Mr. Baxter did not think the suspect hammer could have caused these marks at all. In his view the most noticeable difference was the very square edges produced on the pipe, compared with the rounded bevelled edges of the Stanley type hammer, even when relatively new. He said there was no sign of bevelling at all in the marks on the pipe. He was confident that he would have seen the bevelling effect even in shallow marks, and in Mr. Baxter's view a much more likely candidate for the marks on the pipe was indeed the old hammer, our exhibit nine, I think it is, that had originally been owned by his grandfather.
His conclusion, Mr. Baxter's, was that all this gave extremely strong support for the view that the marks on the pipe were not caused by the suspect hammer.
He was asked questions in cross-examination about the newly purchased hammer. The depth of the bevel he said was about 1.5 to two millimetres. He did not have this hammer when he conducted his own examinations and had not made any test impressions with it. His tests were only carried out with the suspect one and the old hammer. He believed that a shallow depth of mark would have been sufficient to produce signs of the bevelled edge, and that this would be so whether the mark had been created completely flat on or at an angle. One way or the other, the bevel he thought would be seen. He was asked again about the casts he had made from the pipe. He said they were .5 to one millimetre in depth and had sharp edges. He denied the suggestion that they displayed a rounded finish. Further he said his own examination was in a much better lighting condition than we have in this court, and therefore he was able to reach a reasonably firm conclusion about the matter.