MURDER CHARGES

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 148, 20 June 1934, Page 5

MURDER CHARGES

Against W. A. Bayly

ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENCE.

COUNSEL’S ADDRESS CONTINUES.

(Per Press Association). AUCKLAND, This Day.

Mr Northcroft, counsel for Bayly, continued his address to the jury this morning when the Supreme Court hearing of the Ruawaro murder charges was continued.

Counsel has already spoken for a day and a half.

To-day marks the 26th day of the proceedings and again the court was crowded, many being unable to gain admission to the public portion, while it is only with difficulty that 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.

Had Bayly Been Guilty.

Counsel contended that Bayly, had he been the guilty man, would have gathered the incriminating material and taken it away at night, and hidden it where it could never 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 for a single night? Clearly he would have removed them and thrown them in the lake.

Bayly’s dog had caught a dog at his place. If that dog' was Wright’s the Crown’s view was 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 someone familiar with it.

Alternative In Police Methods.

Counsel said there were two methods of conducting a police investigation. One was to follow every clue and every piece of information with an open mind. The other was to look for a suspect, and then having found one, to see what clues can be found to fasten the guilt on the suspect. “I am bound to point out to you that the second method was.followed in this case,” said Mr. Northcroft. He contended that the danger from the second method was that clues heading to the right person were ignored or rejected because they did not fit in fastening the guilt on the suspect. False Clues Suggested. When the police had started the false assumption, which was shared by the settlers of the district, false evidence could easily be built up by 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 but that suspicion had attached from the first to Bayly.

On October 19, an elaborate search was made at Bayly’s. So imbued were the police with the theory that the accused had taken Lakey’s body away and hidden it, that they searched the sheep-dip, while they also assumed that paint-marks on Bayly’s hat would be blood-marks. Concentration On The Accused. They had critically examined no other farms; inspected no other knives. They had concentrated all their attention on the accused oblivious of the possibility that there might have been someone else concerned.

Counsel then reviewed the results of the police visit to Bayly’s, with a search warrant. If the pearifle cartridge was in the pocket of Bayly s trousers it would not have fallen out. The fact that it fell pointed to the fact that it had not actually been in the pocket. Had the shovel, seen in the cowshed, any sinister importance 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 a pearifle or shotgun at BayBay ly’s. It might be said that they were then in the swamp, hut they were not. They were taken from the

swamp on October 30 and were then quite bright, being untarnished.

Bayly Allegedly Distraught.

After the police had seized further quantities of innocent material during the execution of the second search warrant Bayly had left his farm. His nerve goes, and he is distraught. He writes a note to his wife, apparently indicating suicide. Then he wanders off, and he finally wanders into a solicitor’s office, declared counsel. The police then arrested Bayly on a charge of murdering. Mrs. Lakey, because by 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 now, not a shred of evidence to connect Bayly with Mrs. Lakey’s death.

“When Bayly was 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 Bayly was imprisoned the Crown had no evidence against him. Counsel said he would then show how the o Crown had sought to improve the case since the Police Court hearing. In the Lower Court only two witnesses had said there was froth about Mrs. Lakey’s face. Now six or seven described as froth what they previously said was simply blood.

Dr. Gilmour and Dr. Waddell had said that Mrs. Lakey was placed in the water and died of asphyxia, but this did not suit the Crown’s purpose, so Dr. Gilmour now carried the evidence a step further, and declaied that death had been due to drowning.

Dr. Gilmour’s View Explained

At the request of Mr. V. R. Meredith (Crown Prosecutor), Mr. Northcroft explained to the jury that Dr. Gilmour’s view that death was due to asphyxia was contained in his report and not in the Lower Court evidence? Mr. Meredith then stated that Mr. Northcroft had said that nothing had been found to justify Bayly’s arrest. When he was arrested the bones had been found by Detective Allsopp in Bayly’s garden at 2 o’clock that afternoon.

Counsel then referred to the movements of cars reported to the police, which had not been fully investigated. This was an important and disquieting factor in the case. Because the police had satisfied themselves that Bayly’s car had not been out of the shed, they attached no importance to the movement of cars, as they did not fit in with the theory of Bayly’s guilt.

“IL is certain that much important evidence has been lost sight of by the police, which 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 was obvious that there was a third person at Lakey’s that Sunday, who was not Bayly. That third person must have been some person known and acceptable to Lakeys. The preparation for the evening meal included preparations of food for a third party. There whs also a point to which the police attached no importance, in the preparation of a spare room, where a spare bed was made up. A set of lower false teeth, which clearly did not belong to the Lakeyf. was found at the house.

Apart from all those circumstances the most important evidence of the arrival of a third person was the return of Lakey’s gun. It was possible that some altercation occurred, and Mrs. Lakey, an excitable woman, might have rushed out and loaded th£

puanfle. During the quarrel anything might have occurred. An altercation of the most innocent character at its inception, could have developed into a most desperate character.

Before the Crown could invite the jury to believe that Bayly had committed the crime they must bring forward some proper circumstance showing Bayly in contact with the Lakeys. They had not done so. At the same time they had ignored circumstances which shrieked that some other third person was at Lakey’s.

Prowler At Bayly’s.

“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 Crown has invited you to take,” declared counsel.

“I have suggested to you a base on which there can be erected an infinite variety of reconstructed crimes, not involving Bayly.”

Mr. Northcroft then referred to the prowler at Bayly’s on the evening of

October 25. It was certain that there was someone there. Indications were that it was not somebody living in the district. Apart from the ash from the oil-drum, which contained bones, which 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, when he was chased by Bayly, was put to some difficulty to place more material at Bayly’s,” he continued, “but when Bayly was safely under arrest, the police begin to find things on his place three or four days later.” Counsel then detailed the results of police searches at Bayly’s before he was arrested.

On the resumption 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 to Bayly’s on November 16, some weeks before Bayly was arrested and the bones began to be found. They then took two bottles of charcoal. There was no bone in that charcoal. If the Crown’s theory was correct, it was amazing that neither bone nor ashes of bone was found then. The defence declared that this charcoal represented the ash from the boiler when the pigs were 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 the lead could have come from the debris in a number of innocent , ways.

On November 16 Detective Findlay had taken deposits from right across the yard. All that was obtained were infinitesimal quantities of bone-dust.

- “You all know that the whole place had been searched over and scrapings taken,” continued counsel. Detective Allsopp took five scrapings, all of which were negative, save one fro’m the drum. At the base of that was charcoal ash with bone-dust, burnt nails, and staples. There was also lead. There was nothing incon- ‘ sistent with what Bayly had said was the use of the drum after he cut ‘it. He told the police he cut it to heat iron.

“You have there miscellaneous bits of nails such as those from a packing-case which Bayly told the police he had used in the fire there, 'said counsel. “That exhausts all that 'was found on November 16. Anything which looked like ash and charcoal was taken, but no bone was found. Any bone found subsequently must be regarded with the utmost

suspicion. Bone found later was found in positions where it must have been found during.this search if it was there then.” (Proceeding)