BAYLY’S DEFENCE

Evening Star, Issue 21751, 20 June 1934, Page 8

BAYLY’S DEFENCE

26TH DAY OF RUAWARO MURDER TRIAL COUNSEL HAS SPOKEN FOR 2 DAYS POLICE METHODS CRITICISED [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, Juno 20. Mr Northcroft continued his address to the jury this morning when the Supreme Court hearing of the Ruawaro murder charges was continued. Counsel has already spoken for a day and a-half, and to-day is tho twenty-sixth day of hearing. Again tho court was crowded, many being unable to gain admission to the public portion, while it is only with difficulty that the officials have been able tp check the number of persons wishing to get in the front portion of the court, where accommodation is keenly sought. Counsel contended that Bayly, had he been a guilty man, would have gathered the incriminating material, taken it away at night, and hidden it where it never could have been found. Yet the Crown put forward the fantastic theory that Bayly, knowing where the material w r as, took the extraordinary course of leaving it where it was, where it could easily be found. Had Bayly, knowing he was suspected, known the guns were in the swamp, would he have left them there a single night ? Clearly he would have removed them and thrown them in the lake. Bayly’s dog had caught a dog on his place. If that dog was Wright’s the Crown view was that Bayly must have gone to Wright’s and abducted it. How could the dog have got to Bayly’s? It must have gone there with the owner or with someone familiar with it. When asked by tho police .what he thought the prowler was doing, Bayly _ said he thought ho was a sneak thief. Had Bayly had guilty knowledge of tho guns he would have suggested that the man had been there possibly to plant incriminating material. But tho evidence showed that Bayly had made not the slightest attempt to connect the intruder with the planting of material.

Counsel said there were two methods of conducting a police investigation. One was to follow every clue, every piece of information with an open mind: the other, to look for a j suspect and then, having found one, see what clues could be found to fasten guilt on that suspect. “I am bound to point out to you that the second method was followed in this case,” he contended. The danger of the second method was that clues leading to the right person were ignored or rejected because they did not fit in fastening guilt on the suspect. FAKT ASSUMPTION AND FAKE CLUES. When the police had started on a false assumption, which was shared by the settlers of the district, false evidence could easily be built up by. the settlers unintentionally in their efforts to help the police. Such procedure enabled the real criminal to place false clues where the police could find them. There was no doubt that suspicion had attached from the first to Bayly because of his honest statement that he could give no information in regard to Lakey because they were not friendly. Later sledge marks were found, on which a sinister interpretation was placed. When the wheels and frame were found the police attached a meaning to them in accordance with their preconceived theory. Then came October 19, and the elaborate search of Bayly’s. So imbued were the police with the theory that the accused had taken Lakey’s body away and hidden it that they searched the sheep dip, while they also assumed that paint marks at Bayly’a had to be blood marks. They had critically examined no other .farms, and inspected no other knives. They had concentrated all their attention on the accused, oblivious of the possibility that there might have been someone else concerned. Counsel then reviewed the results of the police visit to Bayly’s with a search warrant. What significance could be attached to the minute smears of blood on the sledge, and the small spots of blood on Bayly’s trousers P Knowing the police suspicions, Bayly, had he been guilty, could have easily removed the blood from the trousers and sledge. Yet, so unconcerned was he, that he went to Auckland for two days, making no attempt to remove these allegedly incriminating objects. If the pea rifle cartridge was in the pocket of Bayly’s trousers it would not have fallen. The fact that it fell pointed to the fact that it was not actually in the pocket. . Had the shovel seen in the cowshed had any sinister import would Bayly have left it there? All ho had to do was to swill it in the dip or push it in the cow dung to remove any deposit. On October 21 the police found neither the pea rifle nor the shotgun at Bayly’s. It might bo said they were then in the swamp, but they were not. They were taken from the swamp on October 30, and were then quite bright and untarnished. “ Can you point to any evidence that they were not, in the swamp?” asked His Honour. Counsel said he invited the jury to conclude from the fact that the guns were bright and free from rust that they could not have been in the swamp for nine days. ” You can draw certain inferences, but to state it as a fact is a different matter,” observed His Honour. At the request of Mr Meredith, Mr Northcroft explained to the jury that Dr Gilmour’s view that death was due to asphyxia was contained in his report and not in his evidence in the lower court, “ It was very unfair of you, if Dr Gilmour did say in the lower court that death was due to drowning, to suppress that,” observed His Honour. Air Meredith then stated that Mr Northcroft had said that nothing had been found to justify Bayly’s arrest. When he was arrested bones had been found by Detective Allsopp in Bayly’s garden at 2 o’clock that afternoon. Air Northcroft said that the Crown had not only ignored the real significance of the cherry pipe found at Lakeys, but had asked the jury to believe that a fragment found at Bayly’s was a portion of Lakey’s pipe. The Crown had further told neither the jury nor the defence that it had Lakey’s pipe in its possession. Counsel then referred to the movements of the cars reported to the police, which had not been fully investigated. This was an important and disquieting factor in the case. Because the police had satisfied themselves that Bayly’s car had not been out of the shed they attached no importance to the movements of cars as they did not fit their theory of Bayly’s guilt.

After referring to the disappearance of Bayly’s ammunition, counsel said that when the police recovered the guns in the swamp they should have made investigations to see if they had been recently placed there by some other person. Similarly, when Bayly told them that his ammunition was missing, they should have made some inquiries. Instead they made no elfort to follow this up as a clue. After the police had seized further quantities of innocent material during the execution of their second search warrant Bayly had left the farm. THE ARREST. “ His nerve goes, he is distraught, and he writes a note to his wife, apparently indicating suicide. Then ho wanders off and he finally wanders into his solicitors' office,” declared counsel, who added that his solicitors had informed the police that Bayly was in Auckland. The police then arrested Bayly on a charge of murdering Mrs Lakey, because at that time they were afraid of making a laughing stock of themselves if Lakey turned up alive. There was then no evidence to show that Lakey was not alive, while there was then, as now, not a shred of evidence to connect Bayly with Mrs Lakey’s death. “ When Bayly is safely secured in prison, then, and not until then, do the police begin to find material which by any stretch of imagination could incriminate him,” declared Mr Northcroft. Up till the time that Bayly had been imprisoned the Crown had no evidence against him. Counsel then detailed the findings in the orchard and sheepdip after Bayly’s arrest, adding that the police had then found a false tooth at Lakey’s house in a place they had previously searched, which he suggested was not there before. Counsel said he would then show how the Crown had sought to improve the ease since the Police Court hearing. In the lower court only two witnesses had said there was froth about Mrs Lakey’s face, and now six or seven witnesses described as froth what they had previously said was isimply blood. Another matter was Mrs Lakey’s method of washing her boots. If she washed at the pond that might have given rise to an innocent explanation of her death—namely, that she had a seizure and fell into the water. Dr Gilmour and Dr Waddell had said that Mrs Lakey died from asphyxia, but this did not suit the Crown’s purpose, so Dr Gilmour now carried the evidence a step further and declared that death was due to drowning, THIRD PERSON AT LAKEY’S. “ It is certain that much important evidence ha sheen lost sight of by the police, which might, had it been pursued, have not only proved Bayly’s innocence, but might have proved the real circumstances under which this tragic mystery developed,” declared counsel. It was obvious that the crime had not been premeditated, and it was obvious that there was a third person at Lakey’s that Sunday, who was not Bayly. ' That third person might not have committed the crime, but might have been driven under circumstances to the desperate expedient of hiding traces of the crime. That third person must have been some person known and acceptable to the Lakeys. The preparations for the evening meal included preparations for a third party. There were three plates out. There was also the point to which the police attached no importance—the preparation in the spare room where a spare .bed was made up. A set of lower false teeth, which clearly did not belong to the Lakeys, was found at the house. Apart from all those circumstances, and the most important evidence of the arrival of a third person, was the return of Lakey’s gun. It was possible that some altercation occurred. Mrs Lakey, an excitable woman, might have rushed out and loaded the pea rifle. It was clear that the procuring of Lakey’s rifle and ammunition could not have been done by Bayly, who did not know where they were. Under the circumstances of a quarrel anything might have occurred. Lakey might have attempted to take the pea rifle. It was possible in the excitement Mrs Lakey herself fired the rifle. There was possibly a struggle in which Mrs Lakey received blows. An altercation of the most innocent character at its inception could have developed into one of a most desperate character. Before the Crown could invite the jury to believe that Bayly committed the crime they must bring forward some proper circumstance showing that Bayly was in contact with the Lakeys. They had not done so. At the same time they_ had ignored the circumstances which shrieked some other third person at Lakey’s. Mr Northcroft said it was clear that the wheels had been moved in an effort to hide them, as they bore blood. Attempts had been made to remove traces of blood on the impleiiient shed. The milk cans had been taken to the road for the purpose of gaining time. Whoever did it must have been a strong man'capable of carrying the cans, as Lakey’s sledge Was, discovered standing in the cowshed loaded with skim milk. “ On the very facts as we have them at Lakey’s there is a much more probable view to be taken from the set of circumstances than that which the Crown has invited you to take,” declared counsel. “ I have suggested to you a base on which there can be erected an infinite variety of reconstructions of the crime not involving Bayly.”

PROWLER AT BAYLY’S. Mr Northcroft then referred to the prowler at Bayly’s on the evening of October 25. It was certain there was someone there, and the indications were that it was not somebody living in the district. It was not his (counsel s) intention to establish Bayly’s innocence by the inference that other settlers, such ts Wright, Stevens, and Sanson, were involved. The indications were that when the police commenced to search the swamp where the guns were found they were not searching lor a body, but as a result of information which might ■well have originated from some person with. a guilty knowledge who desired the police to find the guns on Bayly’s property. “ I come then to the b«nes found at Bayly's,” continued Mr Northcroft, who sa'id that apart from the ash from the oil drum, which contained bones which might be innocent, there was no evidence against Bayly at the time of his arrest. The evidence was found after he was arrested. “I put it to you that this intruder, after his experience on October 25 when he was chased by Bayly, was put in some difficulty to place more material at Bayly’s, but when Bayly was safely under arrest the police begin to find things at his place three or four days later.” Counsel then detailed the results of the police searches at Bayly’s before he was arrested.