BAYLY TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 3

BAYLY TRIAL

THE CARTRIDGE SHELLS CLOSE EXAMINATION OF EXPERT [Pjsr Uxited Press Association.] AUCKLAND, June 14. The opinion that the cartridge shell which fell from Bayly’s pocket had been fired from the Winchester fifle discovered in the swamp, while another shell found in Lakey’s garden had been fired from Bayly’s Spandau rifle was advanced by Dr D. Brown at this afternoon’s hearing of the Unaware murder charges. Dr Brown produced a large number of micro-photographs, some having been taken with a magnification of 68 diameters, on which he based his evidence.

During his crosss-examination of Dr Brown, which was not completed, Mr Northcroft resorted to the use of lantern slides made from micro-photo-graphs, the pictures being thrown on a temporary screen in a darkened court. On resumption, Dr Brown stated that a cartridge lie had received from Detective Sneddon had been further microphotographed, while he had also taken a micro-photograph of the striker pin of the Winchester rifle. He produced a folder showing these photographs. In reply to His Honour, Mr Meredith said the shell received from Detective Sneddon was exhibit 70, which had fallen from Bayly’s pocket. Dr Brown then produced further photographs of a test shell fired from Bayly’s The shell, exhibit 70,, was a test shell from the Winchester rifle found in the swamp. Both had rectangular striker marks, while the striker mark on the shell fired from the Spandau was circular. Dr Brown added that he had arranged micro-photo-graphs of the rectangular striker marks of the two shells alongside for the purpose of comparison. On the left side of each could be seen two projections which corresponded closely in position. In the bottom right-hand corner each rectangle could be seen, the formation resembling a series of teeth. A further series of photographs taken at W7ellington with another camera showed inclen tations on the right side of the striker pin which were in a position corresponding with the marks shown in the other photographs allowing for the difference m the magnifications. Witness then produced micro-photo-graphs of magnification 68 diameters of the bottom corner of the rectangles on the shell, exhibit 70,.and also the test shell from the Winchester. Or both were a fine series of lines. The number and angle_ of the lines appeared to be the same in each photograph. These lines could also be seen on fhe striker pin itself. “ These photographs reinforce my conviction that the shell, exhibit 70, was fired from the rifle recovered from the swamp,” declared witness. Another- shell handed to him by Detective Sneddon contained an insect’s web. This exhibit was also micro-pho-tographed. 11 This is the shell found on Lakey's pronertv?” asked His Honoui‘. Mr Meredith concurred.

Witness said he had compared the striker mark on this shell with the two test shells fired from the Spandau. “ The photographs are entirely consistent with the view that the shell ‘found in Lakey’s garden was fired from the Spandau rifle.” continued witness. A comparison of the, rings and the striker mark had also been made with two additional test shells. Another shell given to witness by Constable Mills appeared to have been fired from the - Spandau rifle. “ This shell came from Bayly’s steps?” asked His Honour. “ Yes,” replied Mr Meredith. Witness stated that lie had made micro-photos of 76 shells from 16 Spandnus, and 60 other rifles. He had been given the shells by Detectives Allsopp, Sneddon, and other police officers. Included in these rifles were a number of 1902 Winchesters obtained from the Colonial Ammunition Company and from private individuals. Witness had been told that some of the shells had been fired from the same Winchester, using a number of different 1902 mode! bolts The striker marks on these shells had been micro-photographed. He had compared all the shells with striker marks on the shell, exhibit 70, and also the other shell exhibited, and found no similarity. In fact, he had found no two which bore marks which led to the conclusion that they hod been fired from the same rifle. Witness had also compared all the shells from the sixteen Spandaus with _ each other and could find no two similar. _ . Witness then showed the jury micronhotos of the shells from all the Spandaus. also producing prints of the micro-photos of sixty other shells.

Tn reply to Mr Nortluroft. Dr Brown said he hat! photographed the two -pieces of timber with the light in snob a way as best to show up the ridges and grooves. His method had been to examine each specimen under more than one lighting. In the case of two of the photographs he had invited the jury to compare, both wore illuminated from the right. Counsel produced a diagram illustrating the manner in which the side of the groove nearest the light was in the shadow and the side of the ridge furthest from the light in the shadow. “ Did you place the light so that the darkened sector of the grooves would be half-grooves?” asked counsel. “ I did not arrange it to illuminate exactly half the grooves,” replied Dr Brown, who said he did not think it was practicable, as the grooves were irregular and the proportion of lighting was not the same in all the grooves. Counsel then brought the lantern into use to throw the slides made from the micro-photographs on the screen erected in the body of the court, which was darkened. Using a pointer, he closely examined Dr Brown on the amount of grooves as shown on the enlargements on the screen. In the majority of cases witness said half, or a little more than half, the grooves were in the shadow. Another photograph was then thrown on the screen. “ That little piece of shadow is all you can say is a groove one?” asked counsel.

Witness: That is so. He agreed that the grove one was clearly shown on the wood from Bayly’s. “ Is it not the fact that yon got an association of lines 1 to 8 in one place and an association of line 1 to 8 in the other place that justifies your calculation?” asked Mr Northcroft. Witness said he had not included line 1 in his calculation. It was hard to take a photograph and bring all the lines out. “ I put it to you that it was left out because it was not there?” said counsel'. “ That is not so.” replied Dr Brown, who declared he could point out line 1 on one photograph. “ Can you show it on any other photograph?” asked counsel. “ Those are the only photographs 1 have submitted,” replied Dr Brown. “ Did you examine any other steel of this type?,’’

“ I purchased another steel of the same make,” replied Dr Brown, who added that the steel had the same lines and the same spacing as the steel exhibited. He agreed that the position of the lines would be the same on every steel of that make. “ Did you find any peculiar characteristics in this steel comparable with marks on the wood which are not on the steel you purchased?”—“ No.” “ Any steel of that sort, therefore, could have made those marks?” pursued Mr Northcroft.—“ Yes.” “ Can you attach the slightest importance to those steel marks as showing they were made by that particular steel?” “ 1 think my statement was that the steel was consistent with having made those marks.” Further questioned, witness admitted that, taking the steel marks alone, he did not think they would be' of the slightest use. Witness said he had concluded that the knife had probably been held at right angles on one occasion, but it might have been inclined. Jn the photograph of the second timber it must have been inclined further if the, cut was made by the same knife. If one set of lines were a straight parallel and the other set curving on the same timber witness would say they were not made by the same cut. Counsel then drew a diagram of lines on the blackboard, which he stated represented the lines on one photograph, suggesting that certain lines on the photograph were curved and others a straight parallel. “ Will yon admit that the lines on the right are substantially more parallel than those to the left?” he asked. “ Yes.” replied Dr Brown. “ If there is a difference in the alignment does it not show they belong to different cuts?” •‘No, I do not think that is so,” replied witness, who said he thought the group on the left was completed before the group on the right was begun. “ In other words, they are two separate cuts?” observed counsel. Witness admitted he had noticed that some lines were less divergent than others. “ I will admit they are practically parallel and not in alignment with the others,” he added. “If I had not had my attention drawni to it the jury would not have heard it from you?” asked counsel. “ No,” replied Dr Brown, who stated he had not drawn the jury’s attention to all the factors he had considered. He admitted that the matter was one of importance. In the morning he would demonstrate how he could get a group of parallel lines and a group of converging lines with one knife cut.