by Linda Venn
Click here for a list of key characters in this story
Continuing Edmonds’ evidence in his defence, Tuesday 5th January 1932
On the Thursday morning, 10th December, Edmonds was repairing the roof of his hut that had been damaged in the storm and heavy rain of the day before, when four police arrived. While there, the police “examined clothes and ammunition”. (Daily Standard, Brisbane, Wednesday 6th January, p. 2) This was when Detective Gooch took possession of Edmonds’ eight firearms, including the unlicensed revolver and a single-barrelled shotgun. (Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 14) Constable O’Brien spoke to Edmonds first, and Edmonds admitted making a comment that O’Brien had been lucky the previous day.
Edmonds continued his description of the police visit that morning. He had “informed the party they were welcome to have a look around….O’Brien took a silk shirt hanging on the line, but did not say anything about it. He also removed a khaki shirt coat hanging on the wall which defendant told O’Brien belonged to his father, and which defendant had never worn in his life. He was then called over to the car shed, where he admitted a handkerchief found in the car belonged to him.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 7) Edmonds claimed that “nothing was said of the hold-up while the police were there.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 9)
Edmonds was then taken via Tealby’s to the scene of the hold-up about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Edmonds continued, describing the police examination of the horse tracks.
“There was a fresh track coming from the road into Tealby’s and Gooch, Rynne and the tracker were satisfied that it was the track of the chestnut mare. He (Edmonds) asked them to measure the track of the mare. They did and said it was exactly the same. He (witness) told the police that the track was identical with that of the mare ridden by Murray that morning. His (Edmonds’) mare had been along the road the previous day, when he came from his hut to Tealby’s.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 9)
(Author’s note: Edmonds had left his mare at Tealby’s, which was between his hut and the hold-up scene. His mare had therefore come from the opposite direction on the day of the hold-up.)
At the scene of the hold-up, Edmonds “was unable to see the tracks alleged by the police but could see fresh bootmarks.” The Brisbane Courier briefly reports on the activity at the scene of the hold-up, but does include Edmonds quoting Detective O’Driscoll when he and Edmonds “disagreed over the track marks at the side of the gully. Detective O’Driscoll said, ‘Charlie, don’t think we are putting anything over you with these tracks.’ The tracks they followed were not the tracks of the chestnut mare. They measured the tracks with a piece of stick, and they were identical with that of a mare ridden by Murray that morning.” (Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 14.)
The Townsville Daily Bulletin records this section of Edmonds’ evidence in more detail, and is worth repeating in full:
“the police pointed out to him where a horse had been tied up, in the gully. The country was heavily timbered. He told Detective Sergeant O’Driscoll he could not detect any horse tracks, only fresh boot tracks. He did not consider a horse was tied to the tree. Detective-Sergeant O’Driscoll then pointed to some fresh tracks, adding that it was where the horse had left the gully, but defendant argued there were two sets of tracks there, and was emphatic about it.
Detective-Sergeant O’Driscoll stated to defendant that they were not endeavouring to put anything over him in regard to the tracks. He had been amongst stock in the bush all his life. Acting-Sergeant Rynne or Detective Gooch suggested measuring the tracks, and he suggested they measure the mare’s hoof and the tracks, which they did. The original tracks were made in black loose sand on the bank of the gully, and heavy rain had filled the tracks, and made the outside of them much bigger, and when they were measured the tracks were not similar. They measured the mare’s tracks and compared them with the inner Imprint of the old track, and said they -were similar, but he disagreed with them. When they had the argument about the tracks, they said they would keep going, and about 80 yards from the first tree, they came to another tree where Detective Gooch said another horse had been tied up. He (Edmonds) said It was possible but they were still in the tracks of two horses. Asked to show them the tracks defendant did so, and the blacktracker said there also appeared to be two tracks there, but Acting Sergeant Rynne disagreed with him.
They followed the tracks round the fence up the hill. When they returned to the flat country again, Detective Gooch intimated to Acting-Sergeant Rynne that they were still on the track, but there were numerous tracks there.
They continued on for a further 100 yards, but Acting Sergeant Rynne told them It was not the track they followed the previous evening. After argument they followed the track, a little further, where Rynne Indicated he had lost the track the previous evening, but it had been, picked up that morning. They followed the track to Tealby’s, where they lost It, and defendant picked it up for them. They were not the tracks of the chestnut mare.
It had been stated in previous evidence that the tracks were found at Tealby’s gate, but this was impossible owing to the rain. Here they again measured the tracks and the mare’s foot, and stated they were the same. They lost the tracks for 10 or 15 yards. He (Edmonds) told them the track which they stated was that of his mare belonged to a horse ridden by Kelly Murray. His mare had been on the track the previous day. They returned to the scene of the hold-up between 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. in a lorry. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6th January 1932, p. 7)