BAYLY’S DEFENCE

Evening Star, Issue 21752, 21 June 1934, Page 8

BAYLY’S DEFENCE

THIRD DAY OF COUNSEL’S ADDDESS AGAIN A CROWDED COURT [Per United Press Association.! AUCKLAND, June 21. After speaking for two and a-half days, the senior counsel for the defence, Mr Northcroft, continued his address to the jury on Bayly’s behalf when the Supreme Court resumed this moaning. Counsel is not expected to finish his address before the court rises this evening. There was again a large attendance of the public, who followed Mr Northcroft point by point with the keenest interest. Counsel continued to deal with various points relating to the appearance of the bones included in the exhibits. He said he would suggest that the bones were not broken up by burning, blit were deliberately broken up to provide evidence for the pojice. He then showed the jury an exhibit which, he declared, showed none of the fragility to be expected when bones ■ became broken of themselves after burning. He suggested that it had been broken by being pounded on a clay surface. “Like this exhibit, many of the exhibits, when examined critically, with an open mind, shoV characteristics such as that,” be continued. “ That bone has not been broken at Bayly’s by Bayly because, in the police account, the bones were broken on a concrete floor. Had the police fulfilled their duties thoroughly, they would have examined the earth on the bone, analysed it, and found where it came from.” Counsel next showed the jury another bone, said to be from the shin. That bone had been smashed before it was jnit in the fire. “Look at the firm edges,” he said. Other exhibits were also strongly suggestive of a miscellaneous collection of bones, including the skull, having been burnt and scattered about Bayly’s. Apart from very few, such as the arm bones, they were bones which could have belonged to different bodies, irrespective of age or sex. There was nothing to show that the arm and other bones were from the same person who owned the skull. Some may have belonged to a big man, some to a small man. The skull might even be a woman’s. The suggestion that there were no duplicates meant nothing, as, apart from the skull, there were only three or four fragments of bones identified definitely as human. It was extraordinary that the bones which would be most protected and would be destroyed last, had not been found, while the more exposed bones, such as the skull, the elbow, and the heel, survived. The charred “ bubbly ” matter was so indiscriminably disposed about the bones as to suggest that it came from fuel rather than from flesh on bones, as it was found where it should not be found, and was missing where it was to be expected to be seen. Counsel then dealt with factors which tho Crown claimed connected Lakey with the bones. What was there to prevent Bayly having been given the wick material for a cigarette lighter by Mrs Lakey when they were still friendly? There was nothing to justify the view that the lighter ivas not Bayly’s own; the evidence that this lighter was Lakey’s had been extraordinarily weak. All the witnesses had said that Lakey’s hair was auburn, going grey. The tuft produced was brown: there was nothing to suggest auburn about it. At counsel’s request the jury handled the tuft individually, each, examining it closely. After reminding the jury of the comparison with Mrs Bayly’s hair made by Mr Leary, Mr Northcroft said that had the hair been torn from Lakey’s head roots would be expected to be found in conjunction with it. The intense heat in the drum would shrivel the. hair up if it had been through the fire described by the Crown, which said the tuft had been subjected to such heat as to destroy tho possibility of blood tests for congealed matter. It should have been possible for the Crown to produce Lakey’s hair, as three brushes were found at the house. However, tho court had been offered no conclusions as to what had been found when

the brushes were inspected. The hair in tho tuft had been cut, not pulled out. It might well be Mrs Bayly’s. There was not a scrap of evidence on which the Crown could reply to show that tho hair was from Lakey’s body, he contended. Mr Northcroft said there was no evidence that Lakey’s watch was missing or that he wore it that day. Stevens had said that Lakey’s watch was identifiable by scratchings inside. In the case produced there were no marks visible to the naked eye. The jury closely inspected portion of the watchcase. “ See if you can see marks with our without a glass,” invited counsel, who in reply to His Honour said the portion was the only part of the case recovered. The watch was not of uncommon type; indeed, six had been sold at Huntly, while many may have been sold at Hamilton and Auckland. There might be many such watches in the district, and one might just as easily have been owned by Bayly or Lakey. Had Bayly wished to dispose of the watch he could have thrown it in the lake; if he had wanted to conceal its identity he could have crushed it with an axe. No one but a lunatic could believe that it was treated in this manner to conceal its identity. The class of working trousers worn by Bayly had the same type of button as was attached to the Palmer nap trousers worn by .Lakey, and to suggest that the fragments of cloth represented portion of Lakey’s clothing was unfair and unjustified. Old clothes burnt as refuse in a bonfire would give the same type of fragments. Counsel recalled the Crippen case, where a portion of cloth recognisable as his pyjamas sheeted the crime home to him. In that case the Crown did not merely say “ there is a piece of pyjama cloth.” They took it a step further and proved its definite character. The Crown in the present case had not connected the fragments in any way with Lakey. The gum boots worn by Lakey, black uppers with white soles, were of a type commonly used in the district. Bayly himself wore such boots. Here again there was nothing to connect the fragments with Lakey’s boots. There was nothing of identification at all. Counsel then reverted to the legal authority previously quoted to show that it was improper to convict unless there was indisputable proof that the person alleged to have been murdered had been murdered. DOUBTS OF LAKEY’S DEATH, “ Each and every one of you must be satisfied, if you find my client guilty, that in six or twelve months Lakey does not turn up alive, or his body be discovered in circumstances not associating Bayly with his disappearance,” continued Mr Northcroft, who then turned to the manner of Mrs Lakey’s death. Dr Gilmour, in his first report, had said her death was due to asphyxia. It was not until he came to this court that Dr Waddell said she died of disowning. Her death may have arisen from drowning, coma supervening on a blow,' or strangulation. The real question was; Did she get a blow which knocked her out, and then, in a state of coma, asphyxiate, in which case there was no murder; or did she receive a blow which rendered her unconscious, and was she then placed in the water to drown?” “ I put it to you that Mrs I*akey has never been proved to have drowned,” declared counsel, who then reviewed the medical evidence. “ I invite you to regard with a good deal of suspicion the evidence given by Dr Gilmour on that point.” Dr Gilmour had said that if she had been lying on land ho would not have said she hat!died from drowning. He was assuming, therefore, that, because she was found in water, she must have drowned. After quoting a work on medical jurisprudence from which Dr Gilmour had dissented, counsel said that in view of this his evidence must be regarded with further suspicion. Dr M’Farlane had said that death was not due to drowning. He was the-first doctor to see Mrs Lakey, and to perform a postmortem. If the jhry was not satisfied that Mrs Lakey .was drowned there was nothing to justify the belief that she was murdered by Bayly or anyone .else. The jury must be satisfied that it was criminal, not accidental. If a person saw Mrs Lakey lying there, and, believing her dead, placed her in the water, that was not murder. THE BLOOD TESTS. Mi- Northcroft described the manner of applying the precipitin test for human blood. Dr Gilmour had said he had not checked the antiserum used, later saying that control tests had been made with sheep and pigs, and (he thought) rabbit blood. No control tests had been made in regard to horse, cow, hare, and pukeko blood. Dr Gilmour had then sheltered himself by saying that because the serum came from a well-known house it must be all right. However reputable a firm might be, there was possibility of human error. No witness was entitled to say blood was human unless he had tested the antiserum used witli all other types of blood. The Crown had removed every particle of the bloodstains from Bayly’s trousers, leaving none with which tho defence could check the tests. Counsel next discussed the bloodgroup tests. All human beings fell into one of four groups. If the blood found on Bayly’s knife, sledge, and trousers had been group tested, and it was found to have been not blood from tho accused his wife, or his children, that would have been a point against accused, while if the blood in Lakey’s yard was found to be in a similar group, the Crown case would have been strengthened. Dr Gilmour had said there was not . sufficient blood to perform the tests, hut he might not have been skilful enough to apply the tests. There was no question that tests could bo done with the most minute stains. Had Dr Gilmour left available to the defence some portion of the stains, then it would have been open for the defence to call persons who could do it, or send the stains to Sydney or some other centre where there were pathologists sufficiently skilful to do it Tho defence then might have had an opportunity of declaring that the stains on Bayly’s trousers were his own, definitely, not Lakey’s or Mrs Lakey’s.