BAYLY TRIAL

Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 8

BAYLY TRIAL

KNIFE EDGE AND WOOD GUTS KEEN CROSS-EXAMINATION [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, June 15. Further cross-examination of Dr D. Brown occupied the Supnype Court this morning, when hearing of the murder charges against William Alfred Bayly was resumed. To-day is the twenty-second day of hearing. The Crown is expected to call at least two more witnesses before the case for the prosecution closes, and the Crown case will probably not be completed until tomorrow morning. Mr Northcroft questioned Dr Brown on tho parallel and divergent lines on the wood. Dr Brown said that where one group of lines was parallel, another group of converging marks must have been done by separate cuts if the divergence was extreme. Witness had made further experiments last night, but not in the presence of Professor Worley. Ho had, however, mentioned the point to Professor Worley. Dr Brown then produced a knife, in which he said he had artificially made six turns; also four bars of soap. Holding the bars of soap in one hand, he made cuts with the knife, cutting with a partial rotatory movement. “If I can get one set converging and one set diverging, it is only a matter of further trial to get one set converging and one set parallel,” declared witness. “ 1 have actually done more than you have asked me to.”

At the request of Mr Northcroft, witness marked portions of _ the test bars of soap where he considered Ihe, experiment succeeded. ‘Mr Northcroft pressed Dr Brown further on points in connection with the wood marks as shown on the slide made by superimposed photographs of the wood from the implement shed and the wood from Bayly’s separator room. Witness agreed that certain grooves did not coincide. “ There is not perfect agreement,” he admitted. The difference measured about one-twelfth of an inch.

“ These lines have a certain degree of vagueness and uncertainty in their position,” suggested counsel. “ Which I have taken into account in my calculations,” said witness, who added that taking the same number of lines at random, the chances were a million to one against them agreeing. Do the lines on the two photographs coincide as to alignment?—No, they do not.

Witness said he had collected a dozen kitchen knives gathered in his own house and in friends’ for the purpose of seeing if he could get any which_ would fit the lines as well as the knife exhibited. Ho did not complete the work. He had not got the police to collect knives in the Huntly district for the same purpose. Counsel then exhibited the slide of a silhouette of the knife superimposed in the photograph of one wood cut. Witness admitted that he could find no notch in the knife now corresponding to groove No. 1. There was also nothing now on the knife corresponding to groove 4. The notch in the vicinity of groove 5 was definitely to the right of the groove. “ My opinion is that if the knife had been appreciably worn or sharpened before coming to me it may possibly have made the marks on the first piece of wood,” continued .Dr Brown. “ That is as far as 1 can say.” Further questioned on the same lines, witness said there was a slight notch on the edge of the knife corresponding with groove 6, which was appreciably to the right of the notch. There was another notch on the knife to the right of the groove, with no corresponding groove. Witness could not tell by microscopic examination whether one portion of the edge of the knife had been sharpened more than any other portion. He could find nothing coinciding with the woodcuts on any other portion of the knife, notwithstanding the very characteristic markings.

la reply to His Honour, witness said

the point ho had tried to make was that the same knifo made the cuts in the implement, shed and tho cuts in Bayly’s separator room. That was his contention.

“ Will you say that is so without any; possibility of doubt?” asked counsel. “ 1 think what I said was that yon would have to take a million knives to find one capable of making both cuts,”' replied Dr Brown. Witness admitted that on piece of soap cut iu court he had not got parallelism and convergence, but divergence and convergence. That was the nearest lie could get. After further questioning Mr Northcroft again employed lantern slides, tho lights in the court being turned out. Ho examined witness on tho question of scale, asking Dr Brown the distance the marks shown on tho screen represented on the wood. Dr Brown said the length of tho marks shown represented about half an inch. “If it is possible to show marks over half an inch, it surely would be possible to show a foot of wood?” asked counsel. Witness agreed. The photographs were designed to show the type of thing on which he had based-his calculations, so that the jury could draw their own conclusions. “ That is just what I propose they should do.” remarked counsel. Witness said the notches on the knife could not be seen with the naked eye,but he had been able to se the characteristic marks on the timber from the implement shed. He had photographed only one portion of this timber, where he could see the markings with the naked eye. He had also been shown timber from the frame and “ wheels,” and had given it a cursory examination?” ‘‘ “ Can you tell us why_ you did not make a comparative examination of the timber marks on the knife?” asked counsel. “ 1 I did not see any isolated area with characteristic marking such as I saw on the wood,” replied Dr Brown, who added that there were too many marks in close_ conjunction, and therefore, in his opinion, it was hopeless to attempt to associate them with any other object. _ Dr Brown showed Mr Northcroft portion of the cut on the timber from Bayly’s separator room that he had photographed. “ If you look here you can see the group lines with tho naked eye. Why did you not examine those microscopically?” added counsel. “ Because they were too thick,” replied witness. He did Aot think ho could get a satisfactory photograph of 1 the characteristic marks, and for this reason he had not compared the marks with the knife. “I do not/ attach much importance to a comparison of the wood with the knife, which may have been altered,” continued Dr Brown, who admitted that he had made no microscopic comparison of other marks on the wood with other portions of the knife. Such comparison would take six months. The work he had done had taken all his spare time, as he had carried out his other duties all the time. “ I am not reproaching you,” observed counsel. THE CARTRIDGE SHELLS. Mr_ Northcroft then turned to the question of the cartridge shells. ' Witness agreed that the factors to be considered were the shape and any peculiarities of the striker marks; also the position of the lighting during the micro-photographing and magnification. He would not agree that if the centre of the mark was in focus tho upper edges would be out of focus. They would not be in the best possible focus. “It was important, therefore, to have these taken in the same focus,” suggested Mr Northcroft. “ Have you tried in each photograph to get the same place in focus?” Witness said that in some photographs the focus was general. Ha agreed that two photographs of tho striker marks showed different length. “ Size is important in comparison, is it not?” asked counsel.

Witness said the marks of this particular 'rifle varied in length owing to the difference in force with which the pin struck the cartridge or the looseness of the pin itself. “ The way this photograph is cut and mounted conceals the extraordinary difference in the length,” remarked Mr Northcroft.

Witness agreed that one mark was one-sixth longer than the other. Counsel then displayed a double slide of enlarged striker marks of the test shell from Lakey’s rifle, the shell which fell from Bayly’s- trousers. “ Is tbere anything at all remotely resembling that on the other shell?” he asked. After indicating certain grooves and striker marks on one shell, witness admitted that there were only very slight vestiges of these grooves on the other.

Mr Northcroft then pointed to a series of five lines on one shell. “Is there anything of that sort on the other?” asked counsel. Witness: No. Witness added that there was an explanation of these lines. “ In other words, your explanation is that tho mark has been < made on one shell by the striker, which at tho moment possessed different characteristics from the striker which struck tho other shell,” observed compel, when Dr Brown concluded. Witness agreed. Ho had not confirmed his assumption that the striker pin might be fouled by dirt or carbon by the experiments. “ If you have one mark on one shell that you have not on the other, that would be sufficient to disprove identity?” asked counsel. - “I think not,” replied witness, who said the inconsistency of the copper and possible play in tho pin might causa variation.