Category: History

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Continuing evidence for the defence, Tuesday 5^th January 1932

After lunch, Roberts called Edward/ Edwin Gill to the stand. Gill “gave evidence as to the defendant’s movements on the day of the hold-up, saying that he had seen him at breakfast, later at 10:15 a.m. when the defendant returned to the camp, and again at 10:30, when he gave him a message for Tear.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.)

Again, the local press gives us the most detailed report. Gill stated that

“on December 9 last he resided at Ollera Gorge, carrying on farming with William Searle. Since then they had dissolved partnership. His house was 100 yards from Edmonds’ hut. On December 9 he saw Edmonds early in the morning, about 7 o’clock. He was in company with tear, but he did not see him with Searle. Later on, he saw defendant riding back to his hut, and also saw him leave again in about a quarter of an hour’s time. Defendant left a message with witness to tell Tear not to leave till defendant arrived back. Witness (Gill) asked defendant the time and defendant told him 10:30 a.m. Witness returned to his camp 10 minutes later, where he noticed the time was 10:45 a.m.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.7.)

(Author’s note: Remember that Gooch had informed Edmonds that the hold-up took place at 10:45 a.m.)

Gill was then cross-examined by Sub-Inspector Blackmore. As only Gill’s responses are reported, we can only guess what the questions were.

“He (Gill) had only known defendant (Edmonds) about two months. At 8 o’clock that morning witness (Gill) was out horse-hunting. Tear and defendant were the only men residing at the latter’s hut. That morning Searle visited a farmer’s place near Ollera Creek, where they make concrete pipes, and returned later on, about 11:30, although he was not certain of the hour. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.7.)

(Author’s note: The concrete pipes made on Ollera Creek now form the culverts under Mt. Spec Road. Initially, there was some concern about the quality of the concrete achieved, samples of which were sent south each week by rail for slump testing. This might explain why some pipes have failed after 80 years.)

Gill continued, answering question apparently designed to establish the times of Edmonds movements on the day of the hold-up: Gill “was working on the front gate from about 9 a.m. till 10:45 a.m., when he went to his house to knead some bread which he had set the previous night, and in 12 hours the bread had not risen. As far as witness knew Tear was employed by the defendant. Tear returned on horseback, but he (Gill) did not know the time. It would be untrue if Tear said witness told him Edmonds had just left. Defendant did not tell witness to tell Tear it was 10:30 when defendant left. He did not know what defendant wanted Tear for.”

Blackmore must have asked Gill for his opinion on Edmonds’ sweating horse: “On December 9, Tear and defendant mustered cattle in the afternoon. The condition of defendant’s horse was nothing unusual when it came home, because it was a hot horse.”

Gill was also asked for the time it would have taken a rider to travel from the hold-up, the location of which Gill was not certain of, to Tealby’s the long way round, via the property boundary: “Defendant would not have been able to go right round the boundary in the morning….It would take approximately an hour to ride from the scene of the hold-up to defendant’s hut and from there to Tealby’s. It would be shorter to go direct from the scene of the ambush to Tealby’s”. Blackmore seems to have been trying to discount Edmonds’ alibi of coming to Tealby’s from the direction of his hut, not from the direction of the hold-up. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.7.)

Roberts was granted an adjournment to Friday 8^th January, to allow other witnesses to appear. Edmonds’ bail was further extended. (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.)

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Continuing Edmonds’ evidence in his defence, Tuesday 5^th January 1932

Following the first visit to the scene of the hold-up, Detective O’Driscoll had a conversation with Edmonds, saying that Edmonds “had not given sufficient explanation to clear himself and he would have to go to Rollingstone, which witness did, remaining there until the following afternoon before going to the scene a second time.” (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.3.)

Constable O’Brien had said: “’We’re a pretty lucky lot and we’ll take a ticket in Tatts.’ Witness (Edmonds) agreed and O’Brien said: ‘We’ll call it the Hit and Miss Syndicate’ and witness said: ‘Call it what you like.’’’ (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.3.)

Edmonds continued to assert his innocence and recounted the police conversation he had overheard “when they returned to the scene of the hold-up about 3 o’clock in the afternoon, he heard Gooch say: ‘We have nothing on this bird. The only thing to do is to identify him and stand by it. We’ll put a hat and coat on him and dress him up and let O’Brien identify him.’” Edmonds overheard the same “conversations among the police, who were taking shifts in watching witness. He heard them say they had ‘nothing on that bird’ and the only thing was for O’Brien to stick to his identification.”

(Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9)

“Detective Gooch asked him to don the hat and coat found in the witness’s hut, and on doing so, Gooch asked of Constable O’Brien, ‘What do you think of it?’ and he replied, ‘No mistake, I think that’s the man, and coat, too’”. (Daily Standard, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.2.)

The Brisbane Courier reported that Edmonds denied the hat was his. Also reported was Edmonds’ recounting of how “Gooch told him to walk in the direction the bushranger ran. The witness immediately retorted: ‘How do I know which way he ran?’ Witness walked 10 or 15 yards besides Gooch, who asked O’Brien: ‘What do you think of it?’” (Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 14)

Once again, significant local interest in the case meant that the Townsville Daily Bulletin gave the most detailed coverage. We pick up the Bulletin’s report of Edmonds’ evidence from the time of the second afternoon’s visit to the scene of the crime.

The police commenced talking amongst themselves in various groups, and he (Edmonds) heard Detective Gooch say to Constable O’Brien they had nothing on him and the only thing to do was for Constable O’Brien to identify him.

Sometime after he put the hat and coat on, and denied the hat belonged to him. The hat was too big for him, coming down over his ears.

They then asked him to stand behind the ambush, and also asked him to walk the way the bandit ran away, whereupon he stated he did not know in which direction the bandit went in.

As he walked back towards the road, Detective Gooch asked Constable O’Brien what he thought of it, and Constable O’Brien replied there was no mistake and considered it was the man and the coat. He told Constable O’Brien he was making a mistake, but he disagreed with defendant, and if he were, it was an honest mistake, and he would be the sorriest man in the world. He had a duty to perform. Defendant told him he could always come to his camp.

Detective Senior Sergeant O’Driscoll told defendant that he had not given him sufficient proof, and asked him to accompany him to Rollingstone, which he did, staying there until the following afternoon.

Before arriving at the scene of the hold-up on the second occasion, Constable O’Brien said they were a pretty lucky lot and they would take a ticket In Tatts’. To which he (Edmonds) agreed, Constable O’Brien saying they would call it the Hit and Miss syndicate. Defendant told Constable O’Brien he was a lucky man, and the bandit was either a bad shot, or else did not want to shoot him.

At Rollingstone, he overheard a conversation in which they (the police) said they had nothing on defendant, and the only thing would be for Constable O’Brien to keep to his identification. Neither Killoran or Stewart identified him at Rollingstone.

He (Edmonds) was subsequently brought to Townsville and arrested. He had nothing to do with the hold-up, neither was he in the vicinity at 10.45 that morning. He had not ridden the chestnut mare in that locality on the previous day.

It was a deliberate lie by Gooch that defendant stated in the train that he (Edmonds) was out mustering on the day of the hold-up with two girls. It was an untruth also he referred to two other girls. At the watchhouse, Detective Gooch told defendant he had interviewed some girls at Mutarnee who had denied being out mustering with defendant Detective Gooch added they were the only two girls at Mutarnee that rode about.

At the hotel at Rollingstone, Detective Gooch said that the fact alone that defendant said the bandit was a bad shot or did not want to shoot Constable O’Brien was sufficient proof.

The Court then adjourned for lunch.”

(Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7)

Edmonds evidence took two hours to deliver. He “concluded saying he had nothing to do with the hold-up, nor was he in the vicinity at the time.” (Daily Standard, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.2.)

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Continuing Edmonds’ evidence in his defence, Tuesday 5^th January 1932

On the Thursday morning, 10^th 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 6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th January 1932, p. 7) Edmonds claimed that “nothing was said of the hold-up while the police were there.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th 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 6^th January 1932, p. 7)

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Edmonds’ evidence in his defence, Tuesday 5^th January 1932.

Charles Henry Edmonds entered the witness box on Tuesday morning, stating that he was “a drover, 34 years of age, residing at Ollera Gorge on the Ingham line for the past 15 months, prior to which he had resided in Townsville for about 10 years.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) Edmonds had an occupation lease there of 22 square miles, with a right to 12 miles of Tealby’s country till the end of the year, on which he ran cattle and kept his droving plant. (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 3; Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.7.)

Edmonds “produced a plan of the locality showing the different roads from Moongabulla to Mt. Spec, also marking the scene of the hold-up, which occurred on Timbergetters’ road, which is usually used by employees on the main roads.” Brisbane Courier, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 14.) Edmonds explained that “the road from Moongabulla used by the escort was a timber getters’ road and really a bush track.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) Edmonds was therefore familiar with the scene of the hold-up, explaining that it was “two and a half miles from his hut, which was a mile and a half from Tealby’s, the latter place being about one mile and a quarter from the scene.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9; Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p.7.) The relative locations of these places were all marked on his plan.

Edmonds then detailed his movements on the day before the hold-up. As previously heard, Edmonds had driven his car to the Main Roads office with Davies. Edmonds had previously lent Davies “a couple of gallons of benzine”, which Davies planned to replace by getting fuel from Main Roads, but that system was no longer in place and no fuel was forthcoming. (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 3) Davies then made a phone call to McDonald and went to McDonald’s place a mile away. Edmonds couldn’t drive Davies there, being low on fuel. While waiting for Davies to return, Edmonds was asked into the office by Herbertson who asked him to deliver a couple of letters going to Melrose and Fenwick’s manager. There they had a general conversation, with others present including Stewart and Hammett. Edmonds was happy that “what Mr. Herbertson had said of the conversation was substantially correct.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) While waiting for Davies, Edmonds helped unload a truck. He and Davies left the Main Roads office on Davies’ return.

Edmonds then detailed his movements on the day of the hold-up. About 8 a.m. on 9^th December, Edmonds had ridden with Searle in the direction of Tealby’s to where Tear was camped, about half a mile away. Tear had permission to camp on Edmonds’ place, but was not currently his employee. Tear had already left. Searle continued down the road, but Edmonds crossed Ollera Creek. Later that morning, “he rode the boundary fence…in the opposite direction to the scene of the hold-up. He noticed a mob of wild horses grazing with his horses, and he sorted them out, after which he returned to his camp about 10:14 a.m. He had a drink of tea, and had a conversation with a man named Gill, after which he left the camp, for Mutarnee. It was in the vicinity of 10:30 when he spoke to Gill.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7) The Telegraph reported that Edmonds stated he had “returned to camp between 10 and 10:15, having a drink of tea and a conversation with a man named Gill.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) Edmonds had asked Gill to ask Tear (a former employee) to wait for him., checking his watch as he left his camp. It was 10:30.

Edmonds “looked for some of his cattle on the way then went to Tealby’s to get a horse.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) Edmonds rode down the track to Tealby’s “to get a horse for a man who was coming down on the train….He rode a chestnut mare to Tealby’s and left her in the paddock.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7) The Cairns Post confirmed that this chestnut mare was the one outside in the Court House yard. (Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 3) Edmonds spoke to Jim Murray at Tealby’s then they both left for Mutarnee. Passing the scene of the crime, Edmonds had noticed a number of tracks “and remarked to Murray that someone had been having trouble with a car.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7) The Telegraph noted Edmonds as saying that “somebody apparently had a puncture.” (Telegraph, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) The Daily Standard reported that Edmonds “had remarked on the tracks: that apparently someone had had trouble, perhaps a puncture. Murray made the same observation.” (Daily Standard, Brisbane, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 2.) “They apparently were both of the same mind.” (Cairns Post, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 3)

Edmonds and Murray rode on to Mutarnee through “a heavy storm”, but Edmonds’ friend never arrived on the train. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7) Edmonds then proceeded to the Mutarnee Post Office, “where he first heard of the hold-up from the post-mistress.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7) The Telegraph identified the post-mistress as a “Miss Cavill”. (Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.) This is likely to have been one of the daughters of ‘Pop’ and Grace Cavill of the ‘Cavilcade’ guesthouse, now belonging to Wilf Karnoll. From the Post Office, Edmonds rode to Davies’ place, leading the spare horse which he left at Davies. Miss Davies rode the spare horse back to Edmonds’ hut late in the afternoon, when there was more heavy rain, so he drove Miss Davies home. In the afternoon, Edmonds had seen “a man named Murray and another named Ashley, who told him they were looking for bushrangers.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 7) Ashley is called ‘Ashman’ in the Telegraph. (Wednesday 6^th January 1932, p. 9.)

by Linda Venn

Click here for a list of key characters in this story

Concluding the evidence for the prosecution on Monday 4^th January 1932

The timekeeper, Francis John Herbertson, was next to give evidence. Herbertson knew Edmonds only “slightly, in all seeing him on three occasions”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) On December 8^th, he had been in his office at Mt. Spec when Edmonds and a man named Davies had arrived in a Ford car. Davies at the time was a Main Roads employee. He came into the office to ask permission to use the telephone, with Edmonds waiting until he’d finished. Edmonds came into Herbertson’s office where they had a general conversation, mostly about Edmonds starting a butchering business locally. The overseer, McClelland, had come into the office while Edmonds was there and Edmonds had asked McClelland to sell him four gallons of benzine, but McClelland refused. Roberts’ cross-examination elicited the information that Main Roads had previously had a policy of selling fuel to employees at cost price. Edmonds had made a casual remark about the number of employees on the Mt. Spec Road project, and that tomorrow’s pay would be a big one. Davies returned and both men left towards Moongabulla. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3)

Last to take the stand for the prosecution was James Murray, a labourer residing at Mutarnee. James Murray had known Edmonds for about 12 months. On the morning of the hold-up, he had gone to Tealby’s to get a horse, arriving between 7 and 8 a.m. Edmonds had arrived at about 11:30 a.m., “on a little chestnut mare which had a bit of a sweat up”. (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) Edmonds asked Murray where he was going. Murray was going home, but waited until Edmonds changed horses, turning the mare into Tealby’s paddock. Murray wanted to towards Rollingstone, but Edmonds wanted to go towards Mt. Spec, which Murray agreed to. They left together about 11:40 a.m. Edmonds was only at Tealby’s for about ten minutes. A couple of miles later, Edmonds had remarked “that someone had had a puncture.” This was near the scene of the crime. The tree lying across the road Murray recognised as one he had personally cut down “some two years ago.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3)

At this point, “His Worship called the witness to order on his behaviour in Court, and ordered him to restrain his language.” Unfortunately, we don’t know what Murray said or did to earn Cameron’s rebuke.

Continuing, Murray stated that they arrived home about 12:30 p.m. Edmonds had been wearing “a blue shirt and dungaree trousers, with a cowboy hat.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) Murray had recognised the mare as the one ridden by Edmonds, but said “the mare did not appear distressed.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3) Murray could not account for Edmonds changing horses to go to Mutarnee. Under cross-examination by Roberts, Murray stated that Edmonds said he was going to meet the train, but did not mention anything about the Mt Spec pay having arrived on time.

This concluded the case for the prosecution. Roberts contended that the only evidence was that of O’Brien, therefore no prima facie case existed. His Worship disagreed. Roberts then entered a plea of not guilty and pointed out he would call Edmonds and a witness for the defence on Tuesday and then ask for an adjournment until Friday, “to get further witnesses from the country.” (Townsville Daily Bulletin, Tuesday 5^th January 1932, p. 3)

The Court then adjourned until 10:30 a.m. Tuesday 5^th January.

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.”