RUAWARO MYSTERY.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20331, 14 June 1934, Page 4

RUAWARO MYSTERY.

Expert Evidence in the Bayly Trial. CUTS MADE BY KNIFE. (Special to the "Star.”) AUCKLAND, June 13. The principal witness to-day when the Crown proceeded with its evidence on the two murder charges against XV illiam Alfred Bayly was Senior-Ser-geant Dinnie, of the Criminal Registration Branch, who dealt principally with accused’s knife and cuts said to have been made by it. Micro-photo-graphs of cuts on a wooden rail from Lakey’s implement shed showed correspondences, witness said, with notches near the handle of the knife. An upright from Bayly’s separator room showed cuts which appeared to have been made with the other side of the knife.

In reply to many questions from counsel for the defence witness said that his opinions were oased on an assumption that the knife was in a different condition prior to examining it, having been sharpened since it made the cuts in question. Sharpening would drive off the arch of the blade but wouuld leave the corresponding notches. Senior-Sergeant Dinnie said he examined a cut on a piece of wood and satisfied himself that it was a cut from right to left, leaving a jagged edge. He then arranged the photographs—one showing ridges on the timber, and one showing the knife edge—in their correct position. He next endeavoured to see if anything corresponded to the marks. Witness said he had failed to fini anything until nearing the handle of the knife, where he had discovered notches corresponding with the edges on the woodcut. They appeared to fic exactly. Sergeant Dinnie next produced an upright which came from Bavly's separator room. Witness saw micro photographs of cut marks oi. il.is pi;ce of wood taken by Dr Brown. The cut marks appeared to have been made bv the same knife which made the cuts on the woed taken from Lakey’s imu'ement shed, only that different sides; of the one knife were used. One side of the knife making the cut, the edge would be arched on one side and, ; t the knife were turned over, it would grooved. On the picture of the wood 1 cut at Lakey’s place the knife made ridges; and on the cuts at Bavlv’s separator shed the marks made were grooves. Three Cartridge Cases. On January 6 and 7 at Wellington, Sergeant Dinnie said, he assisted Dr Brown to take take micro-photographs of three .22 cartridge cases. One was the cartridge case which fell from Bavly’s trousers and. two were test shells which, he understood, rad been fired by Dr Brown. The firing pin from the pea-rifle found in Bayly's swamp was also photographed. Dr Brown retaining the photographs. Mr Northcroft: You have told us that, having taken a photograph of the knife, you compared it witn one of the wood. The knife photograph shows the knife to be very seriously blemished in the first section; seriously bletri 1 ished in the second section; again i I serious group on the right hand side I of the third section; the fourth being J clear of "blemishes. The sixth is relatively free of blemishes. So is the seventh; and the eighth has si’rae blemishes not nearly so acute. Vcu claim you found a coincidence?—Yes I would like you to have a look at the timber.—l was informed that the cut marks at the right-hand end were cut by Dr Gilmcur. Who told you that?—l cannot re member, but I think Dr Giiaiour told me. Extent of Knife Damage. Did you find blemishes on any othe. part of the knife which correspond* 1 with anything?—Yes. It was obvious that the damaged portion of the knife, when I saw it, had not been in contact with or made a cut mark on th's piece of timber, as there would have been very characteristic marks on the wood. Is the knife now in the same condition as when you saw it and photographed it? —As far as I can see, it appears to be in the same *• onditi-Vi. It is now what could be described as a seriously damaged knife?—l shonVl say it was. Would you say that the part that you have marked is seriously damaged 5 —No. I put it to you that the damaged part is not visible to the naked eye?--I think it is. You can see the main damage. How many marks can you see with the naked eye in that particular section ?—Two. And with your spectacles your eyesight is normal?—Yes. Did you find any characteristics on the knife except on the particular halfinch?—No. Close questioning on the light used b} r the sergeant to take his microphotographs was made by Mr Northcroft, who used blackboard diagrams and specially prepared coloured diagrams to demonstrate how the light struck the wood cuts. In reply to further questions Sergeant Dinnie said his opinion that the knife made the cuts on the wood was knife was in a different condition some based on the assumption that the time prior to its being examined by him and prior to his taking the photographs. His opinion was based also on the marks which were at presen- on the knife. Important Part of Defence. Mr Northcroft: You admit, now that the knife would make such marks now?—No. But I I quite agree with you. It is an important part of the defence. Now I want you to look in the magnifying glass and tell me what led you to come to this conclusion now— Mr Meredith: Let the witness explain. He has never been able to yet Mr Northcroft: I do not think he will be able to if he is here a week, but still— His Honor: I cannot understand, if the knife is not in the same condition now, how you can say the marks on the wood were made by it. Sergeant Dinnie: There are certain notches in the knife which agree in position with certain marks on the

timber. In sharpening the knife, the arch would be driven off. leaving the corresponding notches. Mr Northcroft: Are all the marks sharpened away?—No. The majority are. The others correspond with the knife out.

Mr Northcroft: Before a knife will make a groove there must be a protruding piece of metal? —Yes.

Is there now on the knife any such protuberance ?—N o. You don’t claim to know by what means the knife was sharpened?—No But I’m sure it was sharpened immediately after the wood was cut. Oh ! That’s interesting. That is your assumption ? —Yes. What with?—A steel. These steels are quite common. Did you inquire if most of the farmers in the vicinity have similar steels?—No Wasn't it vour duty to have done so? —Other police officers did that part. Room For Argument. Witness then produced a piece of wood which, he said, contained impressions made by a steel. The wood con tained about forty-five impressions. Mr Northcroft: Out of those you claim you got coincidences taken at random ?. —They fit. But do they fit?—Yes. Approximately. It’s not an absolute fit?—No. I didn’t go absolutely into the steel— But in a thing of this sort, where a question of identity is involved, the, fit must be absolute. Sergeant Dinnie: No. If absolute there’s no argument. If a slight de* gree of error or an error or a misfit, it’s that discrepancy which opens room for argument. Mr Northcroft: These things are all a matter of opinion then?—Yes. And observation?—Yes. And the jury is just as competent as you are to see these things I’m point- ! ing out by photos?—Yes. | The matter now comes to be an : easy one for the jury?—Yes. A matter !of common sense, j The Court then adjourned. - '