BAYLY TRIAL GROWN EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

Evening Star, Issue 21749, 18 June 1934, Page 8

BAYLY TRIAL

GROWN EVIDENCE CONCLUDED

PROSECUTOR'S SUMMARY OF CASE (Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, June 18. The cross-examination of Professor F. P. Worley was continued when the hearing of the Ruawaro murder charges was resumed in the Supreme Court this morning. The Crown case is expected to close to-day, as there is only one further witness to be called, although it is possible that one or more police officers may bo recalled. As no indication of the counsel of the defence’s intentions has been given, it is as yet impossible to say when the case will conclude.

Mr Northcroft questioned Professor Worley first on the method adopted by witness to make a comparison of the knife cuts on the two pieces of timber. Witness had found it necessax-y to make enlargements of 11.4 of the timber from Bayly’s to get a comparison with the timber from Lakey's, which was enlarged 8J times. “ I then cut one photograph, placed it on the other, and found very remarkable agreement,” continued Professor Worley, who then described the method of calculation used in reaching a conclusion. The chances of coincidence were one in a million.

“ I don’t know if the jury understands this. Ido not myself,” observed Mr Northcroft. “I do not know if I can make a calculation as to probability simple. I will make it as simple as I can,” replied Professor Worley.

After witness had completed his explanation he stated that if there was a line which entirely disagreed, and there was no other means of accounting for that disagreement, then his faith in asserting the absolute identity of the two would be very seriously shaken.

“ That is very important,” remarked counsel.

Re-examined by Mr Meredith, witness said bo had found no divergences which would shako his conclusion. There was very close similarity in the grouping of tho two sets of lines in the knife marks.

Gerald Gregory Kelly, sports dealer, of Auckland, said he had had a lifetime’s experience of firearms in New Zealand and Australia. He had been until recently in charge of the Colonial Ammunition Company’s premises at Auckland. He had been given a Winchester rifle on November 7. When ho cleaned the bore on December 6 Detective Sneddon showed him an ICI cartridge shell. Witness fired eight shots of the same ammunition from the rifle. A comparison with the test shells showed that the shell (exhibit 70) given him had been fired from the same rifle.

In reply to Mr Northcroft, witness said all the test shells showed the same characteristics. Witness had no microscope. Ho had fired no other Winchesters, nor had he compared shell 70 with shells from other Winchesters.

Recalled, Senior-sergeant E. W. Dinnie identified formally certain prints as made from photographs taken by him; and J. J. Carroll (surveyor), also recalled, gave short evidence regardng tho boundary fences _ on Lakey’s property and the position of the legal road into Bayly’s.

, Mr Northcroft stated to His Honour that the position was that Lakey’s fences had been carried to the lake across Bayly’s legal access road. Detective T. W. Allsopp, who was put in the box, stated that the fences extended across to prevent cattle getting from one property to the other. The Grown case then closed shortly after 11 o’clock, when an adjournment was taken. Mr Northcroft intimated that he would not call evidence. Mr Meredith commenced his address to the jury at 11.20 a.m. CROWN SUMMARISES EVIDENCE. After remarking that no one had seen Lakey or Mrs Lakey killed, Mr Meredith quoted the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice on the value of circumstantial evidence. The jury should not be concerned with the question ef motive, but the evidence of conversations with Stent, the quarrels with the Lakeys, and the removal of the cream stand all showed that Bayly harboured deep resentment against Lakey and his wife.

Mr Meredith then briefly recapitulated Lakey’s habits, which would be known to Bayly, who was his nearest neighbour. If anyone had the opportunity to commit this crime, Bayly was the man, declared Mr Meredith. The evidence of the experts, whose views he took it the jury would accept, stated that Mrs Lakey had been struck two blows and placed in the water alive, where slip died of suffocation.

If that happened to Mrs Lakey it was quite clear that she was struck unconscious by Lakey or some other party, continued Mr Meredith. If it was not Lakey it must have been a third party. There was blood on the implement shed which did not come from Mrs Lakey; that blood came obviously from Lakey. On the wheels which were found down the paddock was blood which was either that of Lakey or a third party. “So either that blood was the blood of Lakey, who was wheeled by a third party, or of a third party who was wheeled by Lakey.”

“ But there is no one else missing,” continued counsel. It was obvious that the third party was familiar with Lakey’s house, but did not know the exact details where Lakey placed his cream cans and made a mistake. The only object in taking the clothes, guns, and boots from the house was to give rise to the theory of Lakey’s disappearance.

Mr Meredith then turned to the sledge marks, which were clearly made by Bayly’s sledge. In regard to Bayly’s explanation that he had gone to inspect a pole, the evidence showed that the pole was as taut that morning as any other there. Therefore there was no reason for Bayly to drive up. Further, on Bayly’s sledge was human blood. Tho fact that there was only a small quantity was of no significance. After dealing with Lakey’s clothing, the watch, and the cigarette lighter. Mr Meredith said the bones were those of a muscular middle-aged male, such as Lakey. In Bayly’s sheepdip was found a tuft of hair similar to Lakey’s, while in tho orchard were found fragments of materials of similar clothing as was worn by Lakey. The cigarette _ lighter, which must, beyond probability, bo_ Lakey’s, was found at the sheepdip, while under the carshed were found parts of a watcli similar to Lakey’s. “So you have round Bayly’s house bones corresponding to Laltey’s, remnants of cloth corresponding to Lakey’s clothing, a cigarette lighter dearly Lakey’s, teeth corresponding to Lakey’s, burnt footwear corresponding

to Lakey’s, a watch the same as Lakey wore. Lakey disappears. You have a trail of blood down to Bayly’s fence; then these gruesome exhibits round Bayly’s house. After stating that all the bones had been found mixed with wood and charcoal, Mr Meredith exhibited a diagram showing parts of the skeleton identified by experts. The bones were burnt with the actual flesh on them. “ You are forced to the conclusion that those bones with flesh on them are those of the unfortunate Samuel Lakey,” proceeded Mr Meredith. “ The question is, Who burned Lakey? ” Mr Meredith then recapitulated the evidence regarding the exhibits taken from Bayly’s cow shed. At the time it was suggested the burning could have taken place, two men saw a cloud of heavy smoke over Bayly’s cow shed. A drum of corrugated iron sheets was found on Bayly’s property which was capable of performing such burning. It was known by experiments that it was a matter of comparative ease to burn a body in a drum. Before the police recovered the drum it was cut in two for some reason—it was suggested to conceal its identity. In Bayly’s separator room was a wood cut which had been concealed by a smearing of oil. The suggestion was that, in taking the body through the room a stain was left which it was necessary to remove. If the jury reached the conclusion that' Lakey’s body was _ burned in the cow shed, it was inevitable that it must have been by Bayly. How could anybody take the proceeds} of that burning and dig the garden at Bayly’s back door. “ Can it be suggested that a person, other than Bayly, could bring a body over from Lakey’s, burn it, wait for the embers to cool, and then bury them at Bayly’s back door? ” asked the Prosecutor. Mr Meredith then referred to the cartridge case which fell from Bayly’s, pocket, identified as from Lakey’s rifle. If that pea rifle had not been used and handled it was not uecessai'y for anyone to remove it from the house. There was also the question of the other cartridge which was found in Lakey’s garden, which was fired from Bayly’s Spandau rifle, which he had only possessed three days. “ Whether the Spaudau was first fired, and then jammed, I do not know, but it was not part of the Crown’s case to establish the sequence of events,” proceeded counsel, who referred next to the blood on Bayly’s trousers. When Bayly’s knife was first seen it had a razor edge; when next seen the blade had changed in character. Leaving aside this particular knife, there had been a shavemark on Bayly’s separator room, apparently cutting off a patch of blood. There was also a shavemark on the wheels, but the wood was of particular hardness, and_ did not give the impression of the knife blade. There was also a cut mark in Lakey’s implement shed. If they were made at the same time the cuts must have been made with the same purpose. The. opinion of the scientific experts was that the cuts in Bayly’s cowshed and in Lakey’s implement shed were made with the same knife. “ Who could make the cut marks in Bayly’s separator room other than Bayly himself? asked Mr Meredith, who said there was not the same certainty that the knife produced had made the cuts. However, if the knife had been sharpened since there were still notches on it compatible with making the marks.

After adding that there was human blood in the serrations at the back of the knife, Mr Meredith stated that the theory of Lakey’s disappearance had been promulgated by Bayly at the earliest opportunity when the searches commenced. Bayly knew that if he put the guns in the swamp they would be discovered. Accused had endeavoured to fasten suspicion on Wright by reporting a prowler to the police, but this failed because a police officer was billeted at Wright’s. “ An innocent man does not want to raise suspicion wrongly,” declared the prosecutor. When Bayly wrote the letter to his wife the police had taken the shovel and the two parts of the drum, and had also suggested emptying the sheep dip.” _ Bayly would then know, if he were guilty, that the police were going to get the whole story, ’ continued the prosecutor. Bayly had not committed suicide or attempted to hide, but what caused him to change Ins mind was that he had not known that everv fact pointed to the conclusion that" Lakey was taken to Bayly’s and burnt there. The Crown held that Bayly went to Lakey’s and struck Mrs Lakey. When Lakey came up he shot him. Bayly tore a sack from the implement shed to staunch the bleeding and cut the splash of bleed off the implement shed. Lakey was taken on the wheels to the boundary, put in Bayly’s drum head first and burned, aucl that the ashes and remnants were scattered. “ If it had not been that the cows were turned out in that paddock and other neighbours had seen that there was something amiss at Lakey’s household no inquiries would have been set afoot until the following morning, when the cream carrier would have seen that no cream had been put out,” concluded Mr Meredith. “If that other twenty-four hours had been given Bayly" the utter destruction of what was left in the drum would have been such that no one on earth would ever have found a trace of Lakey.