Posts

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”.

by Linda Venn

The evidence given by Detective Gooch, Monday 28^th 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 9^th 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 9^th. 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 9^th. 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 9^th. 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 11^th 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 9^th December, so returned to Mutarnee on the 16^th 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 10^th, 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.