Author: admin

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

More evidence from the hearing on Monday 4^th January 1932

Next to take the stand was Julia Martha Elizabeth Tealby, wife of Mr. Vivian Tealby. Julia Tealby stated that she resided at Moongabulla and that she knew Edmonds. James Murray, a labourer from Mutarnee, had come to her house at 7:30 a.m. on December 9^th and stayed there. Edmonds had ridden up about 11:30 a.m. Julia Tealby was ironing at the time, but she saw Edmonds go up to the cow-yard where Murray was. She confirmed that Edmonds “had several horses running at her place”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) She had not noticed the condition of the horse, but Edmonds was wearing a blue shirt. At 11:45 a.m., Edmonds left “riding a horse and leading another, and Murray left with him.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3)

The following day, Edmonds had asked her what time it was that he had arrived at her house Wednesday morning and she had told him 11:30. Magistrate Cameron asked Mrs. Tealby “whether the mare he (Edmonds) rode on December 9 was the one the police took away”, but she had not taken any notice. Questioning by defence counsel George Roberts confirmed that Edmonds came to Tealby’s on a daily basis, “and there was nothing whatever to arouse her attention on that morning”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3)

Henry Harrington (‘Harry’) Stewart, the Main Roads Commission driver on the day of the hold-up, was next to give evidence. Stewart stated that he knew Edmonds. It was Stewart’s duty to meet the rail motor at Moongabulla every second Wednesday and drive the paymaster to Mt. Spec. Stewart’s evidence regarding the details of the hold-up corroborated that of Killoran and O’Brien. Stewart was also unable to identify Edmonds as the bandit: “As the man ran away witness’ (Stewart’s) view was obscured by the undergrowth, but he noticed the man was wearing a long coat as he knelt behind the ambush. He would not say the defendant was the man he noticed behind the ambush, although he considered the man would be about 5ft. 9in. or 5ft. 10in. and would weigh in the vicinity of 12st. 10lbs.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) “The bandit…was wearing a slouch hat, and his face was partly covered by a dirty coloured handkerchief, similar to the handkerchief produced in court.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 1)

Stewart had seen Edmonds at the Main Roads Mt. Spec office on the Tuesday before the payroll hold-up. Edmonds was speaking to Herbertson, the Main Roads timekeeper. “It was a general conversation, during which he (Edmonds) remarked on the amount of pay that would be coming out.” Edmonds had also asked McClelland, the overseer, “for four gallons of benzine as he (defendant) was proceeding to Townsville the next day”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) Stewart had never seen Edmonds at the office before. Edmonds’ request for fuel was denied.

The cross-examination by Roberts, focused on the identification of Edmonds as the culprit. Stewart stated that “he had known Edmonds for 10 years, but had only seen him on and off since his employment at Mt. Spec. He was never asked to identify defendant as the man who held them up,” even though Edmonds was on the hotel verandah while Stewart was also at Rollingstone. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) He had been asked by police if he could identify the bandit when he was running away, but he could not. Stewart had gone back to the scene of the crime “with the intention of searching for defendant’s body” as he thought that “when O’Brien fired his third shot…the bullet had found its mark”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) O’Brien searched for tracks but found only boot tracks. Stewart was of the opinion that everyone in the district would know that the pay car ran every alternate Wednesday. Although the shots did not come from different angles, and Stewart “could not say the general opinion was there were two men in the hold-up, but he personally thought so.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) Sub-Inspector’s cross-examination focused on whether Stewart would notice that the vehicle had a front flat tyre, which we know it eventually did, and that the tyre with bullet hole was seized as evidence.

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

The hearing resumes on Monday 4^th January 1932

Six witnesses gave evidence on Monday’s resumption of the hearing in the Police Court, Police Magistrate George Cameron presiding. First to give evidence was Michael Killoran, the Main Roads Commission paymaster and storekeeper, who had commenced work at Mt Spec on 9^th September 1931. Killoran travelled to Townsville every fortnight to bring the payroll back to Mt Spec the next day by rail motor. The total payroll on the day in question exceeded £400. Killoran’s evidence corroborated O’Brien’s up to the time of the hold-up, adding further detail to O’Brien’s description.

Killoran stated that the bandit when he fired the shots “appeared to be in a kneeling position, and was well disguised.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.) Killoran confirmed his injury from one of the pellets from the first shot, which hit him just above his right eye. Asked to identify the clothing, Killoran considered that “the coat worn by the bandit was a little longer than that produced in Court.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.) Killoran did not identify Edmonds as the bandit. “He would not say that defendant was similar to the man who staged the hold-up. He considered the bandit was about 5ft. 10in. in height, and was pretty active. There was too much undergrowth to be able to recognise the man.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.) Cross-examined by Roberts, Killoran did admit that O’Brien “was in a more direct line and would have a better view of the man. At Rollingstone he (Killoran) was quite unable to identify defendant as the man.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.)

Killoran had not used his revolver but corroborated the total number of shots fired as eight. After the first shot from the bandit, O’Brien had fired one shot from his revolver and the bandit returned fire, hitting the bonnet and mudguard of the truck. At this point, both Killoran and Stewart hastily exited the vehicle on opposite sides, Killoran tearing the sole off his boot in the process. Killoran took cover behind the bonnet of the vehicle. (Telegraph, Brisbane, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 1.) O’Brien had fired two more shots from his revolver, then “while the bandit, whom witness (Killoran) saw running up the hill, was getting away, the constable got a rifle from the back of the truck and fired three shots at the running figure, which was then some 60 yards distant.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 1.) The payroll party then proceeded to the Main Roads camp.

Next to give evidence was Edward George Howard, a labourer employed by Mr. Vivian Tealby. Howard stated that he knew Edmonds. On December 9^th, at about 10:30 a.m., Howard “was gathering pineapples in front of Tealby’s house, when the pay lorry passed through the yards towards Mt. Spec.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.) (Author’s note: Here we need to remember that the hold-up took place at 10:45 a.m., and that Tealby’s was between Edmonds’ hut and the scene of the hold-up.) Howard is reported as continuing, “about an hour later he saw defendant riding a chestnut horse in the direction of Tealby’s yard, coming from the direction of his hut. The horse was sweating freely, but he did not take particular notice of the defendant. He noticed defendant leaving Tealby’s, riding one horse and leading another, but neither of the horses was the chestnut.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.) Cross-examined by Roberts, Howard agreed it had been a very hot day when Edmonds rode up to Tealby’s. (Author’s note: Perhaps this explained the sweating horse?) Howard had been close enough to identify Edmonds at Tealby’s, from 15 to 20 yards away. Howard knew that Edmonds had several horses at Tealby’s. (Author’s note: Of what significance is the fact that Edmonds changed horses?) Asked later by the Magistrate, Howard said he believed Edmonds had been wearing a blue shirt. (Author’s note: How does this compare to O’Brien’s description?)

On Wednesday 10^th December, Howard was present when Edmonds, “in company with a party of police, brought the mare into the yard. He did not recognise the horse which he examined outside the Court as the one defendant rode that morning.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.) (Author’s note: Which morning? The day of the hold-up, or the day the police arrived with Edmonds at Tealby’s?)

Howard next saw Edmonds a day or two later, when Edmonds had asked him “the general opinion of people in the district as regarded his case”, but Howard had said he did not know. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3.)

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

An Analysis of Constable O’Brien’s evidence, given after lunch on Tuesday 29^th December 1931

Roberts appears to have hammered O’Brien about his identification of Edmonds. If O’Brien was so confident Edmonds was the bandit, why had he suggested to Edmonds he would personally investigate anything Edmonds could tell him that would prove his innocence? Why had O’Brien not requested that men at the Main Roads camp accompany him back to the scene of the crime to pick up the dead bandit, as Stewart suggested they would find, but only to look for evidence. O’Brien had not asked Stewart then if he could identify the bandit. At Rollingstone on the Friday, while Killoran and Stewart were both there, O’Brien had not asked either to identify Edmonds as the offender. O’Brien also denied that either Killoran or Stewart had told him the bandit’s face was covered, not by a handkerchief, but by something that “came down to his chest”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien also denied hearing Killoran say “he had never seen Edmonds in his life”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11)

O’Brien had not given the search party a description of the offender, instead, he had told them it was Edmonds they were looking for. Roberts suggested that O’Brien arrested Edmonds on instructions from his superiors in Townsville, which O’Brien denied. When asked why he had not followed the bandit farther, O’Brien claimed that his first responsibility was to secure the payroll. He had only been an escort once before, about seven months previous. The desire to see the payroll safely delivered was the reason why O’Brien had not made any further investigations at the crime scene immediately after the hold-up. O’Brien was reprimanded for this by his superior officers. However, as O’Brien already knew who the culprit was, he did not consider it necessary to investigate further any details of his identification. He informed his superiors who the bandit was in a phone call from Main Roads Camp No. 1, within half an hour of the hold-up. (Daily Standard, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 15.)

Under pressure, O’Brien admitted that “if he had followed…[the]…defendant 100 yards or so, he may have been able to again recognise him, or he may have been able to shoot him”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien was not sure that the bandit had run directly to the gully, where the tracks were found. In the Brisbane Courier published on Wednesday 30^th December 1931, O’Brien is reported as having called out during the hold-up, “That’s Charlie Edmonds, the __________.” (Author’s note: bastard?) Furthermore, O’Brien categorically denied telling a Main Roads Commission employee, a Mr. English, that the person responsible for the hold-up was a tall man, nor that he’d suggested to English they should go to the railway station to detain a tall man.

On the afternoon of the hold-up, O’Brien had asked searchers Murray and Ashley for assistance, but only to find the firearms or items of clothing. O’Brien had not given them a description of the bandit. Roberts queried whether O’Brien told Murray and Ashley that the bandit wore “a long khaki coat, like a motor driver’s coat, or that the bandit was wearing a mask and a slouch hat”, but this O’Brien denied. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien claimed a Mr. Murray did not tell him he was with Edmonds on the Wednesday morning. O’Brien appears to have interviewed a second Mr. Murray at Tealby’s, who said he’d ridden with Edmonds from Tealby’s to Mutarnee on the Wednesday morning, passing by the scene of the crime at about 11:50am. While this timing might have allowed Edmonds to be the bandit and get away, it did cast doubt on whether he would revisit the scene so soon afterwards.

When at Edmonds’ hut, O’Brien claimed he did not inform Edmonds that he was under suspicion, nor that he (O’Brien) was convinced Edmonds was the bandit. At Edmonds’ hut, O’Brien “had a conversation with Edmonds about the coat, but did not tell him it was the coat he was wearing the day before, although he was positive he had”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien denied telling Edmonds he could not identify the bandit.

O’Brien denied being involved in setting up the“dress rehearsal” but did admit that it was during this dress-up that he had identified Edmonds to Detective Gooch, in Edmonds’ presence. Later in the cross-examination, O’Brien denied telling Gooch that Edmonds was the man. O’Brien confirmed that he’d told Edmonds “he would be long sorry if he got…[the]…defendant into trouble or any one else”, when Edmonds insisted O’Brien’s identification of him was mistaken. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) At the “dress rehearsal”, O’Brien did hear Sergeant O’Driscoll “tell Edmonds they did not want to put anything over him and that they were giving him every chance to clear himself, even though witness (O’Brien) had positively identified him for two days”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien also confirmed that Edmonds consistently denied any connection to the hold-up.

O’Brien acknowledged the inquiries made by other police around the district, “but he did not know why they did so, only because it was to give Edmonds a fair go”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11) O’Brien denied that members of the police party had expressed the opinion “that they could not prove it was Edmonds, unless…[the]…witness (O’Brien) identified him, and they never told (O’Brien) he was the sole person who could identify him”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11)

In answer to Sub-Inspector Blackmore’s apparently brief summing up, O’Brien confirmed that the police party went to Edmonds’ hut “in consequence of what he (O’Brien) had told Detective Gooch”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11)

The Police case seemed to rest on O’Brien’s identification of Charlie Edmonds.

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Continuing the evidence given by Constable O’Brien, Tuesday 29^th December

After Rynne came Constable Leonard Edward O’Brien, whose evidence regarding the actual hold-up we have already heard in Part Four. We pick up O’Brien’s testimony from the arrival of police reinforcements late on Wednesday afternoon, 9^th December. Following a conversation with Gooch, O’Brien searched the surroundings, including the horse tracks in the gully “pointed out to him by Senior Detective Sergeant O’Driscoll.” O’Brien then returned to Mt Spec, where he overnighted.

Thursday morning, O’Brien went to Rollingstone and had a conversation with the three detectives, O’Driscoll, Gooch and Raetz. O’Brien then guided the police party to Edmonds’ hut at Ollera Gorge. When they arrived at Edmonds’, Edmonds shook hands with O’Brien and said, “Well, Len, you had a bit of bad luck yesterday, but you came out of it alright.” O’Brien replied, “Yes, but I was lucky.” Edmonds asked O’Brien “if they wanted any assistance or horses.” Edmonds had given Murray, one of the local volunteers, a message for O’Brien the afternoon before offering these, but O’Brien never received any such message.

Leaving Edmonds’ hut, the party proceeded to the scene of the hold-up, taking Edmonds with them. There followed a bit of “he said/ she said” kind of argument. Gooch informed Edmonds that O’Brien had identified him as the bandit; Edmonds replied that O’Brien was making a mistake; O’Brien said he had recognised Edmonds as he was running away. Edmonds “again said witness [O’Brien] was making a mistake, adding that he would not shoot a cobber.” [Author’s note: What was the existing relationship between O’Brien and Edmonds? O’Brien had known Edmonds for many years, but in what capacity. Why was he being called a ‘cobber’?] Then came “the dress rehearsal” so disparaged by Roberts. Edmonds put on the hat and coat while O’Brien and Gooch stood where O’Brien had been when he saw the bandit running away. O’Brien then “walked over to the defendant and told him he was making no mistake and the defendant was the man, and the latter replied he would not come at it for a few paltry pounds.” As they were leaving, Edmonds said, “Here goes the bushranger” and claimed “he would get out of it”. Edmonds even tried to get O’Brien to take a bet on his acquittal, offering to buy them both “a ticket in Tattersalls”, but O’Brien declined. Gooch then took Edmonds to Rollingstone and O’Brien returned to Mt. Spec to examine the utility truck.

On examining the ute, O’Brien could see where shot had hit both the hood and the mudguard. Mr. McClelland [Main Roads Overseer], handed O’Brien “some pellets and a tube of the car…the latter had a hole in it.” O’Brien “recognised a handkerchief produced as similar to that worn by defendant.” When O’Brien saw Edmonds the next day, Edmonds asked O’Brien to deliver a message to Gill, “to the effect that when Gill got to Townsville to go and see his father, and tell him he had been taken in on suspicion of holding-up the Mt. Spec pay, and that he had not been arrested.” Gill, Searle and “a half-caste” named Jimmy Tier had all been at Edmonds’ hut when the police arrived there. O’Brien had further conversations with Edmonds at Rollingstone, “during which defendant [Edmonds] told witness [O’Brien] he did not bear him any malice, and was satisfied he [O’Brien] was making an honest mistake,” to which O’Brien again disagreed. Edmonds “stated he had nothing to tell him [O’Brien] to prove his innocence.”

Roberts then began a vigorous cross-examination of O’Brien, upon whose identification of Edmonds the prosecution case rested. As only O’Brien’s responses are recorded in the Bulletin report, we can only surmise the text of Roberts’ questions, but there were many, and Roberts was persistent in putting his question to O’Brien. Rather than trying to summarise the line of questioning, I have included extracts below from the court report from the Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, page 11. The level of detail included in the court report confirms the level of public interest in this case. This report will be analysed in the next instalment. Police Prosecutor Blackmore either had little to ask of O’Brien, or the reporter neglected to include much of his cross-examination, for the column-inches given to Blackmore were miniscule in comparison. Blackmore merely established that “it was in consequence of what he [O’Brien] had told Detective Gooch that the police party went to defendant’s hut.” Once again, public holidays intervened. Edmonds’ bail was further extended and the case was adjourned to “Monday next, January 4^th, at 11:30 a.m.”

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

The evidence given by Constable Rynne, Monday 28^th December

Constable Rynne was now called to give evidence. He had arrived at Mt Spec Road about 4pm on the day of the hold-up, meeting up with “a number of men, and they made an investigation of the surroundings.” Rynne saw the log (about 15 feet long) and the pile of bushes on the left hand side going up the road. He “also found on two trees marks made by pellets from a gun, and found a pellet embedded in a tree on the right hand side looking at Mt Spec, and about three feet from the road and about 18 yards from the clump of bushes.” With Acting Sergeant McDonald and a tracker, Rynne conducted a search of the area for footprints. The tracker showed him hoof marks and also “barely distinct footprints of a size 7 or 8 boot” in a gully about 130 yards away. There were “a number of hoof marks there but rain which had come down the gully and partly obliterated them”. Rynne believed the tracks to be new. As with Gooch, Roberts challenged Rynne on his competency to conclude this; “he was not an expert to say so”, and besides, “the rain had covered them.”

Rynne continued. He stated that there were “two distinct tracks going out of the gully which he followed along the side of the mountain to Tealby’s fence and up the side of the mountain for about a chain.” Rynne estimated the length of tracks followed to be approximately half a mile. The tracks “appeared to have been freshly made, and made by a horse travelling at a fairly fast gallop.” The rain fell after these tracks had been made. Rynne then went back to the crime scene, where he met up with the police from Townsville.

The next day, the police again looked for the tracks, but now found that sections were under water. Rynne found some tracks similar to those he had found the previous afternoon, and these were also followed for about a quarter of a mile in the direction of Tealby’s yard. Rynne later went to Tealby’s yard, where Gooch showed him the chestnut mare. The mare was led through the yard, and Rynne thought “the tracks appeared similar to those he had followed from the gully. He formed the conclusions that the tracks found on the previous day were those of the chestnut mare.” However, when a comparison was made with the tracks in the gully, Edmonds had said they were not of the mare’s. Edmonds picked up the tracks about a chain from Tealby’s gate and followed them to within six feet of the gate. At the gate, “Detective Gooch told defendant that the tracker considered the tracks were made by the chestnut mare, and that he must have come down the track, but defendant stated he had come down the track from the direction of his hut”, adding “he would not pull a gun on a man for a few pounds.” Edmonds lived about a mile and a quarter from Tealby’s, but Tealby’s was admittedly closer to the scene of the hold-up. At this point, Roberts requested that Rynne prepare “a plan of the country he traversed from the scene of the hold-up”, in readiness for Tuesday morning’s session. The court then adjourned until 11 o’clock the next day.

Rynne continued giving evidence on Tuesday morning (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 30^th December 1931, p. 11). He stated that O’Brien was not the first person he met at the scene of the hold-up. “There were a number of civilians there, the majority of whom had guns. He did not know there were other men searching the district. The country was rather thickly timbered.” Rynne first met Edmonds the next day [Thursday] at Tealby’s yard, then at Edmonds’ hut on the Friday, and again on Sunday. On Sunday, in company with O’Brien and the tracker, they obtained a statement from Tier. Rynne confirmed that Edmonds referred “to other tracks, alleging they were not the tracks of his mare.” Rynne stated he was not equipped to take plaster casts of the tracks or any sample of them “owing to the nature of the ground.” Rynne agreed “it would have been very material for the prosecution if he had been able to take the tracks in the soil.” However, Rynne did not hear Gooch point out to Edmonds “another place where a horse had been tied up.” Rynne recalled only one gap in the tracks, of about 150 yards, and did not know what Gooch meant when he said they “followed the tracks intermittently.” Rynne had not told Edmonds he had followed the tracks all around the yard the previous afternoon and “had lost them.” Rynne did not agree with Edmonds’ suggestion “that horses had been galloping all over the country.” Rynne was “quite satisfied that the tracks they followed on December 10, with defendant were the tracks witness [Rynne] had followed the previous day.” Where the tracks were lost, they were leading to Edmonds’ hut, so they had searched in a circle of between 150 and 300 yards. Edmonds denied the tracks were of his horse. At Edmonds’ request, Rynne had measured some tracks near Tealby’s. He had not told Edmonds these tracks were not those of the mare.

Rynne was present at the dress rehearsal, “but he did not hear Detective Gooch say to Constable O’Brien that they would dress defendant up.” Rynne saw Edmonds shake hands with O’Brien and heard him tell O’Brien “he was making a mistake, as he would not hold a cobber up for the pay.” O’Brien has replied “he would be the sorriest man in the world if he were making a mistake.” Rynne saw no more of Edmonds, as he had then gone on to the Main Roads camp.

Rynne was questioned about the tracks by both Roberts and the police prosecutor, Sub-Inspector Blackmore. Rynne confirmed that the tracks from the scene of the hold-up did not go directly to Tealby’s, but took about a mile to cover. Blackmore endeavoured to establish that only one horse, not two, and therefore only one man, not two, had been involved in the hold-up. Rynne had seen “nothing to indicate that more than one horse had been tied up in the gully, or that one horse had been tied up in two places, nor did he find indications that more than one horse had been ridden out of the gully, or that a horse had been ridden down into the gully.”

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

The evidence given by Detective Gooch, Monday 28^th December (after lunch)

Roberts continued his cross-examination of Detective Gooch after lunch. Robert’s probing questioning and frustration sets the tone of the newspaper report. Gooch stated that the distance between the log across the road and the bush barricade was 15 yards. The vehicle would have driven past the offender, “and any of the occupants in the car would have had to turn around to see defendant.” Given the slight fall of the land between the bushes and the gully, Gooch was not suggesting that the occupants of the utility would have been able to see the offender at 150 yards distance, but they would have been able to at 45 yards.

Gooch agreed that Edmonds had pointed out “two or three tracks to the tracker. He [Gooch] understood Edmonds was an expert bushman, but he (witness) had sense enough to know an old track from a new one….Edmonds drew attention to a lot of other tracks which he said were fresh, but he (witness) did not agree with him. He understood there were horses running on that country.” These tracks were not traced to Edmonds’ hut. Edmonds had suggested they should look at the tracks where he had been moving the horses over the creek, “but they did not go because there was no reason to go.” Gooch did not remember the tracker saying the tracks went along the foot of the hill, nor did he hear discussion between the tracker and Constable Rynne “as to whether the track they followed on the previous night was the one they were following on December 10.” Gooch knew the track was only followed for about 200 yards on the day of the hold-up, but they “continued to pick it up after the heavy rain of the night before.” The tracks were picked up again near Tealby’s and Rynne “was quite confident they were the tracks they had followed the previous day.”

Roberts now turned his attention to “the dress rehearsal”. Edmonds was not within hearing distance of the conversation between Gooch, Detective Senior Sergeant O’Driscoll and Constable O’Brien at the crime scene. Gooch did not suggest to O’Brien that Edmonds put on the coat and hat in an attempt to clear himself. Apparently, “the defendant did it willingly himself”. This was the first time Edmonds had been asked to try the hat on. Edmonds denied it was his, as it was too big for him. Gooch did not suggest to O’Brien that they dress Edmonds up and “stand him where the hold-up occurred”. Gooch certainly “did not say to Constable O’Brien that they had nothing on this ‘bird’”. On the truck bringing Edmonds and some of the volunteers back to Rollingstone, one of the men commented that “the bandit was a bad shot, with which Edmonds said the bandit might have known the constable.” Gooch was certain “that no one said that they had nothing on defendant; neither did he say that the fact of Edmonds saying that the man did not want to shoot O’Brien was alone sufficient proof that Edmonds did it.” Gooch had not suggested to Edmonds that more than one man was involved in the hold-up. He had however, spoken to both Gill and Searle about Edmonds’ movements. While they waited overnight at Rollingstone, Gooch did not discuss the case with anyone, and Edmonds was closely watched. Gooch did admit that, although both Stewart and Killoran were at Rollingstone on the following morning, “he never confronted Stewart and Killoran with the defendant”.