by Linda Venn
The evidence given by Detective Gooch, Monday 28th December (before lunch)
As an aid to keeping track of the key characters in this drama see the table at the end of this post
Gooch, O’Driscoll and Raetz left Townsville at 1:30pm on 9th December and travelled to Moongabulla Railway Station, where they were met by a Main Roads employee with a vehicle. They were driven to the scene of the crime, where they met O’Brien. Gooch and O’Brien had a conversation. “Shortly after their arrival there was a heavy downpour of rain”. Before leaving for Rollingstone, Gooch “made an inspection of the locality”. O’Brien showed Gooch the uprooted tree and the barricade made of “a number of green freshly-cut bough bushes”.
The next day, Gooch, O’Driscoll, Raetz and O’Brien proceeded to Ollera Gorge, where Edmonds lived. There they met Edmonds, Edward Gill, James Tier (“a half-caste”) and William Searle. Gooch told them all he was making inquiries about the hold-up. When he told Edmonds “they had reason to believe he knew something about it”, Edmonds laughed. When asked if he had any guns, Edmonds answered in the affirmative, and produced a rifle, a revolver, and a single barrel shot gun “which he stated belonged to a lady friend of his in Townsville.” Gooch took possession of the firearms and 13 cartridges. Gooch also “took possession of a pair of dungaree trousers, a white shirt, and a big-brimmed cowboy hat, which defendant admitted he had been wearing on December 9. He also took possession of the coat shirt which was damp.” [Author’s note: If there were two hats, was more than one person involved in the hold-up? If only one bandit, wearing the brown hat, did it fit Edmonds?] The clothes were tendered in court as Exhibit One. Gooch had walked over to O’Driscoll and Raetz, who were “examining a motor car”. Raetz picked up “a dirty white handkerchief in the back seat” with blood on it. Edmonds admitted the handkerchief was his. He had hurt his finger and used the handkerchief to bind it.
From Edmonds’ residence, they left to go to Tealby’s, where Edmonds said he had left the horse he was riding on December 9th. He had left home at 9:30am that morning, ridden the boundary fence and “put a couple of mobs of horses across the creek”, changing horses at Tealby’s on the way home. As they left for Tealby’s, Edmonds asked Tier “Is that mare of mine shod?”, but Tier didn’t reply. At Tealby’s Edmonds identified his “baldy chestnut mare” as the horse he’d been riding on the morning of December 9th. Edmonds “led the mare around the yard, and also in the [addock, after which he showed her tracks to Constable Rynne and the tracker”. From Tealby’s, Gooch, Raetz, O’Driscoll, McDonald, Rynne, O’Brien, Miners, Edmonds and Sergeant Howard (who was leading the mare) all proceeded to the scene of the crime on Mt. Spec Road.
Gooch told Edmonds that tracks had been found in the gully and that Rynne and one the trackers had followed them to Tealby’s gate. A broken twig showed where a horse had been led up the gully. Tracks led out of the gully. The mare was walked alongside the tracks. “Defendant wanted to have a look at the tracks, saying he was a better tracker than any nigger. Defendant broke off a small twig and measured both tracks.” Gooch lifted the mare’s hind foot and compared both sets of tracks, coming to the conclusion that they were both made by the mare. Here defence counsel Roberts challenged Gooch’s expertise in tracking. Gooch’s response is not recorded in the Bulletin’s report.
Gooch continued his testimony, stating that he had followed the tracks intermittently to Tealby’s house and then on to Edmonds’ house. Returning to the scene of the ambush, Gooch informed Edmonds that the hold-up had taken place at 10:45am on December 9th. O’Brien then informed Edmonds that he had identified him as the person involved, which Edmonds denied. Gooch reminded Edmonds that O’Brien had called out that it was “Charlie Edmonds” as he was running away. Gooch told O’Brien Edmonds said he was making a mistake about the identity of the perpetrator, but Constable O’Brien did not agree. Gooch told Edmonds that the offender had been wearing a coat shirt. Gooch asked Edmonds “to put it on and let Constable O’Brien have a look at him. Defendant agreed to do so [Author’s note: under duress?], and with witness [Gooch], walked into the bush, O’Brien staying on the road. Constable O’Brien then came over and said there was no mistake and he was the man all right”. Edmonds was escorted to Rollingstone, where the party stayed overnight, arriving in Townsville on 11th December where Edmonds was formally charged.
On the train south, Edmonds told Gooch he could prove where he was on Wednesday morning. “He had been rounding up horses with two girls”, but “he refused to disclose the identity of the girls”. Gooch had asked Edmonds who had ridden the horse to Mutarnee, to which Edmonds replied that one of the girls did “and he later took her home in his car”. Gooch had seen a girl called Pearl Davies riding past the crime scene on the afternoon of 9th December, so returned to Mutarnee on the 16th to interview both Pearl and Grace Davies. Gooch told Edmonds that if he had in fact been out mustering horses at the time of the hold-up, he should not have been arrested. However, the two Misses Davies denied mustering with Edmonds, but Pearl did indeed ride Edmonds horse home. Edmonds had stated “there were two other young women whom witness [Gooch] could interview, but he would not disclose their names.”
At this point, Roberts stressed that “The identification of the defendant is a very material thing. There were three men in the car. Why didn’t you take Stewart out to this dress rehearsal?” Gooch denied it was “a dress rehearsal”, adding that he had not involved the other two men because they had said they could not identify him. Gooch took offence at the suggestion there was any “underhand work in the case”, to which Roberts replied, “I don’t say there was, but I am going to criticise your methods. At Rollingstone on December 11, wasn’t Stewart asked to identify him?” Gooch was unaware if this had happened and it was not in his presence. Roberts then proceeded to challenge the necessity for identification to be made by a police constable. Roberts noted that “The night they arrived at Mt Spec it rained about one and a half to two inches. No plaster casts were taken of the horses’ [Author’s note: plural?] as he did not think it was advisable.” Gooch admitted that Edmonds was the first “suspect” he spoke to, and that Constable O’Brien had given him a description of the man involved, “but definitely told witness [Gooch] it was Charlie Edmonds.” Gooch was unaware that when O’Brien was first making enquiries, he had “described the man as being of short build and wearing a long khaki coat.”
Roberts continued his cross-examination of Gooch. Edmonds “offered no resistance in searching his hut” on the Thursday morning. The hut was half unroofed, a consequence of the storm the night before, leaving everything wet inside. The hat found at the crime scene was not tried on Edmonds. Edmonds did not give Gooch the revolver. Presumably Gooch was also talking of Edmonds when the report continues “He did not suggest the gun in his possession was the one that fired the shot and would not be tendered as an exhibit”? Gooch did state that no cartridges of a shot gun were picked up [Author’s note: Where and when? And by whom? Cartridges as compared to wads?]
Regarding the clothes in Exhibit One, O’Brien had asked Edmonds how long it was since Edmonds had worn them, as they were wet, but Gooch did not hear Edmonds’ reply. The trousers were hanging on a line. Regarding the handkerchief, Gooch stated that Edmonds said it had been used to wipe the windscreen of his car. When they arrived on scene on December 10th, Gooch “did not see any foot tracks up to where the horse was tied.” Gooch had indicated to Edmonds the direction in which the man had fled – from the barricade to the gully. Gooch claimed that Edmonds “did not tell him there were no indications of a horse being tied to a tree in the gully.” Edmonds had asked the tracker if two horses had gone up the gully, to which the tracker replied in the negative. Gooch “did not have an argument with defendant regarding the horse tracks.” Furthermore, “he [defendant, Edmonds] did not tell witness [Gooch] there were two sets of tracks down the gully, and that neither corresponded”. The court then adjourned for lunch.
