ALLEGED MURDERS

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 149, 21 June 1934, Page 5

ALLEGED MURDERS

COUNSEL'S THIRD DAY — -

Addressing The Jury

IN DEFENCE OF WM. A. BAYLY.

PLANNED INCRIMINATION?

(Per Press Association)

AUCKLAND, This Day.

After sneaking for two and a half days the senior counsel for the defence, Mr E. H. Northcroft continued his address to the jury on behalf of Williom Alfred Bayly, when the Supreme Court resumed this morning. Counsel is not expected to finish his address before the court rises this evening.

There was again a large attendance of the public, who followed the speaker point by point ■with the keenest interest.

The Exhibit of Bones.

Mr. Northcroft continued to deal with various points relating to the appearance of bones included in the exhibits.

Counsel said he would suggest that the bones had not been broken up by burning but deliberately broken up in order to provide evidence for the

police. He then showed the jury an exhibit which, he declared, showed' none of the fragility to be expected when bones were broken themselves after burning. He suggested that it had been broken by being pounded on a clay surface. Like this exhibit, many exhibits, when examined critically with an open mind, show characteristics such as that, he continued. That bone had not been broken at Bayly’s by Bayly, because according to the police account the bones were broken on a concrete floor. Counsel showed the jury another bone said to be from the shin; that bone had been smashed before it was put in the fire. “Look at the firm edges,” he said. Other exhibits were also strongly suggestive of a miscellaneous collection of bones, including the skull, having been burnt and scattered about Bayly’s. Apart from a very few, such as arm bones, they were bones which could have belonged to different bodies, irrespective of age or sex.

All Not Known to be Human.

There was nothing to show that the arm and other bones were from the same person w’ho owned the skull. The suggestion that there were no duplicates meant nothing, as, apart from the skull, there were only three-fourths of the fragments of bones identified definitely as human. It was extraordinary that the bones which, being most protected, would be destroyed last, have not been found, while the more exposed bones, such as the skull, elbow and heel survived.

Ownership of Cigarette Lighter.

Counsel then dealt with factors the Crown claimed connected Lakey with the bones. “What was there to prevent Bayly having been given the wick and material for the cigarette lighter, by Mrs. Lakey, when they were still friendly? There is nothing to justify the view that the lighter was not Bayly’s own. The evidence that this lighter was Lakey’s had been, extraordinarily weak,” he continued.

Colour of Lakey’s Hair. All the witnesses had said that Lakey’s hair was auburn, and going grey. The tuft produced was brown. There was nothing to suggest that there was any auburn about it. At counsel’s request the jury handled the tuft individually, each examining it closely. After reminding the jury of the comparison with Mrs. Bayly’s hair, Mr. Northcroft said that had the hair been torn from Lakey’s head the roots could be expected to be found in conjunction with it. The intense heat in the drum -would shrivel the hair, if it had been through the intense fire described by the Crown. It should have been possible for the Crown to produce Lakey’s hair, as three brushes were found in the house. However, the Court had been offered no conclusion from what had been found when the brushes were inspected.' Braces and Watch Not Uncommon. After remarking that the • word “Police” on brace-runners was observable in many brands, Mt." North-

croft said that there was no evidence that Lakey’s watch was missing, or that he wore it that day. Sevens had said that Lakey’s watch was identifiable by scratchings inside. In the case produced there were no marks visible to the naked eye. The watch was not an uncommon type; indeed, six had been sold at Huntly, while many may have been sold at Hamilton and Auckland. There might be many such watches in the district and one might just as easily have been owned by Bayly or Lakey. Had Bayly wished to dispose of the watch he could have thrown it in the lake. If he wanted to conceal its identity he could have crushed it with an axe. Matter of Buttons, Also Cloth. The class of working trousers worn by Bayly had the same type of button as was attached to the Palmer Nap trousers worn by Lakey.

To suggest that fragments of cloth represented portions of Lakey s clothing was unfair and unjustifiable. Old clothes burnt as refuse in a bonfire would give the same types of fragments.

“Nothing of Identification.”

The gumboots worn by Lakey with black uppers and white soles were of a type commonly used in the district. Bayly himsself wore such boots. Here again there was nothing to connect the fragments with Lakey’s boots. “There is nothing of identification at all here,” he continued.

He then reverted to the legal authority previously quoted /to show that it was improper to convict unless there was indisputable proof that the person alleged to have been murdered had been murdered.

The Manner of Mrs. Lakey’s End. Mr. Northcroft then turned to the manner of Mrs. Lakey’s death. Dr. Gilmour, in his first report, had said her death was due to asphyxia.

It was not until he came to this Court that Dr. Waddell had said she died from drowning. Her death may have arisen from drowning, coma supervening on a blow, or strangulation. The real question was: “Did she get a blow which knocked her < out, then in a state of coma, as- , phyxia, in which case there would be ’ no murder?; or did she receive a blow which rendered her unconscious, and was then placed in the water to drown?” “I put it to you that Mrs.

Lakey has never:been proved to have been drowned,” declared counsel, who then reviewed the medical evidence.

Suspicion of Evidence Invited.

“I invite you to regard with a good deal of suspicion the evidence given by Dr. Gilmour on that point. Dr. Gilmour had said that if she had been lying oh the land he would not have said she died from drowning. He was assuming therefore that because she was found' in water she must have been drowned. He had said that death was not due to drowning. He was the first doctor to see Mrs. Lakey and perform a post-mortem examination. If the jury was not satisfied that Mrs. Lakey, had been drowned there was nothing to justify the belief that she had been murdered by Bayly or anyone else.

Possibility of Being Accidental. The jury must be satisfied that the crime was not accidental. If a person, who saw Mrs. Lakey lying there and believed her dead, placed her in the water that was not murder. . Anti-Serum Not Checked. Mr. 'Northcroft then described the manner of applying a precepetin test for human blood. Dr. Gilmour had said that he had not checked the anti-serum used, lab r saying that the control tests had been made with sheep, pigs, and (he thought) rabbit blood. Dr. Gilmour had then sheltered himself by saying that because the serum came from a well-known house it must be all right. No witness was entitled to say that blood was human unless he had tested the anti-serum used with all other types of blood. All human beings fell under one of four groups. If the blood found on Bayly’s knife, sledge and trousers had been grouptested and it had been found to be blood not from the accused, his wife or children that would have been a point against the accused, while if the blood found in Lakey’s yard had been found to be of a similar group the Crown’s case would have been strengthened.

Had-Dr. Gilmour left available to th? defence some portion of the steins then it would have been open to the defence to call persons whQ could 'do the tests. The defence then might have had an opportunity of declaring that the stains on Bayly’s

trousers were his own definitely, and not Lakey’s or Mrs. Lakey’s. Showing Bayly’s Innocence.

. On resumption after the luncheon adjournment Mr. Northcroft said he would deal with certain points showing Bayly’s innocence. Although it was no part of the defence’s duty to establish innocence, the first point was the matter of blood on Bayly’s clothes. Had Bayly had human blood on his trousers he would have been in the utmost terror, he continued. If- Bayly could have allowed such incriminating material to remain on his trousers it was amazing.

Bayly had visited Auckland. On his return, when the police executed the search warrant, the trousers had not been touched. In regard to the cut in the separator room he had brushes, rags, and other materials to remove any traces of blood had he so desired.

A most significant point indicating Bayly’s innocence was the shovel, which stood in the cowshed, with, according to the Crown, obvious traces left on it. The reason there had been obvious traces was because of its innocent use at a fire to heat water and scald

a pig. “There could be a group of people at Lakey’s and there could be most desperate happenings at Lakey’s before Bayly would know anything about it,” continued counsel;

Cows Milked Regularly The accused had milked his cows regularly that week-end and had obtained a proper return from his cream. If he had been engaged in a desperate enterprise and taken the body to his cowshed he would never have got the cows in to milk. Lakey Seen at 6.30 p.m. Then Stevens had seen Lakey at 6.30 p.m., the time when, according to Herbert, Bayly was actually engaged burning the body at his cowshed. There, as everyhere, on proper examination the Crown’s case is entirely untenable, he declared. Boards Taken From Sledge Bayly had allowed the ■> police to take boards, they believed incriminating, but which proved his innocence. When accused objected to the police taking another board he offered the proper objection that if they were taken there would be no sledge left. When the police returned some days later with a search warrant the front board of the sledge was still in the same condition.

Bayly’s Conduct

“At all points Bayly’s conduct was manifestly that of a man of innocent and not a guilty mind,” submitted counsel, who said that when Bayly had spoken to the police about draining the dip he had pointed out the definite danger to his stock. After he knew that the police were viewing the dip with suspicion he had done nothing in the way of removing the material later found there. This was one of the most significant points in accused’s favour. At no point in the case had there been the slightest explanation why it would profit Bayly to remove his ammunition, then declare it stolen. It might have been to the advantage of some other person t’o remove the am-

munition. The police had made no inquiries on those lines. (Proceeding)