THE BAYLY TRIAL

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXIX, Issue 150, 22 June 1934, Page 6

THE BAYLY TRIAL

Case For The Defence

CONCLUDED YESTERDAY

'•JURY IN RUAWARO TO-DAY

(Per Press Association.) AUCKI AND, Last Night. After speaking for three and a half days or over, Mi’. E. H. North croft concluded his address to the jury on behalf of the defence shortly after 4.30 o’clock this afternoon. During the whole of the period he relied on brief notes divided into various heads, the actual address being mainly extempore. To-day counsel referred to the fragments of clothing found on Bayly’s, then turning to the manner in which MfS. Lakey met her death. After criticising the Crown for not performing blood group tests, he traversed the conversations be- , tween Bayly and the police, and the explanations made by Bayly which, he declared, were not contradicted by any of the evid-

ence. The jury will spend all tomorrow at Ruawaro inspecting the properties. When Mr. Northcroft asked if counsel could accompany them, His Honour said that comments by counsel might lead to a new' trial and ruled that the jury should be accompanied by the police only- His Honour will commence to sum-up at 9 o’clock on Saturday. Bayly’s Alleged Movements.

Counsel said that he would then trace Bayly’s alleged movements after 6.30 o’clock when Lakey was last seen alive. It' was alleged that Bayly had been able to move the cream cans to Lakey’s gate, shave the timber, rig the wheels to take the body, move them back under the wattle tree and bring the body to his cowshed by the sledge. Then the fire had to be lit and the body incinerated. That was not a task which could be started and left. “Do you believe that a man dare leave the incriminating and shocking, task of burning a body before it was done completely,” proceeded Mr. Northcroft.

Then when the ashes had caoled, thej had to be distributed and the disturbance in the garden covered up. Next Bayly had to cut a drum and clean the cowshed. This was what the Crown alleged Bayly had done between the time he left Calverts at 9 o’clock and the following morning when the police telephoned him. Counsel contended that if there was an old manure sack in the drum during the innocent fire Bayly described to the police, that would account for the minute fragments of bone dust in the lower portion of the djaim. Had there been bone dust not merely in the bottom but on the top lip, if the drum had been cut as alleged by the Crown, that dust would have been dislodged by the vibration of cutting. No such dust had been foomd on the upper portion, bearing out accused’s statement that he had used the lower portion of the drum on a separate occasion. An Object of Suspicion. Counsel then dealt with the conversations between Bayly and the police officers and explanations of statements that he had made to the .detectives, declaring that the accused had been an object of suspicion in the district. At the time the letter to Bayly’s wife was written the police had taken not only the oil-drum but a bench, brushes, rags and ropes covered with pig’s blood. “If Bayly had not suffered a break-down in those circumstances it would be amazing,” declared counsel, who referred to cases where innocent persons through fear had broken down. Counsel again asked the jury whether it was not probable that if Bayly had a guilty knowledge of incriminating material on his property and knowing that he was an object of suspicion, he would not have removed it on the occasion when he came to Auckland. Had he been guilty would he have retained the cartridge case as the Crown alleged. Again, accused could have placed incriminating evidence on some other person’s property to divert suspicion.

Mr. Northcroft said that he wished next to draw the jury’s attention to the explanation that accused had given the police of his movements that week-end. “I challenge the Crown to advance a single circumstance to show in any item that Bayly was not telling the truth,” he declared. “There is not a scrap t>f evidence of any sort which disproves this statement. When the sledge marks were found accused made a further statement in which

he said that he had driven, to the fence to inspect a telephone pole. In those two statements you have the accused’s evidence as to what occurred. There is nothing in any statement by Bayly, either verbal or written, which the Crown can say is false.” In the course of numerous provocative conversations with the police who hoped that he would trap himself, in not so much as a single one did Bayly make a statement proved to be untrue.

The Subject of Motive.

On the subject of motive there could be no two views. There was no allegation of motive against Bayly, who when he found that he could not continue using the common outlet amicably with Lakey, took the expensive-course of obtaining a different route. Was it reasonable to suppose that after spending a quiet Sunday afternoon with his friend Calvert, Bayly suddenly went berserk, rode to Lakey’s and behaved like a demon. There was no evidence that Bayly was abnormal in any way. There was no motive shown, and the crime could not have happened without some horrible motive. There was no evidence that Bayly was ever at Lakey’s at all. The knife marks, which had been dramatically saved for the end of the Crown’s case, were a complete fiasco and proved that Bayly’s knife had nothing to do with them. , I Evidence Lacking. There was no evidence that accused saw Mrs. Lakey that day and that the marks on her face were received in circumstances amounting to murder. The Crown had said that Lakey had been shot by Bayly, and in proof of that they produced two rifles, two cartridge cases and a shotgun, all of which were placed before the jury. The Crown had not attempted to show how their mystifying muddle of rifles and shotgun had anything, to do with the crime. The Crown had claimed that the body had been conveyed on wheels to the fence and then lifted over —a superhuman task as near an impossibility as it could be and which could not be performed without disturbing and staining the grass with blood of which there w'as not a trace.

In the same way the Crown was in difficulties in reconstructing the crime at Lakey’s. They were at a loss as to what 'theory to adopt in regard to the happenings at Bayly’s. There had been no proof that the burning of a human body could be performed, as the experiments with sheep were not comparable. “Can you conceive anyone taking the risk of transferring the body from Lakey’s to Bayly’s, as they say the accused did, on the off chance of being able to burn it before a hue and cry was raised?” asked Mr. Northcroft. The mere presence of guns and bones on Bayy’s place proved nothing. There was nothing else offered by the Crown against accused beyond the finding of these on his property.

The Third Party Theory.

The defence had shown how a third person not only could but must have been at Lakey’s that Sunday afternoon where an altercation might have occurred in a number of ways, with the result that Lakey or the other person received a bullet causing perhaps death. In those circumstances a charge of murder would not be against that person, who, fearing that he would not be believed although perfectly innocent, would go to the length of disposing of the remains as it is alleged that Bayly did In no reconstruction of the fracas at Lakey’s could Bayly be the third person as he could not be there, nor could he find the ammunition and other articles in the house to which he had not been a visitor for 12 months.

Lakey’s Death Not Proved.

“Lakey’s death has not been proved,” decaired counsel. “These renains are just are consistent with

the burning of a Maori skull and an old set of bones with false teeth which had been placed to set a false trail away from the wrongdoer or some person afraid of being accused of wrong doing.” The Crown had to prove that Bayly was at Lakey’s and assailed Mrs. Lakey and destroyed her under criminal circumstances. In regard to Lakey, the Crown had to prove that Lakey had been killed, to prove that he lost his life in a criminal proceeding; then go further and show that Bayly as responsible. In conclusion counsel stressed the individual responsibility of the jury in finding a verdict on the veidence offered; the case must go far beyond the realms of suspicion.

After Mr. Northcroft had concluded, His Honour informed. the jury that they would be taken to Ruawaro to-morrow. The foreman of the jury stated that they wished to make a second visit to the locality. The Court then adjourned until Saturday morning.