THE BAYLY TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 21746, 14 June 1934, Page 14

THE BAYLY TRIAL

MICROPHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITS A POLICE EXPERT IH THE BOX [ Per United Phess Association.] AUCKLAND, June 13. When the trial of William Alfred Bayly on murder charges was resumed in the afternoon a number of ' photographs taken with a microscopic lens giving magnifications up to 10 diameters were produced by Senior-sergeant E. W. Dmnie. These enlargements were of a shaving on portion of the timber from Lakey’s implement shed, of the edge' of Bayly’s knife, and of a shaving on the timber from Bayly’s separator room. Witness first produced a photograph of a piece of crossbar from Lakey’s implement shed wall. This photograph was taken at a magnification of 8} diameters. The photograph comprised portion of a cut mark on the timber, showing characteristic ridges. “ I then photographed the cutting edge of the accused’s knife,” continued the witness, who identified a strip of photograph over 4ft long as a representation of the edge of the knife. “ This photograph was taken at the same magnification as the preceding photograph,” he said. “ I nest examined the wood cnt, and. satisfied myself that it was cut from right to left. I then took a photograph of the wood cut at approximately right angles to the ridges. £ examined the enlarged photograph of the knife to see if I could find anything to correspond with those marks. I failed to find anything until nearing the handle, where I discovered certain notches in the knife which appeared to correspond with those on the wood cut.” Senior-sergeant Dinnie then took the E holographs to the front of the jury ox to demonstrate the steps he had followed. Witness, who stated that he had rephotograpned the required section of the knife, produced this second micro-photograph, demonstrating to His Honour and the jury the position of the ridges on the wood cut in relation to the blade of the knife. “ I , next examined the knife edge and the timber under, a microscope magnification of 10 diameters,” continued the witness. “ I placed the knife adjacent to the timber, but not touching it. The notches on the knife appeared to correspond exactly with the ridges, on. the wood.” Witness then took a series of eight photographs of the same portion of wood cut. These photographs were each taken' under different lighting conditions, the light being moved to a different position each time. Witness then explained the effect of _ the shadows obtained by the different lighting on the ridges and grooves. He also took eight photographs of the requjred section of the knife edge. A comparison could then be made with the photographs of the wood cut. A complete set of prints had boan given to Dr Brown. 1 “ I consider that the knife appears consistent in every respect with having, made that cut,” declared Senior-ser-geant Dinnie. On each of the eight photographs of the wood cut noticeable on' the bottom corners were a number of parallel lines. In an endeavour to account for these lines Bayly’s steel'was experimented with. Enlargements of photographs ot the mirks made with the point of Bayly’s steel on a piece of kauri were placed in conjunction with these lines. It appeared that either IJayly’s steel or a steel of exactly simila'r make had been placed on the timber after the cuts had been made. The cuts on the portion of the support ot Bayly’s separator room appeared to have been made with the same knife as was used in Lakey’s implement shed, except that the knife had been used the other way round. Instead of ridges the notches on the knife left grooves. Witness then detailed the photographing of the two pea rifle cartridge cases and, the firing pin of a rifle found in the swamp. These photographs, he said, were handed to Dr Brown. Cross-examined by, Mr Northcroft, witness said he had compared the photograph of the wood cut with the long photograph of the knife. “This photograph shows that the knife was seriously blemished in a ber of sections,” said counsel, pointing to the ; long enlargement. ‘‘.What.you did was to examine the knife to see if you could find a coincidence?” Witness agreed. He had been informed, that the cut marks on one end of the crossbar in the implement shed had been made by Dr Gilmour. Witness concentrated only on the cut on the other end. “ It a large out is .examined with a glass in a strong light it is possible to find a, number of characteristic knife marks?” asked counsel. “ Yes,” replied witness, who added it was obvious that the very blemished portion of the knife had not been in contact with' the timber. “ Is the knife now in the same condition as when you saw it?”—“ So far as I can see with the naked eye it is.” “I put it to you, it was not what could be described as seric ’y blemished?” —“I should say it was.” Witness said that only two marks could be seen with the naked eye on the area of the knife photographed. He had seen no characteristics on the wood from any other portion of the knife. Counsel then questioned witness on the angle of, the light used for his photographs. Demonstrating with a coloured diagram the effect of shadows on the grooves and ridges from an inclined light, witness agreed that the diagram was correct. On his photographs he thought that more than half the grooves would be in darkness. . ~ “ 1 am satisfied, that the knife is not now in the same condition as it was when it made the cuts 1 photographed,” declared Senior-sergeant Dinnie. “ Your opinion that the knife made those cuts, then, is based on an assumption of what the knife might have been like before you saw it?” asked Mr Northcroft. “ Yes,” replied witness, who said his opinion was also based on the marks now present on the knife. He added that he could see wjth a reading glass which he had with him the features of the knife on which his opinion was based. “ You do not think the knife now could make those marks?” asked counsel. “ No, I don’t think it xould,” replied Senior-sergeant Dinnie, who, in reply to His Honour, said the notches were on the knife in a position relative to the ridges on the timber. , The effect of sharpening the knife would be to grind off the turned portions of the edge, leaving notches. “I contend that the characteristic marks which were on the knife have now been nearly sharpened away, but I can find some traces of each one, although one is indistinct,” continued witness, who admitted that there was now no protuberance on the edge which would cause the prooves. “ Can you show us with a magnifying glass that the_ gaps were pieces of turned metal which have now been

sharpened out?” asked Mr Northcroft. “ Not with this glass,” replied Senior-sergeant Dinuie, who. after further questions, said he would bring a magnifying glass capable of showing the gaps to the jury. Counsel then closely examined the witness on the individual features of the ridges shown in tiro photographs. Witness said he did not know how and when the knife was sharpened, but he was of the opinion that it was sharpened as soon as the cut was made on the timber in the implement shed. In making his tests with the point of tire steel witness rotated it, making about forty-five impressions on a piece of kauri. Witness added that he could not get an absolute fit between the two photographs produced. The court then adjourned.