RUAWARO TRAGEDY

Evening Star, Issue 21744, 12 June 1934, Page 6

RUAWARO TRAGEDY

TRIAL OF BAYLY EXPERT EVIDENCE CONTINUED [Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, June 11. During Mr Meredith’s re-examina-tion of Dr MacCormick in the afternoon hearing of the murder charges against William Alfred Bayly, witness said there were fifty-three bones. which were consistent with human origin, but could not bo placed, and which were not included in the classification as definitely human. At Mr Meredith’s invitation Dr MacCormick marked these with blue chalk on Mr Leary’s blackboard drawing of a human skeleton. Witness said he had burned dry bones. Old dry bones did not bear the same appearance as those exhibited. “My opinion from the bubbly material oh these bones is that they were fresh bones,” declared Dr MacCormick, who added that the bones in the fore and hindquarters of the sheep burned during the experiments were destroyed as completely as the other bones.

Dr A. A. M'Farlane, of Huntly, said he was called to Ruawaro on October 16. He saw Mrs Lakey’s body on the kitchen floor in Lakey’s house. Witness performed an autopsy on October 17 with Dr Waddell present. A further post-mortem on October 19 was Carried out by Dr Gilmour. At the first post-mortem the body. was examined externally for injuries, while the internal organs were inspected. The stomach was removed and opened, and then sent for chemical examination to the Government analyst. There was a small wound on the tip of the chin, and also a small abrasion on the right jaw. , There were no bruises showing on the face. The blood was very dark in colour. At the second post-mortem the abrasions on the chin and jaw were opened, showing tissue. damage. This bruising would be an indication that the party had come in contact with some object, explained Dr M'Farlane. It would indicate that the party concerned had received two blows or had impinged on an irregular object which struck the face in two places. Witness had been told that when the body was removed from the water frothy blood came from the nostrils. “ Have you any opinion on the cause of death ?” asked Mr Meredith. ‘‘lf the fact that there was froth coming from the mouth is accepted, then I should say the cause of death was drowning,” replied witness. In reply to Mr Leary witness said he arrived at Ruawaro at 1.30 p.m., or two hours after Mrs Lakey’s body was removed from the water. He had seen no frothy blood, while no one suggested to him that they had seen froth. Witness first heard of the froth from the newspapers after the present trial commenced. Witness had questioned the men who had removed Mrs Lakey from the fvater as to how she was lying. When be saw her there was blood-coloured fluid proceeding vTrom her nose. If there had been froth it would have come from the respiratory passages, comprising water, air, mucous, and blood. Witness found no froth in Mrs L a key s bronchial tubes. “ I put it to you that .you found no traces of drowning?” said Mr Leary. “ I do not say that,” replied witness. , , , . “ I put it to you that what you saw were more signs of asphyxia than drowning?” “ That is so.” ~ In reply to His Honour witness said he had not determined the cause of death. ; . . ... . “ Your present position is that you are not prepared to say that Mrs Lakey did not die by drowning?’ asked Mr Leary. “ Yes.” Witness agreed that he had not found any signs of respiration of water. If there had been froth about the face he would expect to have found water in the nasal passages. Any foam would keep welling out even if wiped away. Mf Leary read a passage from a medical authority stating that froth reappeared, with which Dr M'Farlane agreed. “ I suggest that one way in which a person would receive two blows at once from an irregular object would bo falling?” asked Mr Leary. . “ I could not say,” replied witness, who declared that he could not sav if the marks could be caused by falling while a person was running. If the fall were heavy it would not be impossible for the injuries to result. Mrs Lakey would have to have been running to get the momentum for a fall heavy enough to produce the injuries by striking an' irregular object. He did not think a person falling full length would receive bruising, of such depth, but it might be possible if a person moving forward tripped up. “ I suggest that if a blow were severe enough to knock out Mrs Lakey it may have been sufficient to kill her?” said counsel. “That is so.” Witness detailed the progress of the svraptoms following a knock-out blow which had proved fatal, including the formation of mucous in the throat.. “ I understand I was here to give opinions on facts, not. arguments based on suppositions,” said witness, after further questioning. . Leary asked whether, assuming froth emerged from the nose, when Mrs Lakey was lifted from the water, would that not be equally consistent with death from coma, allowing she had been placed in the water by a person to make it appear that she had been drowned? “ The froth in the case ot coma would be composed of mucous, air, and, in the case of drowning, water, replied Dr M‘Farlane. “In the. case of coma froth would be present in the bronchial tubes, but. froth characteristic, of drowning did not appear at the nose.” , “ If Mrs Lakey died from coma and had been put in the water subsequently there might be blood-stained froth in the back of the throat, which might appear subsequently at the nose?” asked counsel. “ I could not say.” Mr Leary then put four statements made bv witness, to him. all of which Dr M'Farlane agreed were against the conclusion that Mrs Lakey'died from clrowrnne. Dr M‘lTarlaiie furtnor agreed that certain symptoms, were common in'all forms of asphyxia. Re-examined bv Mr Meredith Dr M'Farlane said he did not think it required stronger breathing to draw in water than air. A person with the face immersed must take in water as long as breathing continued. Suffocation was a form of asphyxia which left no evidence behind. Dr A. G. Waddell, of Hamilton, said he saw Mrs Lakey’s body at Huntly on October 16. He was present at both the first and the second postmortems. “ I believe Mrs. Lakey was alive when her face was immersed in the water,” ho declared before the court adjourned.