that in vour opinion Mrs Lakey did not die by drowning?—Yes. That is mv opinion. You saw this woman first and made the first post-mortem? You opened her mouth You did not discover anv evidence of her breathing in the water? —No. , Did vou find any trace in Mrs Lakey’s breathing tracts of such things as cow dung or anything else which may have been in the duck pond?—No. If the woman had died from drowning and had breathed under water you would expect some froth in the nasal passages?—Yes. If there was froth at the nose, vou would expect to see it two hours after she was taken from the water?—Yes. If it was in the nose when she was taken out Bruises Caused by Fall? I suggest that the most likely wav for a person to get two blows from an irregular surface, as vou testified, is by falling down on.an irregular object. Could that not cause the two marks you saw?—lt is hard to say. The marks showed that they were the result of a severe impact Mrs Lakev was fairly stocky?—Yes but not heavy. She was of medium build. Are you prepared to sav that her injuries on the face were not caused by, a fall?—Tt would have to be a heavv fall. Before you consider .the question of a heavv fall, she would have to have had some momentum to cause the injuries It was a very severe bruise, going deeply into the tissues. Mr Leary: We have seen severe bruises often sustained by drunken men? —I have not seen many. Well. I suggest to you again that a person falling at full length would sustain such bruises as Mrs Lakey had? No. I think she would have to have sufficient way on or be tripped up when moving forward to cause an ex tensive injury “1 agree that the blow was sufficient to have knocked her out.'* said Dr Macfarland. “ It would produce coma and coma sometime* produces death The blow itself could have caused death. Heavy breathing goes with coma.”

Mr Leary Rebuked. Close questioning on various assumptions on the cause of Mrs Lakey’s death followed. When Mr Leary advanced a further supposition, Dr Macfarland remarked, *‘ % l am here to give facts and opinions arising from facts, not suppositions.” Mr Leary: That, perhaps, is a very just rebuke, doctor; but we will proceed. If some ill-advised person had put Mrs Lakey in the water and there this froth, would not that be consistent with her having died t of coma ? Dr Macfarland: Froth consists of froth, mucus and water. You would not get froth in the nose in a case of coma, although it would be in the air passages. All cases of coma do not die of asphyxia. The post-mortem signs of asphyxia are well known. If Mrs Lakey had swollen eyes it could be caused by asphyxia from drowning or asphyxia from coma or any other asphyxia. I can’t remember whether Mrs Lakey’s eyes were swollen. Judge’s Question. When Mr Leary was about to enumerate various things that could have caused Mrs Lakey’s death, his Honor asked Dr Macfarland if he had any definite opinion as to the cause of her death. “What is your view?” asked his Honor. • Dr Macfarland: Either she received a knockout blow, or a knockout blow and suffocation caused her death. His Honor: What form of suffocation ? * Witness: Smothering. His Honor: And did vou see any indications of smothering? Witness: No. His Honor: Well, if you had to give a certificate as to the cause of Mrs Lakey’s death, what would vou say? Witness: That she died from asphyxia. His Honor: Just that? Witness: That is all. Authorities on drowning, coma and asphyxia of various forms were quoted by Mr Leary, witness agreeing with some and challenging others. Mr Meredith: Had you been to the Lakeys’ before ?

Witness: No. Thev were patients, but they came to see me. Were you attending either the Baylvs or the Lakeys at that time?—l was attending Mrs Bayly, but she came to me.

You had never seen the duck pond at the Lakeys’ before?—No.

Any - haemorrhage that had occurred on Mrs Lakey’s place must have occurred before death?—Yes. A bruise would take some days to show after death, if the blow were effected shortly before death.

Did you give any opinion in the first place that Mrs Lakey had not. been drowned?—l did.

Witness later explained that conscious persons finding themselves immersed would make efforts to stop the water getting into their mouths. Protest from the Defence. Mr Meredith: Do you disagree with Drs Gilmour and Lynch? Mr Leary: My friend cannot crossexamine his own witness like this. It’s an impossible question. The Judge: Well, then, I shall ask him. A number of questions touching on drowning were asked both by the Judge and the Crown Prosecutor, but witness did not directly reply to the question as to whether he agreed or disagreed with the pathologists Dr Macfarland completed his evidence and was followed by the fifth medical witness. Dr A. G. Waddell, of Hamilton, said that on October 17 he went to the Lakey’s at 1.30 p.m. He was present at a post-mortem examination conducted by Dr Macfarland. He had come to the conclusion that Mrs Lakev had been unconscious and that when her head had been placed in the water she was still alive. With Dr Waddell’s evidence uncompleted the Court adjourned until morn-