by Linda Venn
Click here for a list of key characters in this story
Evidence concluded; Edmonds committed for trial in the Supreme Court, Friday 8th January 1932.
On Friday 8th January 1932, evidence concluded with that of Thomas Murray and Arthur Ashman. Many regional newspaper reports provide no mention of their evidence e.g. Toowoomba Chronicle and Darling Downs Gazette, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 6; Telegraph, Brisbane, Friday 8th January 1932, p. 2 – article repeated in the Telegraph, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 2; Cairns Post, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 5.)
The Brisbane Truth provides a brief summary of their evidence for the defence. Murray was a labourer, resident in the district. Ashman was an employee of the Main Roads Board. Their evidence was given
“in detail, regarding Constable O’Brien’s request for assistance in tracking the bushranger.
The description of the bandit, which the constable supplied to them was that of a tall, thin man wearing a dirty white shirt over the outside of his trousers, with a dirty piece of cloth over his face, and no hat on.
Both stated that O’Brien never at any time mentioned that Edmonds was the man concerned in the hold-up.” (Truth, Brisbane, Sunday 10th January 1932, p. 9.)
Once again, the Bulletin satisfies local interest with a detailed coverage. Both Murray and Ashman had been in the party of MRC employees involved in the initial search on the afternoon of the hold-up. Thomas Murray was a labourer employed on the Mt. Spec Road. He had been a local resident “for a number of years.” The report of Murray’s evidence continues:
On December 9 he saw Constable O’Brien at the office at Mt Spec road, who told him that there had been a hold-up, and asked witness’ assistance. O’Brien gave a description of the man. Saying he was a tall thin man and was wearing a dirty white shirt pulled down over his trousers, and that he was not wearing a hat. Witness then left for the scene of the hold-up on his own. O’Brien asked him if he could get a horse, which he considered he could get at Tealby’s. They then left, witness riding across country to Tealby’s, arriving there about the same time as the lorry.
That afternoon at O’Brien’s request, he (Murray) and a man named Ashby went searching the locality, calling- at Edmonds’ place during the day. The latter offered his assistance, but he (Murray) did not communicate this to O’Brien. O’Brien never suggested to him that Edmonds was the man.
On Thursday morning he met a party of police at the scene of the hold-up, and they told htm to search for tracks. The trackers found the tracks of a horse, and they asked witness if he rode through this certain spot in the gully, and he replied in the affirmative. They requested him to ride his horse again through the gully, and he did so. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 7.)
Once again, we can only surmise the actual questions posed by Sub-Inspector Blackmore in his cross-examination of Murray. The Bulletin report continues:
O’Brien would be lying if he said he did not describe the bandit, nor did he ask witness to search round far any strangers in that locality. He (Murray) also went to Gill’s place, after calling at Edmonds and Tealby’s. Edmonds and Tear were the only persons at the former’s hut, where he told them they were looking for a bushranger. He remained at Edmonds about an hour, although he had only known defendant a few months. Gill was quite surprised when he heard of the hold-up.
He (Murray) rode a chestnut horse with medium size hoofs when he set out from Mt. Spec.
O’Brien did not tell witness not to go to Edmonds’ place, nor did he tell O’Brien on the following morning that he had not been to Edmonds’ hut. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Saturday 9th January 1932, p. 7.)