diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-0.txt | 4504 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-0.zip | bin | 92872 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h.zip | bin | 531532 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/62861-h.htm | 4652 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 102358 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/i011.jpg | bin | 102382 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/i016.jpg | bin | 98466 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/i072.jpg | bin | 100040 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/illo_01.jpg | bin | 17102 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/illo_02.jpg | bin | 29492 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62861-h/images/illo_03.jpg | bin | 26627 -> 0 bytes |
14 files changed, 17 insertions, 9156 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..87c3c2a --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #62861 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62861) diff --git a/old/62861-0.txt b/old/62861-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 53fb5f0..0000000 --- a/old/62861-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4504 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gun Alley Tragedy, by T. C. Brennan - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Gun Alley Tragedy - Record of the Trial of Colin Campbell Ross - -Author: T. C. Brennan - -Release Date: August 6, 2020 [EBook #62861] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GUN ALLEY TRAGEDY *** - - - - -Produced by Paul Marshall and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from scans of public domain works at The National -Library of Australia.) - - - - - - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - - Equal signs “=” before and after a word or phrase indicate =bold= - in the original text. - A tilde, “~” is used to indicate a bold sans-serif font. - Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs. - Typographical errors have been silently corrected. - - - - - Third Edition - - The - Gun Alley Tragedy - - Record of the Trial - - :: of :: - - COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS - - Including - A Critical Examination of the Crown Case - with - A Summary of the New Evidence - - by - T. C. BRENNAN, Barrister-at-Law - - [Illustration] - - 1922 - - FRASER & JENKINSON, Printers, 343-5 Queen St., Melbourne - GORDON & GOTCH (Australia) Ltd., Publishers - - - - -PREFACE. - - -No trial in Australian history has created such a public sensation as -did the trial in Melbourne of Colin Campbell Ross for the murder of -the little girl, Alma Tirtschke, on the afternoon of December 30th, -1921. It was presided over by Mr. Justice Schutt and lasted for more -than five days. Mr. H. C. G. Macindoe conducted the case for the Crown -and Mr. G. A. Maxwell appeared, with Mr. T. C. Brennan as junior, for -the defence. For many reasons, it is desirable that the proceedings at -the trial should be placed on record. It is not merely that the story -itself—a veritable page out of real life—makes tragically interesting -reading. The nature of the evidence was so unusual, and the character -of the chief Crown witnesses was so remarkable, that it is entirely in -the interests of justice that the whole proceedings should be reviewed -in the calm light of day. - -While the trial was on, and for weeks before it was on, anything in -the nature of a dispassionate review was impossible. Public opinion -was inflamed as it has not been inflamed within the memory of this -generation. Ross was tried for his life in an atmosphere charged and -overcharged with suspicion. Whether guilty or innocent, he entered -the dock in circumstances under which few men are compelled to enter -it. As everyone in Australia knows, he was condemned almost entirely -on the strength of two confessions he was alleged to have made. It -would probably be admitted that, in the absence of those alleged -confessions—which he strenuously denied ever having made—no jury could -have convicted him. It is doubtful, indeed, if without them there was -a case for the jury. But did he actually say what either the woman -Ivy Matthews or the man Harding declared he said? The verdict of the -jury does not supply an answer. The question remains unanswered, and -the doubt in regard to it constitutes the enduring mystery of the Ross -trial. - -All students of criminology—and all friends of truth—are under a -debt of gratitude to Mr. Brennan for the cool, precise and perfectly -dispassionate manner in which he has, inter alia, analysed the -statements of these two people, Harding and Matthews. He has placed -the salient features side by side. There seems no escape from the -irresistible logic of his conclusion—that Matthews and Harding, knowing -certain facts about Ross from an outside source, were compelled to fill -in the gaps in their own way. They could not have been drawing from the -one alleged source when they differed so absolutely as to the essential -circumstances of the crime. - -As Mr. Brennan points out, he is not undertaking to prove that Ross was -innocent of the Gun Alley murder. Anyone who reads his closely reasoned -pages can have little doubt that such is his opinion. But his task is -simpler. It is to show that Ross should not have been convicted on -the evidence, that the evidence for the Crown was, to a large extent, -contradictory—far more so than in the heat and passion of the trial was -allowed to appear. He is able to go even further than that, and to show -that a great part of it, so far from being cumulative on other parts, -as the jury may have naturally believed, was really destructive of -those other parts. - -He has performed his task with care and discretion. No one who reads -Mr. Brennan’s review of the case can doubt that he has thrown off the -role of advocate—ably as he sustained it at the trial and on the two -appeals—and is only anxious to arrive at the truth. There should be no -other desire in the minds of any reader; and the people of Australia, -who cannot possibly have followed the case with the care that Mr. -Brennan has followed it, will appreciate both the value of his work and -the deep interest of the story that he tells. Whether they think the -mystery of the Gun Alley murder was cleared up by the jury’s verdict, -or whether it remains a mystery is for them to say. - - A. J. BUCHANAN. - Selborne Chambers, Melbourne. - - - - -PART I. - -INTRODUCTORY. - - -On the early morning of the last day of the year 1921 the dead -body of a little girl of 12, named Alma Tirtschke, was found by a -bottle-gatherer in an L-shaped right-of-way off Little Collins Street. -She had been violated and strangled, and her nude body had been placed -in Gun Alley. - -On the morning of Saturday, February 25th, 1922, Colin Campbell Ross, a -young man of 28, was found guilty of her murder, and on the morning of -April 24th he was executed in the Melbourne Gaol. Face to face with his -Maker, as he himself put it, he asserted his innocence on the scaffold -in terms of such peculiar solemnity as to intensify the feeling, -already widely prevalent, that an innocent man had been done to death. - -In the eyes of officialdom the mystery had been cleared up. Detectives -walk the streets with the consciousness that they are the men who -cleared it up and brought the murderer to the gallows. The list of -persons who shared in the reward offered by the Government, with the -amounts allotted to each, has been published.[1] It does nothing to -allay the sense of public uneasiness to reflect that by far the greater -part of the reward has gone to men and women whose society would be -shunned by every decent person. That in itself should be sufficient to -raise doubt. But there are graver reasons for thinking that justice may -have miscarried in this extraordinary case. The purpose of this short -review is to show how strong are the grounds for the prevalent feeling -of uneasiness, and how much reason there is for believing that the -life of Colin Campbell Ross was, as he himself asserted as he went to -the cells with the death sentence ringing in his ears, “Sworn away by -desperate people.” - -[1] The Government reward of £1000 was distributed as follows:—Ivy -Matthews, £350; Sydney John Harding, £200; Olive Maddox, £170; George -Arthur Ellis, £50; Joseph Dunstan, £50; David Alberts, £30; Madame -Ghurka, £25; Maisie Russell, £25; Blanche Edmonds, £20; Muriel Edmonds, -£20; Violet Sullivan, £20; Michaluscki Nicoli, £20; Francisco Anselmi, -£20. A reward of £250 offered by the “Herald” was distributed pro rata. -It was never disclosed, either on the trial or in the press, what the -services rendered by Madame Ghurka or Maisie Russell were. - -Why, it may be asked, rake over dying embers and fan again into flame -a fire that is dying down? Is it not better that the Ross case should -sink, with Ross, into oblivion? Even if he were now proved innocent, -it may be said, he cannot be recalled to life, and no good purpose -can be served by reviving the case. But in the first place, there are -hundreds of people in whom the memory of the case is still quite fresh. -With them it is not a question of reviving, but of discussing. And even -though Ross be dead, death is not the end of all things. In Ross’s -case it is a small matter compared to the dishonor associated with it. -Ross has left behind him a mother and brothers who bear his name, and -for a generation to come the name of a Ross will never be mentioned -without recalling that particular bearer of it who died an ignominious -death for a revolting murder. If all the truth has not come out, the -community owes it to those of his blood left behind him that it shall -be brought out. It is largely at the solicitation of those bearers -of the name that this review is being written. But the interests -of abstract justice also require something. Ross was condemned on -evidence of a kind which puts the case in a class by itself. It has no -parallel in the annals of British criminal jurisprudence. A perusal of -this review, whether or not it satisfies the reader of the innocence -of Ross, will, at least, satisfy him of the need for a close scrutiny -of evidence of this kind; and future juries will be reminded of the -necessity of never being stampeded by newspaper or popular clamor -into preconceived ideas of the guilt of any man, and of ever being on -their guard against perjury and conspiracy, even though they are not -satisfied that either were present in this case. - - -THE APPELLATE COURTS. - -At the outset it is desirable to correct a wrong impression which, -very widely felt, has tended to allay the feeling of uneasiness in the -public mind. Ross, as is well known, appealed to the Full Court of -Victoria, which dismissed the appeal. Thence he carried his case to the -High Court of Australia, which refused, one learned Judge dissenting, -to interfere with the decision of the Supreme Court. From this fact -it has been assumed that two Appellate Courts, consisting of three -Judges and five Judges respectively, have endorsed the verdict of the -jury. Nothing could be further from the facts. Substantially what the -Appellate Courts were asked to say was (1) that there was no evidence -on which a jury could rightly convict Ross; (2) that the Judge had -failed to direct the jury properly on various points enumerated. To -take the second point first, the Courts both declined to say that there -was any non-direction, though Mr. Justice Isaacs, in the High Court, -held that on one point the Judge had failed to direct the jury properly. - -As to the first point, the position is this: An Appellate Court will -not interfere with the finding of a jury if there is any evidence on -which a jury could find as it did. It will not weigh the evidence to -see on which side the balance lies. That is the function of the jury, -and the Court will not usurp that function. - -That position was made quite clear in the judgments of both Courts. -In the Supreme Courts the Chief Justice of Victoria said: “There was -abundance of evidence, if the jury believed it, as the jury apparently -did believe it, to support their finding, and we need add nothing more -upon that point.” In the High Court, the Chief Justice of Australia, -speaking for the majority of their Honours, dealt with the same point -thus: “As we have before indicated, there was, in our opinion, abundant -evidence, if the jury believed it, to sustain their verdict. But we -desire to add that, if there be evidence on which reasonable men could -find a verdict of guilty, the determination of the guilt or innocence -of the prisoner is a matter for the jury, and for them alone. And with -their decision, based on such evidence, no Court or Judge has any -right or power to interfere. It is of the highest importance that the -grave responsibility which rests on jurors in this respect should be -thoroughly understood and always maintained.” Even Mr. Justice Isaacs, -who dissented from the majority on a point not material to this review, -was quite at one with his learned brothers on this matter. “The ground -upon which,” said his Honour, “I agree to a rejection of all the other -grounds brought forward by Mr. Brennan is that, however powerful -the considerations he advanced, however tainted and discrepant and -improbable any of the facts relied on by the Crown might be, that was -all matter for the jury alone, and I have no right to express or to -form any opinion about them in favour of the prisoner.” - -No Court and no Judge has, therefore, ever pronounced judgment on the -correctness or incorrectness of the jury’s verdict. All that they have -said is that there was some evidence on which the jury could find as it -did, and that that being so, the responsibility for the verdict must -rest with the tribunal which the law has set up to pronounce upon the -evidence. The purpose of this review of the case is to show, not that -the Appellate Courts were wrong, but that there are strong grounds for -believing that the jury was wrong. And that brings us naturally to a -second preliminary point. - - -WHY THE JURY MISJUDGED. - -Not often, indeed, do juries err on the side of convicting an innocent -man. But the circumstances of this case were peculiar. Not merely -was the ravishing of the child and the strangling of her a crime of -a peculiarly detestable nature, but the stripping of the body, and -the placing of it on the cold stones of a squalid alley, though it -really added nothing to the horror of her death, was an incident well -calculated to excite the deepest human sympathy. In addition, it was -a crime of which none but a degenerate would be guilty, and it is an -extremely unfortunate thing that at the inquest the Coroner allowed, -under the guise of evidence, statements to be made by witnesses which -would tend to show that Ross was such a degenerate. Those statements -were not allowed to be made on the trial for the simple reason that -they violated the fundamental rules of evidence. The Coroner allowed -them in, holding that he was not bound by the rules of evidence, and -apparently labouring under the impression that the laws of evidence -are arbitrary rules, tending at times to obscure the truth, instead -of being, as they are, rules evolved from the experience of the ages -as being best calculated to bring out the truth. There was probably -no truth in the statements made, for the plain fact is that Ross had -never been charged with a sexual offence, and had never even been -questioned about one. But such was the interest in the case that every -line written about it was eagerly devoured, and not one member of the -jury was likely to have forgotten what was said on that head at the -inquest—false though it all may have been. - -Again, the little girl had been seen near Ross’s wine shop in the -afternoon. Her dead body was found about 115 yards from it. The police -had been 12 days making enquiries about the case before Ross was -arrested. They had followed clues, and abandoned them when they led -nowhere; they had suspected individuals and questioned them, only to -reach a dead-end; they had formed theories, and dropped them because -they could not get the facts to fit them. But the public, from which -a jury is drawn, knew nothing of all this. Indeed, Detective Piggott -said, in his cross-examination: “We had the case well in hand on the -31st.” This may be dismissed as a little bit of puff. It excited the -smiles of Piggott’s brothers in the force, who knew the dead-end the -detectives were at after the first week. If it were strictly accurate, -it would show that Piggott’s conduct of the investigations was -disfigured by a colossal blunder, for the detectives, although they -were in Ross’s saloon on the first day, did not even go into the little -room off the bar from which came the incriminating blanket, though they -knew that the whole place was about to be abandoned and dismantled. -Once Ross was put upon his trial nothing was, or indeed could be, -said which did not appear to point to his guilt. The result was that -the searchlight was thrown directly on to him. Other suspected people -were in the shadows. Everything, therefore, appeared, superficially at -least, to point to his guilt. The crime called for vengeance, and in -all these circumstances it is not wonderful that the jurors were unable -to divest themselves of the preconceptions with which they had gone -into the jury-box. - -[Illustration] - -Never in the history of serious crimes in Victoria, or, indeed, in the -British Empire, it may be safely said, has a man been convicted on such -a jumbled mass of contradictions as served to convict Ross. The only -explanation of it is that, in view of the nature of the crime, the jury -quite unconsciously formed opinions before they went into the box, and, -with their judgments clouded by their natural indignation, they were -unable to view the matter dispassionately. - -How strong public feeling was, how the judgments of even level-headed -men and women were clouded, how completely the public was convinced of -the guilt of Ross before ever he was put upon his trial, is shown by -the fact that the counsel for the defence were criticised, in public -and in private, for accepting briefs in his defence. People holding -those views were apparently unable to see where they led. There is no -logical stopping-place between such views and lynch law. If a man is -to be adjudged guilty on what appears, ex parte, in the press, it is -as logical to blame a judge for trying him as a counsel for defending -him. He is guilty, and why go through the hollow form of trying him? -Why not settle the matter at once in the easy manner of the less -civilised of the American states. - -But the position of the bar in these matters has been well settled. The -same view was presented by Lord Chief Justice Reading in 1916 as by -Erskine in 1792. When Erskine took a brief for the defence of Tom Paine -130 years ago, and insisted on holding it in spite of the protests of -the courtiers, his obstinacy, says Lord Chief Justice Campbell, in his -“Lives of the Chancellors,” was much condemned “by many well-meaning -people, ignorant of professional etiquette, and of what is required by -a due regard for the proper administration of criminal justice.” But -Erskine appeared, and on the trial, referring to the storm which his -conduct had provoked, he said:— - - “Little, indeed, did they know me who thought that - such calumnies would influence my conduct. I will for - ever, at all hazards, assert the dignity, independence - and integrity of the English bar, without which - impartial justice, the most valuable part of the - British Constitution, can have no existence. From the - moment that any advocate can be permitted to say that - he will or will not stand between the Crown and the - subject arraigned in the court where he daily sits to - practice, from that moment the liberties of England - are at an end. If the advocate refuses to defend from - what he may think of the charge or of the defence, he - assumes the character of the judge; nay, he assumes - it before the hour of judgment; and, in proportion to - his rank and reputation, puts the heavy influence of, - perhaps, a mistaken opinion into the scale against the - accused, in whose favor the benevolent principle of - English law makes all presumptions, and which commands - the very judge to be his counsel.” - -When Sir Roger Casement was tried for treason in 1916, the same -question arose, as it had arisen many times in the interval. Lord Chief -Justice Reading, addressing the jury, then said:— - - “There are some persons who, perhaps a little - thoughtlessly, are inclined to rebel against the notion - that a member of the English bar, or members of it, - should be found to defend a prisoner on a charge of - treason against the British State. I need not tell you, - I am sure, gentlemen, that if any person has those - thoughts in his mind, he has but a poor conception - of the high obligation and responsibility of the bar - of England. It is the proud privilege of the bar of - England that it is ready to come into court and to - defend a person accused, however grave the charge - may be. In this case, we are indebted to counsel for - the defence for the assistance they have given us in - the trial, and I have no doubt you must feel equally - indebted. It is of great benefit in the trial of a - case, more particularly of this importance, that you - should feel, as we feel, that everything possible that - could be urged on behalf of the defence has been said, - and particularly by one who has conducted the defence - in accordance with the highest traditions of the - English bar.” - -With the lapse of a little time the public may be able to look more -judicially at the case. Let us, therefore, look briefly at the facts. - -Though the case took the full legal week, and encroached on the -Saturday, the facts relied upon by the Crown to support its case may be -put in a comparatively short compass. - - - - -PART II. - -THE CROWN CASE. - - -The girl, who, so far as is known to the public, was a modest, -obedient, intelligent, quiet child, between 12 and 13 years of age, -left her aunt’s home at Jolimont between half-past 12 and a quarter -to 1, to go to Bennet and Woolcock’s butcher’s shop in Swanston St., -Melbourne, where her uncle acted as secretary. She wore a navy blue -box-pleated overall, a white blouse with blue spots, and a Panama -hat with a conspicuous badge of a high school on it. At about a -quarter past 1 she arrived at the shop, went upstairs to her uncle’s -room, returned shortly afterwards without seeing her uncle, and left -the shop about a quarter of an hour after her arrival at it, carrying a -parcel of meat some eight or nine pounds in weight. She was next seen -in Little Collins Street, and she evidently went up Little Collins -Street to Russell Street, and down Russell Street into Bourke Street, -because “well after a quarter past 2” she was noticed by Mrs. and Miss -Edmonds about 50 yards from the entrance to the Eastern Arcade. She -went into the Arcade in front of the ladies, and when she was about -half-way through they turned up the stairs to the right, and did not -see her again. Colin Ross at this time, according to Mrs. Edmonds, was -standing in front of his door. In cross-examination, Mrs. Edmonds fixed -the time at which she last saw the girl at a quarter to 3, because, she -said, “I looked at the clock on the balcony.” Between half-past 2 and 3 -o’clock Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Young saw the girl come out of the Arcade, -walk across Little Collins Street, and stand at what they described as -the Adam and Eve corner. - -[Illustration] - -This means that she was standing near a lodging-house kept by a witness -named Ellis, in the delicensed premises which was formerly the Adam -and Eve Hotel. It is on the corner of Little Collins Street and Alfred -Place, Alfred Place being a rather pretentious right-of-way running -through to Collins Street. Had she desired to go to her destination, -which was the Masonic Chambers at the east end of Collins Street, -she might have gone either along Alfred Place to Collins Street, or -up Little Collins Street to Exhibition Street, and thence to Collins -Street. According to Mrs. Young, the girl looked frightened, and she -was seen to drop and pick up her parcel. The Youngs walked on down to -Russell Street, which would take her two or three minutes, they said, -and when they looked back the girl had disappeared. She might have -still been standing in Alfred Place, or she could have returned to the -Arcade, but they do not think she would have had time to have got to -Exhibition Street. That is the last seen of the girl by any witness -whose evidence is admitted by both sides to be credible. It should -be noted that she was then within an easy 10 minutes’ walk of Bennet -and Woolcock’s, and she had taken an hour and a quarter to cover the -distance. - - -ROSS INTERVIEWED. - -The detectives first saw Ross on the morning of the 31st. He said that -he had seen a child answering to the description of the murdered girl, -but in reply to a direct question by Detective Piggott, “Ross, how much -do you know?” he replied: “I do not know anything.” On January 5th they -again saw Ross at his home, and brought him to the Detective Office, -where he was detained for eight hours, and made a statement, which was -taken down in writing. To show how consistent Ross was throughout as to -his movements on the fatal day, it is well that this statement should -be given in full. It is as follows:— - - COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS states:— - - “I am at present out of business. I was the holder - of the Australian Wine Shop license in the Eastern - Arcade for about nine months past. The license expired - on the 31st December, 1921. I reside at ‘Glenross,’ - Ballarat Road, Footscray. On Friday, the 30th December, - I came into the shop about 2 p.m. It was a very quiet - day. Between 2 and 3 p.m. I was standing in front of - my shop, and looking about I saw a girl about 14 or 15 - years of age in the Arcade. She was walking towards - Bourke Street, and stopped and looked in a fancy dress - costume window. I later saw her walking back, and she - appeared to have nothing to do. She wore a dark blue - dress, pleated, the pleats were large, light blouse, - white straw hat with a colour on it (looked like a - college hat), wore dark stockings and boots—she may - have had shoes on. I went back into the cafe. I cannot - say where she went. I was about the cafe all the - afternoon. - - “About 4 o’clock, a friend of mine, Miss Gladys - Linderman, came to the saloon front. I spoke to her for - about an hour. She came into the private room, and we - had a talk in the room off the bar, the one in which - the cellar is which is unused. She and I went into the - Arcade at 4.45; remained talking for about 10 minutes. - I then saw her out into Little Collins Street. I made - an appointment to meet her again at 9 p.m. at the place - I left her. I went back into the cafe, and remained - until 6 p.m., when I left for home, got home about 7 - p.m., had tea, left home at 8 p.m., came into the city, - waited at the corner of the Arcade in Little Collins - Street. Miss Linderman came to me at 9 p.m., and we - went straight into the cafe. We remained in there till - 10.45, then left, locked the place up, went to King - Street. She went to her home, 276 King Street. After - leaving her I went to Spencer Street Station, took a - train, arrived home at 11.50 p.m., and remained there - all night. - - “I know the shop opposite, No. 33. It is occupied by - a man named McKenzie. Several men visit there. I have - seen a stout, foreign man go there. I don’t know his - name—I never spoke to him in my life. I am sure he - has not visited the saloon. He has come to my door and - spoken to me. On one occasion, about four months ago, - I went over to that shop by his invitation. He desired - to explain a certain signalling patent. He unlocked the - door, and I went inside with him. I saw a box affair, - a couch, and nine or twelve chairs. I did not see the - patent—it was locked. I have never possessed a key of - that shop, and no person has ever loaned me one. I have - two keys of my wine saloon. I had one, and my brother - Stan had the other. On Friday I possessed one, and my - brother had the other. These keys are Yale keys. No - person could enter that wine shop unless let in by my - brother or myself. I think my brother was in the city - that night with his friends. I can’t say where he was. - - “On the Saturday I was again in the saloon. It was - the last day of the license. I saw Mr. Clark, manager - of the Arcade, about 11 a.m., and arranged with him to - get me a key of the back gate of the Arcade, which is - locked by means of a chain and padlock. He gave me a - key about noon, and I left there about 6.15 p.m. I came - back to the Arcade at 6.50 a.m., Monday, and a van came - at 7 a.m., and then took my effects from the saloon, - which consisted of 26 chairs, 6 tables, a small couch, - a counter, 2 wooden partitions, shelves, and linoleum - off the floor, about 20 bottles of wine, and 9 flagons - of wine. There were two dozen glasses, and about 18 - pictures. My brothers Stanley and Tom were with me. I - left there at 8.30 a.m., and went home. I handed the - keys to the caretaker. - - “I cannot say what goes on inside No. 33 in the - Arcade, but I have seen several women going in and out, - and in company of McKenzie. I have never seen the other - man, who looks like an engineer, take women in there. - The ages of the women would range from about 20 years - and upwards. I cannot say if any person saw me with - Gladys Linderman while at the Arcade. I was not in the - company of any other woman that afternoon or evening - at the saloon. Close to the saloon, and about 36 feet - distant, is a man’s lavatory, the door of which is - generally locked. At night time it is occasionally left - open. I had a key of that lavatory. The water used in - my saloon was obtained from a tap in a recess adjoining - the cafe.” - “COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS.” - Witness: FREDERICK J. PIGGOTT. - -This statement was obtained largely, as all police statements are, by -question and answer, and committed to paper in narrative form. When it -was concluded, further questions, more disjointed, were put to Ross, -and his answers being given, the question and answer were committed -to writing, and were signed by Ross. The supplementary statement thus -obtained is as follows:— - - “I admit I did walk up and down Little Collins Street - in front of the Arcade from about 8.45 until 9 p.m. - I say there was not a light in my saloon after 10.45 - p.m., unless my brother was in there. My brother was - first to enter my saloon on the Saturday morning. I - came while the detectives were talking to my brother. - He did not make any complaint about the condition of - the shop when I arrived. I did have two blankets in the - saloon. They were used as a rug or cover for the couch - to lie down on in the afternoons. I was home all day - Thursday. I was not well. I did not leave the shop on - Friday and say that I was ill. I was not away from the - saloon during the afternoon of Friday. I can give no - reason why my brother should say I was away ill. I have - not been engaged in a telephone conversation with a man - named Williams. I have not spoken on a telephone since - Thursday, 29th. I remember, before Miss G. Linderman - came to the cafe, there were two young women in the - bar. They would be 19 or 20 years of age, and they left - the saloon in company with two men. That was on Friday, - 30th. In my opinion No. 33 is a brothel. Several men - have keys of the room.” - - “COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS.” - Witness: FREDERICK J. PIGGOTT. - -Ross was still further interrogated, but this part of his statement -was not taken down in writing. Piggott said: “Where did you have lunch -on Friday, December 30th?” and he replied: “At home,” and question and -answer proceeded as follow:— - -What time did you get into your wine bar?—About 2 o’clock. - -Who was in the bar?—A man named Allen and a woman. - -Who was the woman?—I do not know, but Detective Lee ordered her out. - -What time did you see Gladys Linderman?—About 4.45, and I remained -talking with her about three-quarters of an hour.[2] - -[2] By comparing this question and answer with the statement, it will -be seen that Piggott was slightly in error here. What Ross said was -that it was 4.45 when he and Gladys left the saloon. - -What time did you leave her?—About 6 o’clock, but I had to meet her -again. - -Did you meet her?—Yes, I met her at 9 o’clock, as arranged. - -What time did she leave?—About half-past 10. - -Where did she go?—I saw her home. I got the train, and got home about -midnight. - -This was the material that the police had to work on up to that time, -but about Tuesday, January 10, they received an important addition to -their stock of knowledge from a girl named Olive Maddox. This girl, -an admitted prostitute, said that, being a bit “potty” on Monday, -January 9, she had a conversation with Ivy Matthews, who advised her -to go and tell the police what she knew. What she told the police will -appear from her evidence to be given later. It is important to remember -that at this time, according to the police, Ivy Matthews had herself -given no information to them. In fact, she had been interrogated by -the detectives on January 5, and had told them that she knew nothing. -More than that, she met certain members of the Ross family outside the -Detective Office on that night, and indignantly protested against being -brought there to be catechised, saying that she knew nothing about the -matter. On the day of Ross’s arrest she was again at the Detective -Office, and seems to have hinted at something, because, while declining -to make any statement, she said: “Bring me face to face with Colin, and -I will ask him some questions.” She was never brought “face to face” -with Colin Ross. There is ample reason for believing that though the -police knew that when she came to give her evidence Matthews would -advance their case, they did not know exactly what she was going to -say. The position, therefore, is that, on January 23, the police had -practically no evidence against Ross. On that day Harding disclosed his -“confession,” and by January 26 Matthews had given to the world her -account of what she alleged she had seen and what she alleged Ross had -told her. - - -THE TRIAL. - -Ross was committed at the Coroner’s inquest on January 26, and came -up for trial before Mr. Justice Schutt on February 20. Evidence was -given, as indicated above, as to the movements of the girl on the day -of her death. Medical evidence, to be dealt with later, was also given -and then the Crown called a succession of witnesses, who deposed as -to certain extraordinary “facts,” and as to certain admissions or -confessions supposed to have been made by Ross. - - -THE BLOODY BOTTLE. - -The first of these was a man named Francis Lane Upton. Upton had not -been called at the inquest. The defence had been served with notice -that he would be called on the trial, and a short summary of his -evidence was given, according to practice. His evidence is remarkable, -not so much for its glaring improbability as for the fact that it was -dramatically abandoned by the Crown Prosecutor in his closing address -to the jury with the contemptuous intimation that he would not ask the -jury to “swing a cat on it.” How it has been assessed by the police is -shown by the fact that, in the distribution of the reward offered by -the Crown, Upton has not shared. That his evidence was prompted wholly -by a desire to share in the reward, or gain notoriety, was revealed by -his cross-examination. When that is borne in mind, it supplies its own -comment on the Crown’s contention that it is incredible that witnesses -like Olive Maddox, Ivy Matthews, Sydney Harding, and Joseph Dunstan -would have been so wicked as to come forward with false testimony to -swear away the life of an innocent man. - -The story told by Upton was that he was a labourer out of work, that he -had been about the town on December 30, fell asleep in the Flagstaff -Gardens, walked through the Victoria Markets “and all round trying -to rake up a drink,” and found himself, at about half-past 12 or 1 -o’clock, at Ross’s saloon, which he had heard of some months before. By -this time he was sober, but very thirsty. Entering the Arcade by the -little Collins Street gate, and seeing a light in the saloon, he went -to the second door of the establishment—the door nearer Bourke Street. -It was not locked, and he pushed it, and it came open. As he did so he -heard a woman’s voice saying: “Oh, my God, darling, how are we going to -get rid of it?” Just then Ross said: “There is somebody here,” and he -rushed out like a lunatic. Upton said to him when he got to the door: -“What about a bottle?” Ross had a bar towel or some such thing on his -arm, his hands were covered with something that looked like blood; he -rushed back, and seized a bottle from behind the bar, thrust it into -Upton’s hands, and pushed him from the room, without even waiting to -take the money which Upton had ready in his hand. Upton walked down -Little Collins Street to Russell Street, where he discovered that there -was blood on the bottle. He walked on down Little Collins Street to -William Street, thence down to Flinders Street, and at the corner of -William Street and Flinders Street he disposed of the bottle (out of -which he had had one drink) in what he described as a culvert or sewer. - -In cross-examination it was disclosed that Upton had come from the -Mallee a day or two before the tragedy. He read of the murder in the -Footscray Gardens on the Monday, and he immediately returned to the -Mallee, worked in several places, drank the proceeds of his labour, -heard about the reward, and, when he was without money, went to the -Donald Police Station and told the officer in charge that he “was -connected with Alma Tirtschke’s murder.” He was detained, and a -detective went up from Melbourne to bring him down. Upton’s evidence -may be dismissed with the remark that it was physically impossible for -him to have seen from where he said he was the things he said that he -did see (for a glance at the plan will show that, from the second door, -he could not see the cubicle), and with the further observation that -his evidence having been formally repudiated by the Crown, no notice -whatever was taken of it in either Court of Appeal. He was a derelict, -a drunkard, a wife deserter, a notorious romancer, a convicted -criminal, and his evidence was a fitting prologue to that which was -immediately to follow. - - -OLIVE MADDOX’S EVIDENCE. - -Olive May Maddox was the next witness. She was living at the time of -the inquest at Cambridge Street, Collingwood, and when asked, “Have you -any other means of livelihood but prostitution?” she answered: “No, -not exactly.” She said she knew Ross well, and she used to visit his -premises every day up to the time of the shooting affray. (That was -in the previous November, and up to that time Ivy Matthews had been -employed there.) Since the shooting affray she had only visited the -cafe “once, sometimes twice, sometimes three times or four times or -five times a week at the most.” She went to the wine cafe on December -30 at five minutes past 5, walked straight into the bar with another -girl named Jean Dyson, and ordered two drinks at the counter. She then -looked into the parlour through the curtains hanging from the arched -doorway between the two main rooms in the saloon, and seeing a girl -named Lil. Harrison in that room she went in. As she passed the beaded -curtains of the small compartment on the right she saw the little -girl in it—that is to say, she described the girl she saw, and if her -evidence is true there can be no doubt the girl was Alma Tirtschke. -There was a glass in front of her, “but you couldn’t tell whether the -contents were white or whether it was empty.” There were, she said, -a couple of strange men also in the room. The two men were near the -entrance, and the girl was near the corner. After talking to Harrison -for a time, she came back into the bar to her friend, and seeing Ross, -she said, “Hello, Col., she is a young kid to be drinking.” He replied: -“Oh, if she wants it she can have it.” - -At a quarter past 5 Maddox left, and she returned about five minutes -to 6. She ordered drinks, and went again into the other room. Lil. -Harrison was still there, but the little girl was no longer in the -beaded room. Maddox left soon after 6, and she did not see Ross on that -occasion. She next saw him on Thursday night, January 5, “down where -the old Repatriation was in Jolimont, just off Flinders Street.” Maddox -had been there with some girls, and Ross, when she saw him, was with -“a girl named Florrie Dobson and another named Pauline Warburton, and -their two young chaps.” “We started talking about different things,” -she said, “and then Ross said: ‘What do you think about this case, -Ol.?’ I said: ‘I don’t know; if I knew anything I wouldn’t tell the -police.’ He said: ‘You don’t want to tell them if you know anything. -The papers all say that she was a goody-goody, but that is only for the -sake of the public. She was a cheeky little devil, and’”—and he added a -disgusting comment. He said also, the witness added: “I tried to pool -the b⸺ b⸺ of a Madame Ghurka. The police came to me and asked me if I -saw anything about the little girl, and I told them I saw her looking -in Madame Ghurka’s window, and I tried to pool the b⸺ b⸺ because she -decoys little girls when they are missing away from home.” - -In her cross-examination Maddox admitted that she knew from the papers -the description of the little girl’s dress, and that it was after -she had had a conversation with Ivy Matthews on the subject that she -informed the police. That conversation took place on the Tuesday, -January 10. She told Matthews she was afraid to go to the police on -account of her convictions, and Matthews asked her whether she really -had any doubt it was the little girl, and she said she was positive. -Matthews said: “The police cannot touch you,” and she replied: “Well, I -will chance it, and go and do it.” She also admitted that on Saturday -afternoon, December 31, she was arrested for absconding from her bail, -and she remained in the watchhouse until the Sunday afternoon. It is -worthy of note that no proceedings have been taken against Olive Maddox -on that charge. She admitted also that the meeting on the Thursday -evening was purely by chance, as far as she was concerned. Asked how -many people were in the saloon when she was there at 5 o’clock, she -said she did not know how many were in the bar, but in the parlour -there were two girls she knew, and one she didn’t know, and two or -three men, and there were two other men in the beaded room with the -little girl. - -Therefore, there were seven or eight persons who were in as good a -position as Maddox to see the little girl, if, in fact, she had been in -the saloon. - - -THE MATTHEWS CONFESSION. - -Ivy Matthews was the next witness. She “didn’t quite know” what to say -her occupation was, as just at present she was out of employment, but -she had been a barmaid. She had been employed by the accused from the -23rd of December, 1920, up to some time in November, 1921. She left the -day following Ross’s acquittal on the shooting charge. She described -minutely the interior of the wine saloon as it was in her time, and on -being shown two blankets, said that one of them—a greeny-blue military -blanket—was on the couch in the cubicle in her time, but not the -other, a reddish brown blanket. On the afternoon of Friday, December -30, she was at the bar door, she said, talking to Stanley Ross, who -had beckoned her up while she was talking to a friend in the Arcade. -Whilst she was talking to Stanley, Colin Ross came out of the little -room at the end of the bar, and as he opened the curtains to come out -she saw a child sitting on a chair. Colin came along the bar and poured -out a drink. She saw the glass, but did not see what was poured into -it. Colin returned to the little room, and as, he did so he must have -said something to the girl, because she parted the curtains “and looked -straight out at me.” She gave a very minute description of the child’s -hair and clothing, considering the very cursory glance she admitted -having had. Colin, she said, must have noticed her, but he did not -acknowledge her in any way. - -Matthews said nothing of how long she stayed. Next day, at the -Melbourne Hotel, at 3 o’clock, where she had an appointment, she read -in “Truth,” so she said, of the murder of the little girl, and she -went straight to Ross’s wine cafe. “He was busy serving behind the -bar,” she continued, “and I walked past the wine cafe door twice. I -mean that I walked past and I came back again. The second time he saw -me and he came to the door without a coat, and he spoke to me [although -he wouldn’t acknowledge her on the previous day]. I was the first -to speak. I said, ‘I see about this murder; why did you do it?’ He -said,‘What are you getting at?’ I said, ‘You know very well; why did -you do it, Colin?’ He said, ‘Do what?’ I said, ‘You know very well what -you did. That child was in your wine cafe yesterday afternoon, for I -saw her.’ He said, ‘Not me.’ And with that he said, ‘People are looking -at us; walk out into Little Collins Street, Ivy, and I will follow -you.’ He returned to the wine cafe and put on his coat. I stood at the -corner in Little Collins Street for perhaps two minutes, and then he -followed me. Before that, when he said, ‘I did not do anything like -that,’ I said, ‘Don’t tell me that, because I know too well it is you, -for I saw the child in your place yesterday.’ It was then he passed the -remark that people were looking.” - -“When he came into Little Collins Street what did he say,” she was -asked. - -“I cannot think of the exact words,” she replied. - -“Well, tell us the substance of it,” said His Honour. - -Mr. Macindoe: What did he say when you resumed the conversation?—First -of all he tried to make out that I did not see the girl. - -His Honour: Well, what did he say?—He said it was not the child. He -simply said: “You know I did not have that child in there.” I said, -“Gracious me, I looked at the child myself, and I know it was the same -child by the descriptions given,” and for a long while he hung out that -this was not the child. - -Mr. Macindoe: How did he hang out?—He said it was not the child. I -cannot tell you exactly every word he said. - -This was in the Arcade?—It was in Little Collins Street, just at the -corner of the Arcade. - -Well, what then?—I was so sure it was the child, and I would make him -know it was the child. - -Will you tell us what he said?—I am trying to explain it. - -His Honour: You have been told several times that you are only supposed -to tell what was done, or what was said, between you and the accused, -instead of telling your inferences, or assumptions, or suppositions. -Tell us now what took place—what was said. - -Mr. Macindoe: Don’t tell us why he said things; just tell us what -he said.—Well, at last he told me that it was the child. He told me -that the child came to him while he was at the door, on the Friday -afternoon. He said there was no business; there was no one there and -he was standing at his door, and when the child came up and asked him -for a drink he said, “I took her in and gave her a lemonade.” I said, -“When the child came and asked you for a drink of lemonade why didn’t -you take her into the bar? Why did you take her to that little room?” I -said, “I know you too well. I know what you are with little children.” -He said: “On my life, Ivy, I did not take her in there with any evil -intention, but when I got her there I found that she knew absolutely -what I was going to do with her if I wanted her. Assuming that this⸺” - -Mr. Macindoe: Never mind the assumption. Did he say what he -assumed?—Well, you cannot expect me to say it just the way he put it to -me. - -His Honour: No, it is the substance of it we want.—Well, I am trying to -tell you to the best of my ability. - -I am not saying that you are not, but tell us what he said.—He said -that after taking the child in there he gave her a drink of lemonade. -He did not say wine; he said lemonade. And she stayed on there talking -to him for a while. She stayed there until about four. He said a girl -named Gladys came to see him and he told the child to go through to -the little room with curtains and he kept her in there until Gladys -Linderman left, and he then brought her back into the little private -room. - -Mr. Macindoe: What did he say then?—After that, he said he stayed with -her during the rest of the afternoon, with the full intention at six -o’clock of letting her go; but when six o’clock came she remained on. -He said that after six o’clock, when Stanley went, he left us in there -together. I could not tell you just exactly what he said that led up to -the⸺ - -His Honour: No, you need not tell us exactly; just as far as you -remember the substance of it.—I can remember everything quite well, but -it is⸺ - -His Honour: I think if you would not go quite so fast you would -remember better. - -Mr. Macindoe: What did he say then?—Just after that he said that he had -outraged the child; he said that between six and eight o’clock he had -outraged her. - -What did he say about it?—What do you mean? - -Well, I suppose he didn’t say, “I outraged the child”? No, that is the -hardest part of it.—I cannot say it. - -His Honour: Is it because you cannot remember it, or because it is too -foul?—It is because the language he used is too foul. I cannot say it. - -Will you write it down?—I will try to the best of my ability to say it. - -Mr. Macindoe: What was it, as near you can remember?—He said, first of -all, “After Stan went, I got fooling about with her, and you know the -disease I am suffering from, and when in the company of young children -I feel I cannot control myself. It was all over in a minute.” - -Are those his words?—That is just using my own language. - -His Honour: Is that the substance of what he said?—Yes, that is the -substance, and he said: “After it was all over I could have taken a -knife and slashed her up, and myself too, because she led me on to it. -He tried to point out to me that, so he believed, she went there for an -immoral purpose. That is what he said to me. That is what he tried to -imply to my mind.” - -The witness then wrote down the exact words used, which was a statement -in coarse language that the girl had previously been tampered with. - -The witness went on to tell what happened after the girl’s death. -“After it had happened, he said that he had a friend to meet—a girl -friend. He took the body of the little girl and put it into the beaded -room, and left it wrapped up in a blanket, and at nine o’clock, or -half-past nine he brought a girl named Gladys Wain there. She stayed -until ten o’clock. He took her home at ten o’clock, and came back -between ten and half-past, after seeing her to the station or tram, and -removed the body from the beaded room into the small room off the bar. -He then went to Footscray by train, but came back again between one -and two a.m. I asked him how he got back, and he said he came by motor -car, and went in there and looked for a place to put the body. He first -thought of putting it in the recess alongside the wine cafe, but that -the ‘Skytalians’ would be blamed for a thing like that. Then he thought -he would put it in Mac’s room (that is room 33 opposite, occupied by a -man named McKenzie). I said what an awful thing to do. He said: ‘I did -the very best thing. I put it in the street.’” - -It will be noted that up to this time the witness had not said a word -of the actual death of the child, and that great difficulty had been -experienced in dragging a consecutive story from her. She was brought -back to the main point by the question: “Did he tell you at any time -how the girl had died?” She answered: “I had better write it down. He -strangled her while he was going with her. He said he strangled her -in his passion. He said he heard or saw where they were saying a cord -had been round the child’s neck. He said that was not so. He said: ‘I -pressed round her with my hands. I did not mean to kill her; but it was -my passion that did it.’ He said she was dead before he knew where he -was. That was just his words to me.” - -In cross-examination, the witness absolutely declined to say anything -that would let light in on her past life. She objected to saying where -she lived, and when that was forced from her she said at an apartment -house at 25 Rathdown Street. Asked if among the people who lived -there was a woman named Julia Gibson, she replied that she was the -proprietress. Asked if Julia Gibson was identical with Madame Ghurka, -she said she did not feel called upon to say anything as to the names -Mrs. Gibson assumed. She knew her as Mrs. Gibson, the proprietress of -the boarding-house, but didn’t know she was a fortune-teller, though -she knew her as a phrenologist. She had lived with her since the -previous November. She admitted that she had made several additions to -her evidence as given at the inquest, and these are so suggestive that -they will be referred to in more detail later. She admitted that she -had gone—or “may have gone”—at different times under the names of Ivy -Sutton, Ivy Dolan, and Ivy Marshall. She swore that she was married, -but declined to say what her married name was. She admitted that Ross -had dismissed her from his employ following the shooting case with -the intimation that, after the evidence she had given in the case, he -“would not have a bitch like her about the premises.” “Those were his -exact words to me,” she said. She admitted that, after her dismissal, -she claimed to be a partner, and that a lengthy correspondence ensued -between her solicitor and Ross, in which she demanded a week’s wages -in lieu of notice, and claimed a share in the partnership; that Ross -claimed £10 from her as a debt, and that her solicitors wrote to him, -in reply, accusing him of insulting her by calling her Miss Matthews, -instead of Mrs., “on account of not being able to force from her the -sum of £10 which he wished to obtain.” She admitted that Ross sued her -for the £10, but withdrew the case on the morning of the return of -the summons in petty sessions; that her solicitor wrote saying that, -if the costs were not paid, a warrant would issue. All these letters -were written with her authority, but she denied that there was any -ill-feeling whatever between her and Ross. She did admit, however, that -Ross and she had never spoken from the day she left his employ until -the day she spoke to him about the tragedy. - -By comparing the evidence which Matthews gave at the inquest with -that which she gave at the trial, it will be seen that on the trial -important additions were made. The significance of the additions will -be discussed later when her evidence is being analysed, but here it -may be said that at the inquest she said nothing about Ross going back -for his coat; she never mentioned the name of Gladys Wain (or Gladys -Linderman), or anything about meeting with such a woman. She did not -say in the Coroner’s Court anything about the tragedy having happened -after Stanley left; she did not say anything about Ross having got the -murdered girl in the afternoon to go from the little room (the cubicle) -off the bar to the little room off the parlour (the beaded room), in -order to clear the way for Gladys Wain, or about having brought her -back when Gladys Wain was gone; she did not say that Ross had said -that, when Gladys was coming in the evening, he took the dead body from -the cubicle to the beaded room, and then came back between 10 o’clock -and half-past 10, and shifted it from the beaded room back to the -cubicle. - -What is more important than all this, at the inquest Matthews made -the conversations all take place in Little Collins Street. In one way -this may seem a small matter, but it is very important, because when -one is retailing a conversation he can clearly visualise the place -where he was standing when certain things were said. Matthews’s exact -words at the inquest were: “After I passed the third time he came out, -and I spoke to him in Little Collins Street.” She gives some words of -the conversation, and then she added: “then he told me to walk along -a little bit, as people were looking at us from the Arcade. I walked -along a little bit, and several people went past, and they could -have noticed me.” On the trial the witness made the early part of -the conversation take place at the door of the saloon, and then the -suggestion came from Ross, she says, that they should walk out into -Little Collins Street, as people were looking at them. The significance -of this alteration will also be adverted to later. - - -HARDING’S STORY. - -Deferring comment upon these matters for the moment, we will proceed -with the evidence of the next disreputable witness—the odious Sydney -John Harding, who now obtains £250 out of the reward and a free pardon -for his “services to the State.” - -Harding at this time was awaiting trial on a charge of shopbreaking, -together with another man named Joseph Dunstan. He had a list of -convictions at the time so long that he could not remember them all. He -was a wife deserter, and was living in adultery with the so-called Ruby -Harding. A verdict of guilty against him might almost of a certainty -have been expected to result in an indeterminate sentence for him. -The “key,” as it is called, has a peculiar terror for criminals. As -he lay in the Melbourne Gaol awaiting trial he had a tremendously -strong inducement to try and render some service to the State. Harding -arrived in Melbourne from Sydney on January 4, a fugitive from -justice. He was on bail in that city, and he bolted. He was arrested on -the 9th, and lodged in the Melbourne Gaol. He was in the remand yard -with different persons, including Ross at different times, and on the -23rd of January was in the yard with four men, again including Ross. -The conversation was general for a while, he said, and then reverted to -Ross’s case. - -“I remarked to Ross,” he said, “that a girl named Ruby, whom we both -knew, informed me that a woman was down in the female division of the -prison in connection with his case. He said: ‘I wonder if it is Ivy -Matthews?’ I said: ‘It could hardly have been her, for Ruby knows her, -and would have told me so.’ He said: ‘I wonder what she says?’ I said: -‘Can she say anything?’ and he said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Why worry?’” Ross -and he meantime were walking up and down the yard, which is triangular -in shape, while Dunstan, because he had rheumatism, was sitting under -the shed on a form, “idly turning over the pages of a magazine.” - -“After saying ‘Why worry?’” said Harding, “I said: ‘Did you see the -girl?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘How was she dressed?’ He said: ‘She -was dressed in a blue skirt and a white blouse, and a light-coloured -hat with a ribbon band around it, and black shoes and stockings.’ I -said: ‘Did you tell the detectives you saw her?’ and he said: ‘Yes, -but I told them she had black boots on.’ I said: ‘Did you speak to the -girl?’ and he said: ‘No.’ After a little while he said to me: ‘What do -you think of the case?’ I said: ‘I do not know any of the details of -the case, and, therefore, I am not qualified to offer an opinion.’ We -ceased talking on that for a little while, and continued walking up -and down, and then he said to me: ‘Can a man trust you?’ I said: ‘Yes; -I have known you a good time, and have not done you any harm, have -I?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Did you speak to the girl?’ and he said: -‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Where?’ He said she was standing in front of Madame -Ghurka’s, and she came down the Arcade, and when she got in front of -his place he spoke to her, and she took no notice of him at first. He -said: ‘You have nothing to be afraid of. I own this place, and if you -are tired you can come in and sit down.’ I asked him what time this -was. He said about a quarter to 3, or a quarter past 3, I am not sure -which. I said: ‘Did you tell the detectives you spoke to her?’ and -he said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Did you take her into the cafe?’ and he said -yes, she went in, and he took her into the cubicle near the counter. I -said: ‘Could not any of your customers see her?’ He said: ‘No; we were -not busy that day, and the customers were in the parlour.’ When he had -the girl in the cubicle, he said, he spoke to her for a few moments, -and then offered her a drink of sweet wine. She at first refused it, -but eventually accepted it and sipped it, and appeared to like it. He -said he gave her a second glass, and gave her in all three glasses. -He said about this time a woman whom he knew came to the door of the -cafe, and he went and spoke to her for about three-quarters of an hour, -that when she left he went back to the cubicle and the girl was asleep. -About this time his own girl came to the door of the cafe, and he went -and spoke to her until nearly 6 o’clock. I asked him who served his -customers while he was talking to the girl. He said his brother did. I -said: ‘Could not your brother see the girl in the cubicle when he went -behind the counter to get the drinks?’ He said: ‘No, the screen was -down, and when the screen was down no one dared to go into the cubicle.’ - -“At 6 o’clock, or a few seconds afterwards, he closed the wine cafe -and went back into the cubicle. The little girl was still asleep, and -he could not resist the temptation. I asked him did she call out, and -he said: ‘Yes, she moaned and sang out,’ but he put his hand over her -mouth, and she stopped and appeared to faint. After a little time -she commenced again to call out, and he went in to stop her, and -in endeavoring to stop her from singing out, he said, he must have -choked her. He further added that ‘you will hear them saying that she -was choked with a piece of wire or a piece of rope, but that was not -so.’ He said he picked up her hand, and it appeared to be like a dead -person’s hand, because it fell just like a dead person’s hand would -do. I said to him: ‘I suppose you got very excited when you realised -what had happened?’ He said: ‘No; I got suddenly cool, and commenced -to think.’ There was a great deal of blood about, he said, and he got -a bucket and got some water from the tap, and washed the cubicle and -around the cubicle, but seeing that, by comparison, the rest of the -bar looked dirtier than the cubicle, he washed the whole lot. I asked -him: ‘What time was this—7 or 8?’ and he said: ‘Yes, about that time.’ -I said: ‘Was it before you met your girl?’ He said: ‘Yes,’ that he had -time to clean himself and go for a walk around the town before meeting -his girl. I asked him did he meet his girl, and he said he did. I said: -‘You took a risk, didn’t you, in meeting her?’ He said: ‘No, I would -have taken a bigger risk had I not met her, because I would have had a -job to prove my whereabouts.’ I said: ‘Could not she see the girl when -she went into the wine cafe?’ He said: ‘No, we had our drink in the -parlour.’ - -“He said he took his girl home at half-past 10, and caught the twenty -to 11 train to Footscray. When he got to Footscray he got on to the -electric tram for his home. Whilst on the tram he created a diversion -so as to attract the attention of the passengers and conductor, so that -he could have them as witnesses to prove an alibi. I asked him if he -went home, and he said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Did you come back to Melbourne -by car?’ He said: ‘No,’ that he had a bike. I said: ‘A motor bike?’ He -said: ‘No, a push bike.’ I said: ‘Have you a push bike of your own?’ He -said: ‘No, but a man I know, who lives near us, had a push bike, and I -know where it is kept.’ I said: ‘Did you go straight into the Arcade?’ -He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘But the gates are locked there at night.’ He -said: ‘Yes, but I have a key.’ I said: ‘When you went to the Arcade did -you go straight in and remove the body?’ He said: ‘No. I went in and -took the girl’s clothes off,’ that he went out and walked around the -block to see if there was anybody about, that he came back and rolled -the body in a coat or an overcoat—I don’t know which—and carried it to -the lane. I asked him was he going to put it in the sewer, and he said -he did not know. I said: ‘Did you not know there was a sewer there?’ He -said he did, but he heard somebody coming, and he went from the lane -into Little Collins Street, and saw a man coming down from the Adam and -Eve Hotel. He added that, if they tried to put that over him, he would -ask what the old bastard was doing there at 1 o’clock in the morning. -I said: ‘Where did you go then?’ He said he went back to the cafe. I -asked him what he did with the clothes. He said he made a bundle of -them, put them on his bicycle, and rode to Footscray, that when he got -to the first hotel on the Footscray road he got off the bicycle and sat -on the side of the road and tore the clothing into strips and bits. He -went round with the bicycle and distributed the strips and bits along -the road, and when he came to the bridge crossing the river he threw -one shoe and some of the strips into the river, and then distributed -more strips, and went down the road and down Nicholson street to the -Ammunition Works, to the river, and threw the other shoe and some more -strips in. He then went back and got his bicycle and rode home to bed. - -“Before this I said: ‘Supposing they open the girl’s stomach and find -wine in it?’ He said: ‘What do they want to open her stomach for when -they know she died of strangulation?’ I said: ‘Suppose they do open -it?’ He said: ‘I’m not the only one who could give her wine; couldn’t -I sell a bottle of wine over the counter in the Arcade to anyone, and -couldn’t they give it to her to drink?’ I said: ‘That is so.’ He then -said: ‘What do you think of the case?’ I said: ‘Pretty good; have you -told anybody else?’ He said: ‘No. Sonenberg told me to keep my mouth -shut.’ I said: ‘Why didn’t you keep your mouth shut?’ He said: ‘I can -trust you; anyhow, you are in here.’” - -On the next day, said Harding, the conversation was resumed. “I asked -him did he always have a screen up in that cubicle. He said: ‘No; I -used the one in the parlour—the red screen.’” Ross also said (according -to the witness) that there was a good deal of blood about, and on being -asked by the Crown Prosecutor: “Did he say anything about the old man -again?” Harding replied: “He passed the remark that this old bloke, -about 70 years of age, was there, and if they put that over on him he -said: ‘I will ask what he was doing there, and that he is just the sort -of fellow they would pick for that sort of crime, and that they would -never think a young fellow like me would do it.’” - -In cross-examination, Harding was asked by Mr. Maxwell: “Did Ross tell -you that, on that night, he had had hard luck in that he was seen by so -many people?” “He did not,” said Harding. - -“Did he not tell you that, when he was in the Arcade, a man had come up -and asked him whether he could lend him a pencil?”—No. - -Mr. Maxwell was slightly in error there, for what Alberts had said was -that Ross came to him and asked him for a pencil. - -“Did he not tell you that, while he was preparing the body for removal, -a man pushed his way into the wine cafe, and that he (Ross) went -out with his hand covered with blood, and served him with a bloody -bottle?”—“No.” - -“Did he not tell you that he had told about the tragedy to Ivy -Matthews?”—“No; each time he mentioned Ivy Matthews it was with some -execration.” - -Asked as to his record, Harding said he was 30 years of age, had been -convicted “about nine or ten times—it might be eleven.” His offences -included housebreaking, larceny, assault, wounding, escaping from -custody, and a fourteen days’ “solitary” while in prison for making -false statements against two warders. The confession, he said, was made -on Monday, January 23rd, and that same evening he sent for the governor -and asked him to send for Detective Walsh, and when Walsh came he -communicated it to them. The inquest was on the 25th and 26th, and it -finished about midday on the latter date. He thought he saw a report of -his evidence in the “Age” of the next day, and Dunstan might have seen -that report. When asked how long he remained in gaol after making his -statement to the Governor, he answered: “Until the 27th of January—no, -it was more than that, I think the 30th January.” - - -DUNSTAN’S CORROBORATION. - -Dunstan was then called to corroborate Harding. He was awaiting trial -with Harding for housebreaking, and at the Police Court he had pleaded -guilty, and had exonerated Harding. It should be recalled here, -however, that when the two men came up for trial, and the same course -was adopted, the jury declined to accept the story that Harding knew -nothing of the charge, and he was found guilty of receiving. Dunstan -had twice previously been convicted of larceny, and he was one of the -five that were in the remand yard on January 23. His story was that -he heard certain answers made by Ross, but only one question put by -Harding. The answers were: “I was talking to the girl”; “if they do -find any wine inside her, that ain’t to say I gave it to her”; “my -brother was serving”; “I left my girl at half-past 10”; “I ain’t the -only man that has got a disease”; “no, a bike”; “I will ask the old -bastard what he was doing there at half-past 1”; “Ammunition Works.” -The only question he heard Harding ask was: “How was she dressed?” - -Dunstan admitted that when Ross came back from the inquest Ross said -to him: “That is a nice cobber of yours, to go into the box and swear -a man’s life away.” Dunstan had not been called at the inquest. He said -that he first told the Governor what he had heard on the Friday or the -Saturday two or three days after the inquest. He had had opportunities -for quiet talks with Harding in the meantime, but there had been no -conversations on the subject of Harding’s evidence. He said he had -never read in the papers any account of Harding’s evidence. Harding had -asked him had he heard the conversation, and he had told Harding that -what he had heard he would tell to the governor of the gaol. He had not -told Harding, because he “didn’t have much time for him.” Being shown a -copy of the “Herald,” with Harding’s photograph in it, and being asked -if he had seen that before, he said: “I do believe I did.” He couldn’t -say when it was, but it was when it was in gaol. He had said that he -never read a paper in gaol, but that didn’t mean that he had never seen -one. It was only a passing glance of the “Herald” as he walked up and -down the yard. - -Harding, who had been out of court, was then recalled, and further -cross-examined by Mr. Maxwell. He said that, on the day following the -inquest, he and Dunstan were reading a paper, either the “Age” or the -“Herald”—that is, he was reading it aloud, and Dunstan was looking over -his shoulder. He had often had papers lent from the adjoining yards, -and on these occasions Dunstan got the benefit of them. - - -ROSS’S MOVEMENTS. - -We now come to a different class of evidence—the evidence which -purported to tell of the movements of Ross on the important dates. The -conflict between this evidence and the supposed confessions and the -inherent improbability of the evidence itself will be dealt with later. - -David Alberts, an eccentric-looking individual, who described himself -as a vaudeville artist, residing at 47 Little Smith Street, Fitzroy, -said that he left home about half-past 6, and between half-past 7 and -a quarter to 8 he walked into the Arcade through the Little Collins -Street gate. Opposite the wine saloon he saw a man whom he now -recognised as Ross. The man asked him if he could lend him a pencil. -Alberts said: “I am sorry; I have not got one,” and walked on. He -went as far as the middle of the building, and seeing there was no -light in the office upstairs, he walked back, and the man was then -standing in the doorway of the wine saloon. He recognised Ross by his -gold teeth and by his hair, which was brushed neatly back. It would, -he said, be about three weeks after the incident that he went to the -Detective Office and reported it. He knew the reward was offered -in the meantime, “but,” he said, “I was looking for no reward.” It -should, however, be mentioned here that he has shared in the reward. -It may also be taken as certain that, if Alberts was honest, he was -mistaken, for the evidence that Ross was at home between 7 and 8, and -came back to Footscray on the tram with Mrs. Kee and George Dawsey, -may be accepted as being beyond question. Apart from that, however, it -is simply incredible that a man who was engaged in the gruesome task -of washing away the bloodstains of a murdered victim, and who would -have the deepest interest in keeping his presence in the Arcade at an -unwonted hour a close secret, should have gone out deliberately to ask -a passer-by for a lead pencil, which could be of no imaginable service -to him. - -Alexander Olson, who described himself as a phrenologist, carrying on -business in the Eastern Arcade, said that, between 9 and a quarter -past 9, he walked out into Little Collins Street, to go to a Chinese -laundry, and he saw the accused man pacing up and down between the back -gate of the Eastern Market and the back gate of the Eastern Arcade. How -this evidence, so far from being damaging, supports the truthfulness -of Ross’s statement to the police, can be seen by a reference to the -statement, for this was the exact time that he was waiting outside the -Arcade gates for Gladys Wain. - -Then we come to the evidence of George Arthur Ellis, “and very -important evidence it is,” said Mr. Justice Schutt in summing up to -the jury. Ellis keeps the “lodging-house” previously referred to as -the old Adam and Eve Hotel. On the night of the 30th December he was -sitting at his front door, at the corner of Alfred Place and Little -Collins Street. He saw Ross a little after 9 on that night. He next saw -him before 10 o’clock, then at 11, and two or three times after that, -until ten minutes to 1, when the witness wound his clocks and went to -bed. Ross was walking in and out of the Arcade. There was an arc lamp, -hung over the centre of the street, between where the witness sat and -where Ross was walking up and down. At a quarter to 1 two Italians -came out of the Arcade and bade him good-night. Some time after he had -gone in he heard a loud report, and he rushed out on to the pavement, -and looked up and down for a few seconds, but saw no one. He had never -before seen Ross until that night. The light was almost equal to broad -daylight, and he admitted that he would be as obvious to Ross as -Ross was to him. When the two Italians came out the man walked down -towards Russell Street. They went up to Exhibition Street, and when -Ellis turned to look again Ross was back at his post. He would walk in -and out of the Arcade. Half the gates were open, and it was very dark -inside. He first informed the police of what he had seen on the Sunday -after the tragedy. His house, he said, was a lodging-house—night and -day. Anyone could get a bed for the night; they paid in advance, and -were sometimes gone before he got up. He identified Ross on the day -he was arrested—January 12. He had known the wine shop for years, but -had never been in it, though he had seen some “terrible bad characters -there,” and had seen some “terrible carryings on” there as he had been -coming through from Bourke Street. It was his habit to sit outside his -lodging-house every night as long as it was fine. - -The two Italians, Michaluscki Nicoli and Francisco Anselmi, had been -in the Italian Club until about a quarter to 1. The club is at the -Little Collins Street end of the Arcade, upstairs, and the stairs go -up close to the wine saloon. There was an electric light upstairs, and -as they came down they noticed a light in the wine shop. When they -got into Little Collins Street one of them saw a man walking towards -Russell Street. They said “Good-night” to Ellis, and walked up towards -Exhibition Street. A third Italian, Baptisti Rollandi, the caretaker -of the Italian Club, came down about a quarter of an hour or twenty -minutes after Nicoli and Anselmi had gone, to lock the back gate, and -he saw no light in the wine shop when he came down. It was his duty to -lock the gate when the last member had left the club, whatever time -that happened to be. - -A curious piece of evidence came out quite incidentally whilst this -last witness was in the box. Ross, at about 3 o’clock, or half-past 3, -on the Friday, had asked Rollandi for the loan of a key of the back -gate. The witness said: “I can’t give my key to anybody; go to Mr. -Clarke, the manager; he might give you one.” This looked suspicious, -until it was revealed that Ross wanted the key in order to get into -the Arcade early on the Monday morning to remove his things from the -saloon, Saturday being the last night of the license, and Monday being -the New Year’s Day holiday. The prisoner did get the key from Mr. -Clarke on the Saturday afternoon, and did remove his things early on -the Monday morning. This was mentioned to the police in the statement, -was no doubt verified by the detectives, and was not challenged when -Mr. Clarke was called. So far, therefore, from the circumstances of -Ross wishing to borrow the key being incriminating, it was entirely -in his favor, for it showed he had no key of his own, and is almost -conclusive evidence against his having told Harding that he had a key, -or having told Matthews that he came back “between 1 and 2,” when he -could not have got into the Arcade unless he had a key. - - -THE SHEEN OF GOLDEN HAIRS. - -Two other pieces of evidence, of still another class, were used against -Ross. One was that hairs, which it was claimed were identified as -Alma Tirtschke’s, were found on blankets taken from Ross’s house at -Footscray on January 12; the other was that pieces of serge, which it -was claimed were identified as being part of the child’s dress, were -found on January 27 on the Footscray road, thus confirming the supposed -confession to Harding. - -The story of the hair is one of the most remarkable and one of the most -unsatisfactory, in a case every feature of which is unsatisfactory. -On January 3, the day Alma Tirtschke was buried, Constable Portingale -went to the house where the body was lying, and with a pair of scissors -he cut a lock of hair from the left side of her head, just over the -ear, “and about six inches from her head.” When the detectives went -to Colin Ross’s house to arrest him on January 12, nearly a fortnight -after the tragedy, they took two blankets from a sofa in a vestibule. -“Brophy and I,” said Piggott, “opened one of the brown blankets which -were folded up. I turned the blanket back, and I could see the sheen of -what appeared to be some golden coloured hair. I said to all present: -‘Fold those blankets, and carefully place them in the car; they must -go to the Government Analyst.’” They did go to the Government Analyst -next day. Where they were kept in the meantime was not disclosed on the -trial, except that Ross, at about 2 o’clock on the afternoon of his -arrest, saw them lying across the back of a chair in the clerk’s room -of the Detective Office. The detectives, in the room of the Government -Analyst (Mr. Price), next day, spread the “reddish brown blanket” over -a wooden screen, and removed from it in his presence twenty-two hairs. -Five hairs were taken from the other blanket by Mr. Price himself. Mr. -Price then took ten or twelve hairs from the envelope containing Alma’s -hair. They had an average length, he said, of 6½ inches, the longest of -them being 9 inches. Let it be remembered that these were cut 6 inches -from the girl’s head. He then took the twenty-two hairs, and found -they, too, averaged 6½ inches, but the longest of them were 15, 12, 10, -9 inches, down to 2½ inches. - -“They were not identical in colour with the hairs in the envelope,” -said Mr. Price; “they were of a light auburn colour. They were not a -deep red; they were of a light red colour. They were not cut-off hairs; -they had fallen out, or had been taken from the scalp somehow or other. -They did not appear to have been forcibly removed. One had a bulb root, -but the others did not show the presence of any bulbous portion or -root, as they would if dragged direct from the scalp. I came to the -conclusion that they were hairs about to be cast off in the ordinary -process of nature.” - -“If hairs were cast off,” Mr. Price was asked, “would there be any -distinction in their colour as compared with hair that was actually -growing?” “Well, I cannot say that directly,” he replied, “but the -conclusion I formed, as regards the hairs I found on the blanket, was -that they did not come from the frontal portion; that they had not -been exposed much to the light; that they came from the back portion -of the head, and that that is the reason why their colour was not as -deep as those on the front portion.” The two sets of hair, he said, -were “very similar.” Microscopically, they agreed, because there was a -kind of coarseness about them, and when treated with caustic soda it -tended to bring out the pith portion of the hair, “and that pith was -identical with the hairs on the blanket.” The five hairs from the grey -blanket, Mr. Price said, were “similar in colour” to the hairs on the -reddish brown blanket, but that was all he had to say about them. When -being re-examined, he said that his reason for thinking the front and -back of the hair would differ was that in one head he had tested “the -frontal portion was quite red, and the hair from the back of the head -quite dark.” - -On cross-examination, Mr. Price admitted that it was “several years” -since he had last made an examination of hairs from any woman’s head. -“It does not often come under my notice,” he added. He had made very -few such examinations in his life. Not only did the hairs from the -child’s head and the hairs from the blankets differ in colour, he said, -but they differed in diameter, and it was possible, but not probable, -that the hairs on the blankets may have come from another head. He had -examined many hairs since he had conducted this particular examination, -and he had, in the course of his examination, found some hairs that -were as like Alma Tirtschke’s as the hairs on the blankets. - -It will be shown later that Mr. Price might, on the facts which he -deposed to, have been called as a powerful witness for the defence. -Yet in the atmosphere that prevailed, it seemed to be assumed that his -evidence advanced the case for the prosecution. - - -THE FINDING OF THE SERGE. - -The finding of some pieces of serge on the Footscray Road, on the 26th -or 27th day of January, was also relied on strongly by the Crown. Mrs. -Violet May Sullivan was on the Footscray Road on January 26, and she -saw certain strips of serge on the left-hand side going to Kensington. -She didn’t pick them up. On the next day she read, in the alleged -confession to Harding, that Ross had said that he had strewn the serge -of the girl’s dress on the Footscray Road, and Mrs. Sullivan went back -to the road, and on the opposite side to where she had seen it on the -previous day she saw a roll of serge. She picked it up and handed it to -the local police. One piece she left at home. The serge was produced in -court. One piece was fairly large, in no sense a strip, looked quite -new and fresh, and bore no signs, as Mr. Justice Isaacs indicated in -his High Court judgment, of having lain on a dusty and busy road for -nearly four weeks. Of the rest, one was a strip of a quite different -texture, and looked much older than the piece. There were also a couple -of other fragments. None of them appeared to have been four weeks in -the dust. The serge that she had seen on the first day, Mrs. Sullivan -said, resembled the fragments, but were not like the larger piece, so -that, whether it was the same bundle she saw on both days does not -appear. When Mrs. Murdoch, the girl’s aunt, was in the box, the serge -was handed to her for identification, and she was asked to say what -she had to say about it. “It is very similar to the serge she had on -on that day,” said the witness. “All of it?” she was asked. “That has -nothing to do with it, I should say,” said the witness, discarding the -larger piece. The three other pieces, she said, were “very similar” -to the material of which the girl’s dress was composed. When asked -further, she said she recognised a row of stitching on two of the -pieces. “Do you recognise it as a row of stitching you did yourself?” -she was asked, and she answered: “No; I =fancy= the stitching -there is from the old stuff I made up. I =believe= that is the -stitching. It did have stitching on.” She remembered the old stitching, -because she had had some difficulty in ironing it out. She made the -dress out of old material. It was box-pleated, and the stuff she had -in her hand =looked= to be box-pleated, =but= there was a -portion missing. - -Summarised, then, Mrs. Murdoch’s identification amounted to this, that -she remembered there was some stitching on the dress that she had made -up, and there was also a little bit of stitching on two of the three -pieces handed to her which she “fancied” was the same stitching, while -the fourth piece handed to her, which was part of the same bundle, “had -nothing to do with it.” It was on such “evidence” that Colin Ross was -hanged! - -It will be remembered that Harding’s account of what Ross said was that -he “tore the clothing into strips and bits, and distributed them along -the road.” Yet we are asked to believe that, by some operation of the -laws of cohesion peculiar to the Footscray Road, four or more of them -had rolled themselves together by the 26th, and that they had succeeded -by the next day in crossing the road and joining up with another and -dissimilar piece of blue serge. - -On January 23 the police knew that Ross was supposed to have said that -he scattered the fragments of the girl’s dress along the Footscray -Road. If this could have been verified it would have clinched the case -against Ross, for it would have established beyond question the fact -of some confession. Every effort should have been directed to clearing -up this point. The road Ross said he took was clearly indicated—so -clearly that it showed beyond question that Harding knew the locality -well. If that is doubted, let anyone who does not know the locality try -to describe Ross’s alleged route after reading the description once. -If one knows the locality, he has a mental picture, as the words are -spoken, which he can reproduce. If he does not, the words are words -merely, and cannot be repeated without rehearsal. But the point is -that, on getting this alleged confession, the detectives should have -got half a dozen men to take the road, or the two roads if necessary, -in a face in order to discover the serge. It was so plain, Mrs. -Sullivan said, that “it could not be missed.” The local police did not -find it, the detective’s agents did not find it, but a casual wayfarer -stumbles across it twice, because “you could not miss it.” Piggott’s -answers to questions were that, on learning of the confession, “we took -certain steps,” and “gave certain directions”; and his explanation of -the failure to find the serge was that his men searched the wrong road! -One would have liked to have heard the comments of, say, the late Mr. -Justice Hodges, on this extraordinary admission. - - -THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE. - -The last class of evidence, though given first on the trial, was the -medical testimony. It showed that there was an abrasion on the left -side of the neck which extended across the mid-line, and measured -2½ inches in length by ⁷/₁₆ of an inch in breadth at its widest -part. Below this, on the left side of the neck, there was a narrower -abrasion, about ⅛ of an inch in width, and not extending across the -mid-line. There was another abrasion on the left side of the lower -jaw, an inch in length, and a quarter of an inch in breadth. There was -a small abrasion on the outer side of the right eye, a small abrasion -in the centre of the upper lip, another small abrasion at the back of -the right elbow, and the skin of the back of the left elbow had been -slightly rubbed. There was some bruising and lividity on the right -side of the face. The upper part of the chest was livid, and showed -small hæmorrhages. Hæmorrhages were also found in the scalp and on the -surface of the eyes. There were some small bruises on the right side of -the neck. Internally, there was a bruise on the left tonsil. - -In view of absurd rumours that have been circulated as to the injuries -to the body, it is well to give Dr. Mollison’s next words as he uttered -them: “I think those were all the abrasions and bruises.” It has got -abroad that there were facts about this case that were unprintable. -There is no truth in the report. With the exception of one coarse -sentence said to have been used to Matthews, and one coarse word said -by Harding to have been used by himself, there was nothing in the case, -from start to finish, which has not appeared, either literally or -euphemistically, in the reputable press. The child had been violated, -but the cause of death, in the doctor’s opinion, was strangulation from -throttling. The violation would have led to a considerable amount of -blood being lost. The stomach was opened, and contained some thick, -dark-coloured fluid, mixed with food. No smell or trace of alcohol -was detected, but the doctor added that the smell of alcohol would -disappear fairly rapidly. In this, it may be here stated, Dr. Mollison -is not supported by a number of other medical men of standing. The -post-mortem examination was held within a few hours of the discovery -of the body, and within about sixteen hours of the child’s death, -if she died between 6 and 7. “Alcohol,” said the doctor, “starts to -be absorbed almost immediately it is swallowed.” This subject was -discussed at the British Medical Association Conference in Glasgow -at the end of July, 1922. Professor Mellanby, who has made a special -study of the effects of alcohol on heredity, said that, “after a good -carouse, it had taken from ten to eighteen hours for the alcohol to be -cleared out of the circulation of a man.” Now, three glasses of sweet -wine is a “good carouse” for a child who probably never drank a glass -of wine before. Sweet wine contains a very high percentage of alcohol. -Accepting the Harding story, the girl was dead within an hour or two -of taking them, and the process of clearing the alcohol out of the -circulation would cease, or be greatly retarded. And still the fact -remains that no trace of alcohol was found in the body. - - -DETECTIVE BROPHY’S BLUNDER. - -That was the full case as made by the Crown against Ross, with the -exception of an admission said to have been made to Detective Brophy. -This admission may be stated and dealt with at once. Brophy said that, -on the 16th of January, he took a man named White to the Melbourne -Gaol, and confronted him with Ross. White said: “Yes, that is the man.” -Brophy then said: “This man has identified you as the man whom he saw -in the Arcade speaking to the little girl, Alma.” Ross said: “Oh,” -and then, turning to White, he said: “What time was that?” White said -about 3.30. Ross said: “Yes, that’s quite right.” Ross’s version of the -conversation, as given in evidence, was that Brophy said: “This man -says he saw you talking to a girl in the Arcade at 3.30, and he said: -‘That is correct.’” Brophy made no comment. It is not only clear that -Ross’s was the correct account, but it is extremely hard to see how an -intelligent man could have any doubt about it. Let us look at the facts. - -Ross had denied on December 31, when first seen by the detectives, that -he had spoken to “the girl Alma,” but had said that he was speaking -to a girl at the door at about the time mentioned; in his written -statement on January 5 he denied that he had spoken to the girl; when -brought to the Detective Office, under arrest, on January 12, Piggott -said to him: “It will be proved that the little girl was seen in your -wine shop on December 30,” and he promptly answered: “That’s a lie.” -From first to last he had denied specifically that he had ever spoken -to the girl Alma, and from first to last he had said that he was -speaking to Gladys Wain at the saloon door about that time. Gladys -Wain, it should be remarked, though a married woman, is very small, -and extremely girlish in appearance. Yet we are asked to believe that -Ross, by a quite casual remark on January 16, made an admission, the -most important by far he had made during the course of the police -investigation, and that one of the detectives in charge of the case -turned away from him without the slightest comment on his startling -admission. - -But there is the further fact that White cannot have said that he saw -Ross speaking to “the little girl Alma,” for the simple reason that -White did not know Alma. From that it follows that Brophy could not -have said, if he were speaking accurately—and a detective should be -accurate—that “this man saw you speaking to the little girl Alma.” -If Ross had intended to refer to Alma, he would not, and need not, -have inquired “What time was that?” The time would have been quite -unimportant. If he had another girl in his mind, the enquiry as to -the time was natural. In any case, the evidence never should have -been tendered or admitted, for if it was sought to be proved that -Ross was seen speaking to the murdered girl the proper way to prove -it, according to the “rule of best evidence,” was to call White to -prove it. And White was not called, not because he had disappeared, -but because it was known that he would not swear that he had seen Ross -“talking to the little girl Alma.” - -[Illustration] - - - - -PART III. - -ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE. - - -In seeking to show how doubtful it is that Ross should have been -convicted on the evidence, it is not proposed to go deeply into the -case for the defence, and argue that the weight of testimony lay with -the prisoner. It will be shown later that not one word that Ross said -as to his movements was shown to be false, and that every word he did -say was supported by strong evidence, but in the meantime the Crown -evidence will be subjected to analysis, with a view of showing that -from it it was impossible to arrive at a certain conclusion that Ross -was guilty. - - -WHY CONFESS TO MATTHEWS. - -Let us take first the evidence of Ivy Matthews. Suppose Ross were -guilty, why should he have made a confession to this woman? They were -at daggers drawn. He had cast her out of his employment with terms of -the deepest insult. They had fought bitterly, through their lawyers, -almost up to the date of the tragedy. They had not seen one another, -much less spoken to one another, between the date she was turned out of -his employment and the 31st of December. Yet on the 31st of December, -according to the Matthews evidence, we have them addressing one another -as “Ive” and “Colin,” and we have Ross handing his life over to the -unsafe keeping of this “woman scorned.” - -The strongest appeals were made through the press for anyone who saw -the child to inform the police. But Ivy Matthews, if her evidence is -true, not only saw the child in the saloon on the Friday, but on the -Saturday she had a full confession from Ross. Yet she remained silent, -according to herself and the detectives, until she gave her evidence at -the inquest. She gave no reason for keeping silence, and she gave two -reasons for eventually speaking. At the inquest she said: “I pledged -my word to Ross I would not give evidence against him,” but even if -he had not been arrested, she said: “Perhaps my conscience might have -made me tell.” “If some other man had been put in the dock on this -charge,” she added, “I would have come up and said Ross is the guilty -man.” On the trial, when asked why, if she had given her word, she had -not kept it, she answered: “Would you expect me, a woman, to keep the -secret?” But the fact is that she did keep the “secret” for over three -weeks. At the inquest she said that the circumstance that the £1000 -reward was offered should not be put to her, for, she said, “money and -those sort of things hold no interest for me. I do not suppose I will -get anything, and I do not want it.” But, again, the fact is that now -she has been allotted £350 out of the £1000 Government reward offered, -and £87/10/- out of the £250 offered by the “Herald.” This is not a -negligible inducement for a lady who had done no work between November -and the end of February. - - -CHANGES IN MATTHEWS’S EVIDENCE. - -But it is the changes in Matthews’s evidence, as between the inquest -and the trial, that cast the most doubt on it. She makes Colin Ross in -his confession, as retailed at the trial, get the girl to come out of -the cubicle in the afternoon, and stay in the beaded room for an hour -or so, while he talks to Gladys Wain; she makes him bring the girl -back to the cubicle when Gladys Wain is gone; she makes him cause the -girl’s death there after 6 o’clock, and then carry the dead body back -to the beaded room, in order that he may make love to Gladys Wain in -the cubicle later on; she makes him come back, after seeing Gladys Wain -home, and carry the dead body back from the beaded room to the cubicle. - -There are several features about that narration which are absolutely -incredible. Nothing was said about any of these incidents at the -inquest. In the first place, how did this modest, good, retiring -little girl come to remain for over an hour in the beaded room in the -afternoon, while Ross talked with Gladys Wain in the cubicle? It was -separated from the Arcade only by a sheet of glass, and there were two -doors opening into the Arcade through which the girl could have passed. -Again, it is utterly unbelievable that Ross would have indulged in the -unnecessary perambulations with the dead body, as deposed to, and it is -equally unbelievable that, if he had done so, he would have given those -details to a person to whom he was confessing the simple fact of the -murder. - -Why, then, were the additions put in? The answer is quite simple. -At the inquest Olive Maddox gave her evidence before Matthews, and -Matthews was out of court. Olive Maddox said that she saw the child in -the beaded room at five minutes to 5. Ivy Matthews followed her into -the witness box, and said that she saw the child in the cubicle at 3 -o’clock. How or why did it come about that the child went from the -one room to the other? On the trial Matthews has to be, or thinks she -ought to be, ready with an explanation. So she makes Ross say that he -sent the little girl into the beaded room while he was with Gladys Wain -in the cubicle. According to the stage setting, the death has to take -place in the cubicle, for there is where the only couch was, and there -is where the blankets with the sheen of golden hair came from. So Ross -is made to say that, when Gladys went, he got Alma to come back again -from the beaded room to the cubicle, where she met her death soon after -6. Ross in his statement said that Gladys Wain was with him again in -the cubicle in the evening from 9.15 for over an hour. The police were -satisfied that that was a fact. Matthews has again to reconcile her -story with that position, and again she is equal to it. She makes Ross -say that he carried the dead body from the cubicle to the beaded room -in order that he may make love to Gladys in the cubicle. But before she -gave her evidence on the trial, the hero of the bloody bottle had been -in the box, and his evidence had appeared in print. He is supposed to -have seen and heard certain things which showed that the body was in -the cubicle after midnight. Matthews thinks it desirable to meet that, -so she makes Ross say that he came back to the cafe after seeing Gladys -home, and before he went home himself, and carried the body once more -back from the beaded room to the cubicle. No possible theory can be -advanced why Ross should have done all these things; no possible theory -can be advanced why, if he had done them, he should have given the -details of them to Matthews. But if we assume Matthews’s knowledge of -Maddox’s evidence, and Upton’s evidence, and her knowledge that Gladys -Wain was in the cubicle from 9.15 until after 10.30—all of which we -are entitled to assume—then we are in possession of ample material for -explaining why Matthews should have invented the details. - -Then there is the change in the place at which the conversation is -supposed to have taken place. At the inquest it was put as beginning -in Little Collins Street, at the end of the Arcade, and as being -resumed a short distance from the end of the Arcade, but still in the -street. On the trial it was put as beginning, and going on for a little -time, at the door of the saloon, and then as being resumed, when Ross -suggested that people were looking, out in Little Collins Street. The -significance of this change will not be realised unless it is disclosed -that just prior to the trial notice was served on the defence that it -was proposed to call as a witness on the trial Julia Gibson, otherwise -Madame Ghurka, to prove that she saw Ross talking to Matthews on the -Saturday afternoon. Ghurka was not, in fact, called. There may be some -doubt as to whether her evidence would have been admissible. Probably -it would have been admitted in rebuttal, when Ross swore that he did -not have any conversation with Matthews on that afternoon. At any rate, -her evidence was not tendered. The fact remains, however, that Ghurka -must have told the police, or Ivy Matthews must have told the police, -that Ghurka saw the two in conversation, and was prepared to testify to -it. She could not, from her own door, have seen them in conversation in -Little Collins Street. - -Matthews, in her evidence, said that she had not told the police that -Madame Ghurka had seem Ross talking to her, and added that, if Madame -Ghurka was to give evidence of having seen them conversing, she did -not know how the police acquired the information. When asked, however, -“Have you discussed with Madame Ghurka at any time anything about this -case?” she answered: “To say I had not would be a lie—I have.” - -It has been published in a Sydney paper, which, during and after the -trial, was in the closest touch With the witnesses for the Crown, -that it was Madame Ghurka who induced Matthews to tell all she knew -about the case. It is also a fact that both were well acquainted -with Ross, and both were unfriendly with him, a circumstance which -would make discussion natural; and that Matthews had lived at Madame -Ghurka’s house from November, 1921, up to the date of the trial, a -circumstance which would make discussion easy. It is also a fact that -Madame Ghurka and two of her family have shared in the reward, though -nothing has ever appeared officially to show what services Madame -Ghurka rendered to the police, which entitled her thus to share. We -may assume, further, that the reward was not allocated until the views -of the police had been ascertained. When we know what Madame Ghurka’s -services to the State under this head were, and when we know—what may -appear irrelevant, but what is very germane to the matter in hand—why -nobody was ever prosecuted for the recent theft of Ivy Matthew’s box -of clothing, and when we know why a charge of indecent language laid -against Sydney John Harding was precipitately withdrawn when called -on in the police court, then we shall know something which has a very -close connection with the making of a case against Colin Ross.[3] And -if Madame Ghurka gave information (undisclosed) to the police, which -they felt entitled her to share in the reward, her information should -be considered in the light of the fact that she gave evidence in a -recent divorce suit, and was then described by the presiding judge as -a “bitter, vindictive woman,” and “the sort of woman who would say -anything, whether it was true or false.” - -[3] Ivy Matthews, in June, 1922, reported that a box of clothing, -containing some money which she had ready packed to take to Sydney, had -been stolen. It had been called for by a cabman in her absence, and -taken away. Some weeks afterwards the box was discovered at the railway -station; but about £20 worth of the clothes were missing. That was the -last ever heard—publicly—of the matter. In September, 1922, Harding was -arrested on a charge of indecent language. When his case was called on -next morning at the police court, the prosecuting sergeant said, “The -accused has apologised to the constable; the constable is satisfied, -and wishes to withdraw the charge.” It was withdrawn accordingly. -All offenders do not get so easily out of their troubles, and plain -constables are not, as a rule, allowed to withdraw charges for public -offences. But no doubt Harding was able to say, “I have done the State -some service, and they know it”—with the accent on the “they.” - - -POWERS OF INVENTIVENESS. - -Incidentally, during the trial, a remarkable sidelight was thrown -on Ivy Matthew’s powers of invention, and her unscrupulousness in -exercising them. The Crown Prosecutor cross-examined Mrs. Ross at some -length as to a visit she is supposed to have paid to Ivy Matthews on -February 6, in order to “beseech” her not to give evidence against her -son. The passage is worth transcribing in full. - -“Have you ever discussed anything with Ivy Matthews?” asked Mr. -Macindoe, the Crown Prosecutor. “No,” was the answer, “I have only had -one conversation with Ivy Matthews in my life,” and question and answer -proceeded as follow:— - -When was that?—That was the time of the shooting affair. That is some -time back. - -I am going to remind you of the 6th of February last?—I had no -conversation with Ivy Matthews on February 6. - -Do you know what day of the week it was?—No, I could not tell you. - -Do you know where you were on February 6?—On February 6 I would be -home. I have not been out of my home very much since this trouble has -been on. - -You have been into town since this trouble?—I have only been into town -to see my son Colin. - -Have you not seen Ivy Matthews since the inquest?—At the inquest, but -not since the inquest. - -Do you know where Rathdown Street is?—I know Rathdown Street. - -Do you know where Mrs. Julia Gibson (Madame Ghurka) lives?—I do not. - -No idea?—I have not the slightest idea where she lives. - -Do you know where Ivy Matthews lives?—I do not. - -Or was living in February?—I do not. - -Did you not go to the house where Ivy Matthews was living in February -of this year?—I did not. - -You swear that?—I will swear it. - -You know, of course, that Ivy Matthews had given evidence at the -Morgue?—I did; at the Coroner’s inquiry, you mean? - -Yes; and that she had given evidence against your son?—Yes; I know that. - -Have you ever seen her and talked about that evidence?—I have never set -eyes on Ivy Matthews since the day I saw her at the Coroner’s Court. - -Do you say you did not go to the house in Rathdown Street, and were -shown into the parlour by a maid on February 6, and that you asked for -Ivy Matthews, and that Ivy Matthews came down to that parlour?—I did -not; I can swear it. - -And that you besought her not to give evidence?—No. I never did. - -If you had done it would you say so?—I would. I had no reason to do so. -Ivy Matthews is a woman I would not demean myself to talk to, let alone -to plead to. - -Why?—I talked to her once and once only, and that was quite sufficient -for me. - -Those who heard Mrs. Ross’s answers to the questions put to her, -saw the look of mystification spreading over her face as they were -developed, heard her solemn declaration that she had never even set -eyes on Ivy Matthews since the day she saw her at the Coroner’s Court, -heard her earnest, low-voiced assertion that “Ivy Matthews is a woman I -would not demean myself to talk to, let alone to plead to,” could not, -for a moment, doubt that she was speaking the truth. A somewhat similar -line of cross-examination was pursued when Stanley and Ronald Ross were -in the witness box, but in their case a different date was alleged. -Stanley Ross was cross-examined on the point as follows:— - -Do you remember, on February 3, the Friday night after the inquest, -going to Rathdown Street, Carlton?—No. - -Did you know where Ivy Matthews lived?—No. - -Will you swear you did not know that Ivy Matthews lived in Rathdown -Street?—I know she lived in Rathdown Street, but I could not take you -to the place. - -I did not ask you that, I asked you if you knew where she lived in -Rathdown Street?—No. - -Did you and your brother Ronald go to Madame Ghurka’s or Mrs. Gibson’s -house on the night of February 3?—No. - -Or at any time in February?—No. - -I am going to put this to you that a maid-servant opened the door to -you?—No. - -And that you went in and brought Ivy Matthews to the gate to talk to -your brother Ronald?—Never in my life; I could not tell you where -Madame Ghurka, or Mrs. Gibson, lives. - -So you say—and did you say to Ivy Matthews: “Are you going on with -this?”—No. - -Or did your brother?—No. - -And when she said: “I am” did you then, or did your brother, say to -her: “If you give evidence you will have your lights put out”?—No. - -Or anything to that effect?—No. - -Have you ever spoken to Ivy Matthews since last December?—Yes. - -Where?—On the Thursday, January 5, that we were detained at the -detective office. - -Since then have you spoken to her?—No. - -Never seen her?—No, only at the Morgue. I saw her at the inquest. - -You did not speak to her there?—No. - -When Ronald Ross was under cross-examination, he was questioned as to -the same alleged interview. A woman was asked to stand up in Court, and -he was asked if he knew her by sight. His answer was: “I never saw her -in my life before.” He was then further interrogated.— - -Did you go to Rathdown Street on February 3 last and see that young -woman?—I never saw that woman in my life before. - -Did you see Ivy Matthews on February 3?—I did not. - -At Rathdown Street, Carlton?—No. I did not. - -Did you and your brother go out there to see her?—No. - -Were you together on that day?—We might have been. - -Were you at Rathdown Street on that day?—I say I do not remember where -I was. - -You might have been?—Perhaps I might have been; on that particular day -goodness knows where I might have been. - -Did you go with your brother to a house where Ivy Matthews lives?—I did -not. - -Did your brother go to the front door and ask Ivy Matthews to come to -the front gate?—I do not know. - -In your presence?—He did not. - -Did Ivy Matthews come to the front gate and did you tell her if she -went on with this case she would have her lights put out?—No; I did not. - -You would admit it if you had done it?—Yes; I am here to tell the truth. - -One brother was out of Court while the other was giving his evidence. -It was again perfectly clear that neither brother had the slightest -knowledge of any such interview. It would have been competent for the -Crown to have called evidence to prove this conversation if it had -taken place, but no application was made to call the evidence. - -There is an importance—indeed a tremendous importance—about this series -of questions which, as they led to nothing, may not be appreciated by -the layman. According to the rules of cross-examination, Counsel may -not ask random questions. His questions must have a basis of knowledge, -or at least of information, to rest upon. Before the Crown Prosecutor -could ask these questions, he must have had information to the effect -indicated by his cross-examination. It is impossible to conjecture -anyone who was in a position to give such information but Ivy Matthews. -If that be so, then Matthews absolutely invented the stories. There is -not a scintilla of truth in either of them. - -But in still another way Matthews’ story can be shown to be, if not -false, at least highly improbable. She said that at 3 o’clock on the -Friday she was standing at the door of the wine saloon, talking to -Stanley Ross. “I was at the wine cafe door,” she said, “but not in -the saloon.” She came to the door, she said, because Stanley beckoned -her up from lower down the Arcade, where she was talking to a friend. -Stanley, of course, denies this absolutely. But if it were true, then -Stanley, in order to see her standing down the Arcade, must himself -have been standing flush with the building line of the cafe, and could -not have been in the recess by which the door is entered. When she -came to Stanley, she said she saw Ross come out of the cubicle, and as -he did so she saw the little girl sitting on a chair in it. When Ross -got the drink and went back, she says he must have spoken to the girl -because “she parted the curtains and looked straight out.” - -[Illustration] - -Now if Ross had taken that little girl into the room, one would have -thought that he would have been very anxious not to reveal her presence -unnecessarily. According to Matthews, he seems to have been at pains to -disclose it. - -But if the plan of the saloon[4] (on page 68) is looked at, it will be -noticed that before Matthews could even see the curtains on the cubicle -she would have to be standing right in the doorway of the saloon and -not merely flush with the building line. There are two circumstances -which make it improbable that she would be so standing. One is that -if Stanley were standing clear of, or even flush with, the building -line, the conversation, if any, would be likely to take place where he -was standing. The other is that she was not likely to stand right in -the doorway of the saloon, when she was not on speaking terms with the -proprietor of it. But again, the child, in order to be seen at all, -would have to have her chair almost blocking the 2ft. 7in. doorway of -the cubicle. The whole room is only 6ft. by 5ft. 5in., and Ross must -have placed her in the only portion of it in which she could be seen -by a person standing right in the doorway. Yet Matthews’ glance was -sufficient to enable her to describe the girl as wearing a little -mushroom-shaped hat “coming round her face something like mine”—a white -hat with a maroon sort of band like the one produced, pushed back a -little from the face, but coming down around the face, a white blouse -or jumper “with just straps over the shoulder; her hair was a sort of -auburn shade, not particularly a ginger hair, but that pretty shade -of auburn,” while as to her age “she struck me as being 12 or 13.” An -excellent example of instantaneous mental photography in colours! - -[4] This plan is only approximately to scale. The sloping wall going -in to the doorway is actually not at as sharp an angle as the plan -shows. Each of the big rooms is, over all, 15ft. 10in. x 11ft. 4in. -The cubicle occupies 6ft. x 5ft. 5in. of the one room, and the beaded -room occupies 7ft. 6in. x 6ft. 7in. of the other room. The walls of the -beaded room went almost up to the ceiling. There was no door where the -“arch door” is shown, but only a doorway with curtains hanging in it. - -There are some further facts about Matthews which help to explain why -she, although, according to the detectives, she made no statement to -them until she gave her evidence in the Coroner’s Court on January 25, -has yet got away with the lion’s share of the reward. That, however, -will be dealt with fully when we come to deal, under the head of the -new evidence, with the extraordinary story of a man named Halliwell. - - -OLIVE MADDOX TESTED. - -Olive Maddox’s testimony is also worthy of a few lines of examination. -She said that, having seen the girl in the beaded room, two men also -being in it, she came out and said to Ross: “That is a young kid to -be drinking there.” The room in which the child was alleged to be was -only 7ft. by 6ft. 7in. The girl, therefore, must have been within three -or four feet of the men. Ivy Matthews, in her evidence at the Morgue, -said it was no unusual thing, when respectable women came into the -place for a drink with a child, to show them into the little room. -Olive Maddox, a daily visitor to the place in Matthews’ time, must have -known of this practice. Therefore, even if she did see the child in -the same little room with two men, there was not the slightest thing -about the circumstance to suggest that she was not with one of the men, -and everything to suggest that she was. At the worst, she had an empty -lemonade glass in front of her, and that, combined with the fact that -she was with two men, would never have prompted Maddox to say anything -about “a young kid” drinking. - -When it is remembered that Matthews and Maddox were old and close -acquaintances, and that Maddox admitted that it was after consultation -with Matthews that she decided to speak to the police, and when it is -remembered that this consultation was just at the time that Matthews -was trying to enlist the services of Halliwell, which will be referred -to later, and when it is remembered that just at this time the reward -had been increased to £1250 (including £250 offered by the “Herald”), -it does not seem hard to suggest what may have happened. Matthews says -that she saw a drink being brought into the cubicle to the child at -3 o’clock. It was suggested in the Appeal Courts that Maddox was to -say that she saw the child in that room at 5 o’clock, with an empty -glass before her; that Maddox was a stupid girl—according to her own -testimony, barely able to read; that she blundered in the simple task -assigned to her by the master mind, and put the child in the wrong -room. The rooms at that time had no distinguishing names. It was -not until the trial that they became known as the “cubicle” and the -“beaded” room. Matthews did not know at the inquest of this blunder, -but on the trial she tried to repair it by telling the absurd story of -how Ross got the girl to go into the beaded room, and kept her there by -some form of mesmerism for over an hour, while he entertained Gladys -Wain in the cubicle. - -Maddox herself says that when she saw the girl in the beaded room -there were three girls and two men in the adjoining parlour, and there -were two men in the little room with her. It was a busy afternoon, -the eve of the closing of the wine saloon, and almost the eve of the -New Year. If that girl were in the wine shop from 3 until 5 or 6 she -would have been seen by anything from fifty to a hundred people. It is -incredible that all these people were degenerates, who would connive -at a dastardly outrage, by whomsoever committed. Yet the simple fact -remains that the only persons who came forward, in response to earnest -and widely-published appeals for information about the girl, were -the prostitute, Olive Maddox, and her mysterious friend, with the -inscrutable past, Ivy Matthews. And neither of them came forward until -a handsome reward was offered for the information. Of this reward, -Ivy Matthews has received £437/10/-, and Olive Maddox £214/5/-. If we -know all the services rendered by each, the positions should have been -reversed, for it was Olive Maddox who first gave the information which -put the police on what they, no doubt, still honestly believe was the -right trail. But do we know all? It will be shown later that, at the -time Colin Ross’s doom was sealed, we did not. - - -HARDING’S COCK-AND-BULL STORY. - -Turning now to the alleged confession to Harding, it will be seen that -it will bear analysis no better than Matthews’s. The questions supposed -to have been put by Harding bear their own refutation. - -Take the words near the opening:—“I said: ‘Did you see the girl?’ He -said: ‘Yes!’” What would have happened had the conversation reached -that interesting stage? All eagerness, Harding would have followed it -up by asking what happened. But what does he do? He inquires weakly, -like a lady of fashion: “How was she dressed?” With great minuteness -Ross described her dress, down to her shoes and stockings, and with -great accuracy Harding remembered it all. Then Harding inquired, still -curbing his curiosity: “Did you tell the detectives that you saw her?” -And Ross replied: “Yes; but I told them that she had black boots”—a -little touch not borne out by Ross’s written statement, but clearly -designed to furnish corroboration of Harding’s story that Ross had -confessed. Then a little later on we have Harding interposing with -the unreal inquiry: “What time was this?” as if time were, at that -stage of the inquiry, either important or interesting. There are many -other questions equally unreal. The purpose of all of them is quite -clear. They are plainly detective questions, devised to establish at -the outset, as he had no doubt been instructed to establish, or as -he knew by experience detectives are wont to establish, the identity -of the girl Ross was talking about. There was to be left no room for -misunderstanding, such as Brophy left in his bungled interview of the -16th. - -Again, take the question supposed to have been put by Harding when -the conversation was resumed on the second day. It is on a different -footing from the others. “I asked him,” said Harding, “did you always -have a screen up in that cubicle?” and Ross is supposed to have -replied: “No; I used the one in the parlour—the red screen.” The -reference, apparently, was to the screen which hung in the arched -doorway between the two main rooms of the saloon. Can any earthly -reason be suggested why Harding should have put such a question to -Ross? The only possible answer is: “None whatever.” But a reason can -be suggested why, if his story were an invention, he should have -invented that particular part of it. Harding had been in the saloon, -and he could not have missed the conspicuous screen that hung between -the two rooms. He would probably not have remembered clearly whether -there was a curtain over the cubicle door or not. For aught he knew, -he might have been confronted by fifty witnesses who could swear truly -that there never had been a curtain there. He tried to rise to the -occasion, and invented the ludicrous story of Ross having said that he -removed the large curtain and hung it over the cubicle door to hide the -little girl from the public gaze—the same little girl as, according -to Matthews, Ross got deliberately to reveal herself when Matthews -took her hasty glance over Stanley Ross’s shoulder. The idea of Ross -removing the large curtain from between the rooms and hanging it over -the cubicle door (all in the presence of Stanley), in order to prevent -Stanley, amongst others, from seeing the girl, would be laughable if -anything about this terrible case could be laughable. - -Being reticent up to a certain stage, Ross, according to Harding, then -determined to speak, for what reason no one can suggest, seeing that -he knew Harding’s reputation as a “shelf,” and seeing that he had been -warned by his solicitor to “keep his mouth closed.” That much Harding -admitted, but in fact Ross was warned that the remand yard would be -full of pimps. The Harding touch was made apparent by another little -incident. He makes Ross throughout speak of the small compartment at -the end of the bar as “the cubicle.” It is a most fitting name, and -it has stuck to the room throughout the trial, but it had never been -called that by the Rosses. They had never even heard the word, and -prior to the trial did not know what it meant. But Harding, during -his inglorious war service, had been employed on a hospital ship, -and that is the expression used in hospitals to denote a little room -with a couch in it such as this. Then Ross is made to say that none -of the customers could see the girl because they were in the parlour, -whereas, according to Matthews, the little girl thrust her head out -as if in order to be seen, and, indeed, thrust it out in pursuance of -Ross’s suggestion, and, according to Maddox, she was in the beaded room -with two of the customers, and was seen by Maddox herself, who was an -excellent customer. But, furthermore, if the Maddox story is true, the -customers would have had to be in the parlour in order to see her, for -the beaded room is part of the parlour. Then Ross offered this quiet, -bashful little girl a glass of wine, and she took three, and fell off -into a stupor in the cubicle, though, according to Matthews, he gave -her a glass of lemonade, and afterwards sent her over to the beaded -room, where she was seen by Olive Maddox, bright and alert, sitting up -with an empty glass before her, at 5 o’clock. - -The idea that Stanley should have seen, and been a party to, his -brother’s lust, was too much even for the credibility of a Harding, so -Ross is made to say that Stanley couldn’t see the girl when he went -behind the counter, because the screen was down, “and when the screen -was down no one dared to go into the cubicle.” The absurdity of the -story of the screen in one aspect has already been referred to, but -a glance at the plan will show its absurdity in another aspect. But -even the plan does not show that the cubicle walls were only 6 ft. 4 -in. in height, the lower 3 ft. being thin lining boards, and the upper -3 ft. 4 in. being glass. There was no top or ceiling to it. A girl -could scarcely breathe in that cubicle without its being noticed by a -man squeezing in and out at the end of the bar counter. Everything, -according to Harding, took place in the cubicle, and the girl never -left it from the time she went in at 3 o’clock until she was carried -out, dead and nude, between 1 and 2 o’clock next morning. There are -none of the perambulations by the child when alive, or by Ross when the -child was dead, backwards and forwards with the body to and from the -cubicle of which Matthews speaks. - -According to the Harding confession, the crime was consummated soon -after 6, and the girl was dead. The fact that no trace of blood was -ever known to have been seen in the room had to be accounted for, so -Harding makes Ross first wash out the cubicle, and then the whole -bar. The washing of the cubicle would suggest itself to a much cruder -imagination than Harding’s, but the little touch about the rest of -the bar was worthy of him. Even Piggott and Brophy, when they had the -matter so “well in hand” on the morning of the 31st, that they did not -think to go into the cubicle, might be expected to notice that one -part of the bar was cleaner than the other, for Harding would not have -dreamt that the detectives would neglect the elementary step of looking -into the cubicle. And so Harding put in the touch of verisimilitude -about the washing of the whole bar. - -If Harding’s story be true, then it was while Ross was engaged in this -labour of scrubbing out the bar, with the dead body of an outraged and -murdered child keeping vigil over him, that he went out into the Arcade -to borrow a lead pencil from the vaudeville artist, Alberts, who just -happened to have reason, at the psychological moment, to walk half-way -through the Arcade and back again, like a famous character in history. -Of course Mr. Alberts may have been mistaken in his identification, but -at least he, too, as has been said, has shared in the reward for the -information he gave. - -Having finished his task of scrubbing out the bar, Ross had time on his -hands—still accepting the Harding narrative—to clean himself up and go -for a walk before meeting his girl. Having honoured his appointment, -and met his girl at 9 o’clock—though, as a tragedy had occurred in the -meantime which might have been expected to, and did, in fact, cost -him his life, he would have been excused for breaking it—one would -have thought that he would have suggested a walk in the park, or about -the streets—anywhere but back to where the stark body of the little -girl was awaiting him. Had he walked down Bourke Street the alibi -that he was so anxious, according to Harding, to establish would have -been much better established, for he might have been seen by a dozen -acquaintances, and the risk which even Harding saw he was taking would -have been avoided. But no! Ross must go and sit for an hour and a -half with his lady love a few yards away from the child he had foully -murdered so recently, and whose body he must dispose of within the next -few hours, under pain of death. - - -CONFLICTS IN THE CONFESSIONS. - -Harding, so he says (and Harding “is an honourable man”) puts the -question to him directly: “Could Gladys not see the girl when she -went into the wine cafe?” “No,” said Ross, “we had our drink in the -parlour.” This again is the exact opposite of what Matthews says he -said, for Matthews makes him carry the dead body out of the cubicle -into the beaded room (which is part of the parlour) in order that the -cubicle may be free for his reception of Gladys Wain. It might be -thought that Ross had special reasons for wanting the cubicle, as it -had a couch in it, but any idea that sexual misconduct took place that -night is negatived by the fact that Ross was physically unfit and that -Gladys Wain knew it. - -Harding next makes Ross, after seeing Gladys Wain home, himself take -train for Footscray, though he fixes the time at about an hour earlier -than it was in fact shown, by overwhelming independent testimony, to -have been. He also makes Ross say that he created a diversion on the -tram in order to call attention to himself, and have the conductor and -other witnesses to prove an alibi. The closest inquiries by the police, -which it may be assumed were made, failed to disclose the faintest -evidence of this “diversion.” In fact, it was absolutely negatived by -the three men, merely casual acquaintances, who travelled home with -Ross that night. Not only that, but the defence knows exactly how this -story of the row on the tram originated. A witness named Patterson, -on hearing of Ross’s arrest, went voluntarily to the local police -station to say that he had travelled home with Ross that night on the -tram. He was questioned as to the date, to see whether he was making -any mistake; and by way of fixing the actual night he said that he -remembered it because there had been a disturbance in the fish shop -where he was having supper with another man in Footscray, before taking -the tram for Maidstone, on which he saw Ross. The local police appear -to have misunderstood what he said, and reported the disturbance as -taking place on the tram. The Ross brothers, Ronald and Stanley, were -cross-examined as to whether they themselves had not called on the -motorman and conductor of the tram, and themselves indicated that a -disturbance had taken place on it. The cross-examination only served, -once again, to show the honesty of their belief in their brother’s -case, for it revealed that they went to the tram office to find the -names of the conductor and motorman who had charge of the tram Colin -travelled by, to ascertain if they had noticed Colin on the tram, and -to get, if possible, the names of any passengers on it. - -Harding next put the question to Ross: “Did you come back by car?” A -motor would naturally suggest itself as the means by which he would -return to town, and it will be remembered that, according to Ivy -Matthews, he said he had come back by car. But that was a matter that -could be tested, and the detectives had no doubt satisfied themselves -by inquiry before this that Ross did not return by a car. So Harding -makes him reply to the query by saying: “No, a bike.” “A motor bike?” -asked Harding. “No, a push bike,” Ross is supposed to have replied. -Harding probably knew that Ross had no bicycle of his own, or at -least he guarded against that contingency by making Ross say that he -knew a man who had a bike and knew where it was kept. The questions -and answers which follow are specially notable as carrying on their -face the mark of falsehood. Harding’s narrative at this point was—“I -said, ‘Did you go straight into the Arcade?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, -‘But the gates are locked there at night?’ He said, ‘Yes, but I have -a key.’ I said, ‘When you went to the Arcade, did you go straight in -and remove the body?’ He said, ‘No, I went in and took the girl’s -clothes off and went out and walked around the block to see if there -was anyone about.’” The stilted nature of the dialogue suggests at -once that it is the invention of a crude fictionist. But it suggests -a good deal more than that. How did Harding know, if he had not been -told, that the gates were locked at that time? How did he know, if he -had not been told, that a tenant in the ordinary course, would not -have a key to the Arcade? That is the first thing that would suggest -itself if Ross said that he went straight back to the Arcade. The -walking round the block to see if there was anybody about is equally -incredible, for there might be nobody about when Ross walked around -the block on one occasion, and several about when he came out with the -body two or three minutes later. The purpose of that unreal inquiry, -and the others that follow was to get answers fitting in with the story -told by the vigilant lodging-house keeper, Ellis. But Ellis, with all -his vigilance, strangely enough never saw Ross enter the Arcade with -a bicycle. How that part of the story not only does not fit in with -Ellis’s, but violently conflicts with it, will be shown in a moment. - - -A MODEL LODGING-HOUSE KEEPER. - -Ellis’s story may be taken up here and analysed. He, as has been said, -is a lodging-house keeper, but the sort of lodging-house he keeps is -known by another name among the ribald. He saw Ross, according to his -evidence, “a little after 9, before 10, then at 11, and two or three -times between that and 10 minutes to 1,” when he retired. Strange -to say, he did not see Ross go in with Gladys Wain or come out with -her, though the sight of a young couple near his “lodging-house” is -just the sort of thing that might have been expected to attract his -attention. He did not see Ross come back on the bicycle, as he had been -said to do, though one would have thought he could not have failed to -see it, if it were a fact, and if he did keep constant vigil until -nearly 1 o’clock. - -It should, however, be noted that Ellis did not say, in so many words, -that he saw Ross at the times mentioned. According to the evidence, he -told the police on the Sunday following the murder that he saw a man -whom he did not know, and had never seen before, walking in and out -of the Arcade, as stated. On the 12th, when Ross was arrested, Ellis -was brought to the Detective Office, and he there and then identified -Ross as being the man whom he had seen. Ellis lives within a few yards -of the Eastern Arcade, and according to his own evidence, knew all -about the wine saloon. Through the Arcade would be his direct way to -Bourke Street. Ross had received great publicity seven or eight weeks -previously in connection with what has been referred to as the Arcade -shooting case. Ellis must have been an extraordinarily unobservant man -if, in spite of that publicity, of his knowledge of the wine saloon, -and of its close proximity to his residence, he had never set eyes -on Ross before. When called upon to identify Ross, he was bound, of -course, to say that he had never seen him before, because, if he knew -Ross, he would have been asked how it was that he did not tell the -detectives that it was Ross he saw walking in and out. It is also -curious if Piggott, as he said, had the case “well in hand” on the -first day, and had Ellis’s statement on the following day, that he -did not confront Ellis with Ross until a fortnight had elapsed. But, -conceding Ellis’s honesty, it is surely risking much to depend on the -fortnight-old observations of a witness who is so unobservant that he -had never observed a man who carried on business within a few yards of -him, and who, a couple of months before, was locally “the cynosure of -every eye, the observed of all observers.” - -But if the story told in the confessions is true, then Ellis can -not have seen Ross “at 11, and two or three times between that and -10 minutes to 1,” for Ross was away at Footscray at the time. Apart -altogether from the confessions, it was proved by overwhelming -independent evidence that Ross did catch a train at Spencer Street at -about 11.30, and caught a tram which left him at the terminus, not far -from his home, shortly before midnight. - -But here, again, apart from the evidence, the story told by Ellis is so -inherently improbable as to render it incredible, even conceding, as -has been said, that it was honest. The theory put forward for the Crown -was that Ross, in his anxiety and restlessness, was walking in and out -of the Arcade. If Ross were anxious and restless it would be about -the safety of his own neck. The safety of his own neck could be best -assured by keeping his presence at the Arcade, late at night, a secret. -Whatever his uneasiness, he was hardly likely to have let that fact -lapse from before his mind for an instant. It is incredible, on the one -hand, that he should have contemplated disposing of the body before -midnight in such a brilliantly-lighted and well-frequented spot. The -street might be empty while Ross was patrolling it, and yet before he -could go in to the saloon and get the body and carry it to Gun Alley, a -dozen people, including a constable, might be in it. It is incredible, -on the other hand, if he did contemplate disposing of it, and was -waiting for Ellis to disappear, that he should have needlessly exposed -himself to Ellis when, from the darkness of the Arcade (which Ellis -deposed to) he could have seen every movement of Ellis without himself -being seen. Ross must have known Ellis well by sight, and, whatever are -the facts, must have believed that Ellis would know him. - -This is one of the points at which the Crown case became not only -absolutely incoherent, but absolutely inconsistent. The evidence of -the Italians about seeing the light in the wine saloon at 10 minutes -to 1, of the caretaker that there was no light twenty minutes later, -of Ellis hearing a mysterious noise after he had retired and coming -out to see what caused it, of the Harding confession that Ross heard -Ellis coming and desisted from putting the body in the sewer, was all -designed to show that Ross chose the moment after the two Italians had -left and Ellis had retired, and before the caretaker closed the gate, -to rush out with the body and carry it to Gun Alley. But the Matthews -confession and the rest of the Harding confession were put forward to -show that after the gates were closed Ross came back, and, with his own -key, opened the gates and disposed of the body. The Matthews confession -makes him return “between 1 and 2,” and Harding’s confession makes -him say, in effect at any rate, that the gates were closed when he -got back, and that he opened them with his own key. A long interval, -according to the Harding confession, occurred between Ross’s return and -the disposal of the body, for in the meantime he took off the girl’s -clothes, and washed the body, and walked around the block. The gates -would be locked long before this, and Ross had no key. The stories, -therefore, fail hopelessly to fit in the one with the other. The mark -of truth is that it must fit in with every other truth, while the mark -of falsehood is that it can only be made, by whatever ingenuity, to fit -in with a limited number of truths. If the Ellis evidence is true, the -Harding and Matthews evidence on this point cannot be true. It may be -true in the limited sense of being a true narration of what Ross said, -but it cannot be true in the important sense of being a true recital of -what Ross did. And unfortunately, in this case the jury was not told -that the vital thing was not what Ross said, if he said anything, but -what he did, and was not asked to consider why he should have said he -was at Footscray if, in fact, he was parading up and down in front of -Ellis. - - -CONFESSIONS COMPARED. - -Then the objection will be raised, as it was raised by no less august -a tribunal than the High Court, that even though the two confessions -disagree in important details, and conflict hopelessly with the direct -evidence of Ellis, they are in agreement in the main fact that they -contain the admission that Ross outraged and killed the child, and -disposed of the body in the alley, and are in agreement in a number -of minor points. It is, however, the points of agreement and of -disagreement that suggest so strongly that the two confessions were -fabricated. Let us look at the facts. - -On January 23 the police had no account of the supposed confession -from either Matthews or Harding. By January 25 they had both. Let us -see how they agree. It is essential in testing the confessions to keep -in mind what the police knew on January 23. We can deal afterwards -with the question whether what the police knew Harding and Matthews -also knew, or probably knew. The police knew that the girl was in the -vicinity of the Arcade at about 3 o’clock. They knew that Ross had -been talking to Gladys Wain in the saloon for about an hour after four -o’clock in the afternoon; they knew he was to meet, and did meet, -Gladys Wain at 9 o’clock; that he went home for tea in the meantime; -and that he was with her for over an hour after 9.15; they knew -that he went home late by train to Footscray, and thence by tram to -Maidstone. All these things were in Ross’s statement made on January 5, -and the police had the opportunity of testing them. They interviewed -Gladys Wain and apparently they satisfied themselves as to the truth -of Ross’s statement so far as it concerned her. They knew that the -dead girl had been outraged and had been murdered by strangulation; -and they knew that though at first it was said that the marks around -the girl’s neck pointed to strangulation by a cord or wire, that this -was disproved by the medical examination (see the “Herald” of January -6 and January 10). They knew that the body was not in the alley at -1 o’clock (see the “Herald” of January 2); and they knew that Ellis -had said that he had seen a man going in and out of the Arcade up to -nearly 1 o’clock. They knew that Ross was suffering from a venereal -disease. With these points settled, there were only five matters to be -filled in by conjecture if Ross was to be saddled with the crime. One -was how did the girl actually get into the saloon, the second was how -did Gladys Wain fail to see anything of the girl when she was there -in the afternoon. The third was the exact manner of the girl’s death. -The fourth was how was Gladys Wain prevented from seeing the body when -she came in at 9 o’clock. The fifth was how did Ross get back from -Footscray late at night to dispose of the body. How these matters -of conjecture were filled in in the two alleged confessions can be -seen clearly by the following parallels. (The rooms indicated will be -described in the terms used through the trial, not in the terms used in -the “confessions.”) - - THE MATTHEWS THE HARDING - CONFESSION. CONFESSION. - - (1) The child came up When the child got opposite - and asked him for a his place he spoke - drink. He gave her a to her, and she took no - glass of lemonade and notice of him at first. He - took her into the cubicle. said: “You have nothing - to be afraid of; I own this - place, and if you are tired - you can come in and sit down.” - She went in and he took her - into the cubicle and induced - her to take three glasses of - sweet wine. - - (2) She stayed there About this time a - until about four. Stanley woman whom he knew - could see her too. A girl came to the door of the - named Gladys Wain came cafe, and he spoke to her - to see him, and he told for about three-quarters - the child to go through to of an hour, and when he - the beaded room, and he went back to the cubicle - “kept her in there” the girl was asleep. A - [how?] until Gladys left, little later “his own girl” - and then brought her back came to the door of the - into the cubicle. cafe, and he spoke to her - until nearly 6 o’clock. - Stanley couldn’t see her - when he was serving, because - the screen was down, and when - the screen was down no one - dared go into the cubicle. - - (3) After 6 o’clock, At 6 o’clock the girl - when Stanley left, he got was still asleep in the cubicle, - “fooling about with her” and “I could not resist - (she being quite alert and the temptation.” She - knowing what was moaned a little and - meant), and it was all seemed to faint. I left - over in a minute. “I the room, and after a - strangled her in my little time she commenced - passion.” After it was all to call out again, and I - over, “I could have taken went in to stop her, and - a knife and slashed her up in endeavouring to stop - and myself too, because her I must have choked - she led me on to it.” her. I got suddenly cool - and commenced to think. - - (4) He had to meet a “Could Gladys not see - girl friend, so he took the the girl when you went - body from the cubicle into the cafe?” No, as - and put it in the beaded the body was in the cubicle, - room off the big room, we had our drink in - and brought Gladys Wain the big room. - into the cubicle, and when - Gladys was gone he - brought the body back - into the cubicle. - - (5) I asked him how I said: “Did you go - he got back, and he said back by car?” He said, - he came back by motor car. “No”; he had a bike. I - said: “A motor bike?” He - said: “No, a push bike.” - -It will be seen that on every point about which nothing was known to -the police, the two “confessions” are absolutely at variance. On the -points known to the police, they absolutely agree except that Harding -(rightly) makes Ross speak to another girl at the door before he -speaks to Gladys Wain. This the police knew from Stanley’s statement, -though it is not in Ross’s written statement. Further comment on these -suggestive facts seems unnecessary. - - -WAS THERE “INSIDE” KNOWLEDGE? - -How, it may be asked, could Ivy Matthews and Harding become possessed -of the information the police had? That question is not difficult to -answer. It will be shown later that Ivy Matthews was driving around -with the police on January 9, assisting them to get evidence in the -case, and that she, on her part, was trying to get it manufactured. -If that is so (and a sworn declaration to that effect has gone -unchallenged) then she was not likely to lack any information that the -police thought it might be useful to them for her to have. It has been -stated in the Press that the police employed Chinese spies to see if -evidence could be got against any of the Chinese in the neighbourhood. -The statement, though it ill accords with Piggott’s evidence that -“we had the case well in hand” on December 31, has not been denied. -If Chinese spies were called in to assist in the unravelling of the -crime—and that course of action may have been quite justifiable—the -detectives are not likely to have cried “non tali auxilio” when -Matthews volunteered her services. - -As to Sydney Harding, the source of his knowledge can be guessed if -not inferred. Harding was a criminal with a record, like one of the -Arbitration Court disputes, extending beyond the limits of one State. -He was “wanted” in Sydney, when he favoured Melbourne with his society -on January 4. At that time, Detective Walsh, of Sydney, was doing duty -in Melbourne as an exchange officer. He was one of the detectives -engaged on the Ross case and was present at the arrest. On Sunday, -January 22, according to statements since made to Ross’s advisers, -Harding sent for Walsh, whom he knew, and Walsh visited him at the gaol -and had a long interview with him. On Monday, January 23, Ross made the -“confession” to Harding, and that night Harding again sent for Walsh, -as is admitted, and recounted the confession to the Governor in the -presence of the detective. - -Neither of these facts—that Ivy Matthews was acting as assistant -detective on January 9, and that Detective Walsh had visited Harding -in the gaol by invitation on January 22—was known at the trial. -Had they been so, they would have provided excellent material for -cross-examination, and would have given the jury something to consider -which was never present to their minds. - -It has been suggested that it would be a dreadful thing if the police -had prompted Harding in this matter. It certainly would have been a -dreadful thing if they had prompted him or anybody else to manufacture -a confession, and nobody suggests for a moment that they would do, or -did do, such a thing. But believing Ross guilty, as they no doubt did -believe him guilty, and yet not having sufficient evidence to prove it, -they would have been merely following a commonplace practice if they -had employed Harding to endeavour to get a confession of his guilt. In -one of the daily papers, Mr. Brennan was represented as having said -in argument before the Appeal Court that it would have been a very -dreadful thing for the police so to employ Harding. In fact, he said -the exact opposite. But Harding was a very dangerous agent to employ -on this task. Some at least of the Detective Force knew that he had -volunteered for this kind of duty on a former occasion, and that his -services had been declined. There would have been nothing wrong from -the point of view of anyone engaged in unravelling a mysterious crime -for a detective to have said: “We know this, and that, and the other; -see if you can get from him information on the points we know nothing -about.” And whether that is, or is not, what they did, the simple fact -remains that if they had done so, they would have told him the things -in which the Harding and Matthews “confessions” agree, and would have -assigned to him the duty of filling in the gaps which are filled in by -Harding and Matthews in a manner absolutely at variance the one with -the other. - - -AN EXPERT ON HAIR. - -Nothing could point more strongly to the guilt of Ross than -satisfactory proof that hairs from the head of the murdered girl -were found on a blanket in his private room. It becomes necessary, -therefore, to examine Mr. Price’s evidence, to see whether it does -establish this important fact. It will be seen by a reference to that -evidence, that Mr. Price uses very guarded language. He “came to a -conclusion” about certain things and he “formed the conclusion” about -others, but he at no time definitely stated that the hairs taken from -the blankets were from the same head as the hairs in the envelope. None -the less, the fact cannot be blinked that the tendency of Mr. Price’s -evidence was in that direction, or that in that direction lay the bent -of his mind. - -A word of caution as to expert evidence generally may, therefore, -appropriately be given, and if a quotation from “Taylor on Evidence” is -selected, no one who knows anything of the subject, will question the -weight of the authority. - -“Perhaps the testimony which least deserves credit with a jury,” says -the author, “is that of skilled witnesses. These gentlemen are usually -required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions; and when this is the -case it is often quite surprising to see with what facility, and to -what an extent, their views can be made to correspond with the wishes -or the interests of the parties who call them. They do not, indeed, -wilfully misrepresent what they think, but their judgments become so -warped by regarding the subject in one point of view, that even when -conscientiously disposed, they are incapable of forming an independent -opinion. Being zealous partisans, their Belief becomes synonymous with -Faith as defined by the Apostle, and it too often is but ‘the substance -of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ To adopt the -language of Lord Campbell, ‘skilled witnesses come with such a bias -on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked, that -hardly any weight should be given to their evidence.’” - -The first criticism of Mr. Price’s evidence is that he is not an -expert on the subject, and indeed he made no pretence of being one. -He knew nothing about the subject beforehand, and his experiments and -reading were principally done after the event. For all he knows to the -contrary, the pith of all hairs may be identical. He made one admission -in the course of his cross-examination which absolutely destroyed the -probative force of his evidence. In his post-factum observations he -had examined hairs from several auburn heads, and he admitted that he -had found some hair as like Alma Tirtschke’s as the hairs from the -blankets. The “proof,” therefore, resulting from Mr. Price’s evidence -may be reduced to an elementary syllogism as follows:— - - This hair is like Alma’s. - All hair like Alma’s is not Alma’s. - Therefore, this hair may (or may not) be Alma’s. - -It was said earlier that Mr. Price might, on the facts he deposed to, -have been a powerful witness for the defence. Let us show how this -is so. Suppose, having deposed to the examination of the two sets of -hairs, exactly as given previously, he had been examined by Counsel -for the Defence, and had answered in the following way, would not his -answers have been fully justified by what he had already stated?:— - -Defendant’s Counsel—Having examined the two sets of hair, are you of -opinion they did not come from the same head?—I am. - -Can you give reasons for your opinion?—I can, many. - -What are they?—In the first place, the hair was not of the same average -length, that from the head of the girl being, on the average, six -inches longer than that from the blanket. In the next place, the hair -from the blanket was of a light auburn colour, while the hair from the -head was an auburn colour tending to red or a deep red. What is more -important, the hairs from the two sets were not of the same diameter, -and I cannot imagine why hair from the same head should differ in -diameter. In the next place, in hair I have examined since, the frontal -portion was quite red, and that from the back of the head quite dark, -suggesting that where the hair is exposed, it lightens in colour, while -in this case the hairs, which must have come from the back of the head, -were actually lighter than those which came from nearer the front. In -the next place, I found in my investigations hairs which were quite -as like Alma Tirtschke’s as the hairs on the blanket, and though this -does not prove that they were not Alma’s hairs, it prevents, by an -elementary rule in scientific investigations, any deduction that they -were. Lastly, it appears incredible to me, that if a girl of 13 were -lying on a blanket for three hours she should lose 27 hairs—or rather -that 27 of her hairs should still be remaining on the blankets at the -expiration of a fortnight, during which the blankets had been removed -to a distant suburb, and constantly handled. - - -A MISSING LINK. - -There are other features about this hair examination which call for -comment. When a man is on trial for his life, he himself, his counsel, -and indeed the public generally, are entitled to demand that every -link in the chain connecting him with the murder shall be found in its -place. It was objected on the appeal that a link was missing in the -case of the blankets, since it was not shown where they were during the -night preceding their handing over to the analyst. One of the learned -judges in the High Court asked whether this “sinister suggestion” had -been put to the detectives. With the greatest respect, it is not, in -the first place, a sinister suggestion, but an elementary requirement -in proof; and in the second place, it is no part of the duty of a -defending counsel either to fill up gaps in the Crown evidence, or to -give the Crown witnesses a lead by which they may do it. But a blow -would be struck at the whole administration of justice, if once the -principle were admitted, that evidence, just because it is police -evidence, is not to be subjected to the ordinary tests. The principle -admitted, it would soon come to be known and traded upon, and the -result would be the lowering of the whole morale of the Detective -Force. The logical outcome would be the transfer of the seat of justice -from the Law Courts to the Detective Office. It is the knowledge -that their evidence will have to run the gauntlet of the fiercest -criticism and examination which the skill of the bar can bring to -bear on it which helps to keep the members of the Detective Force up -to their present high standard. On such a question as spiritualistic -manifestations, the sceptics require the exclusion of every opportunity -for fraud, even when the high priest is a man of the reputation of Sir -Conan Doyle; and a prisoner under the shadow of the gallows, who speaks -through his counsel, is entitled to demand the exclusion of every -possibility of fraud, even when a man of the standing of Detective -Piggott is in charge. - -It is almost impossible to believe, apart altogether from the question -of Ross’s guilt, or the question of the supposed identity of the hairs, -as deposed to by Mr. Price, that the hairs on the blankets could have -been Alma Tirtschke’s. As was mentioned during the legal argument, -golden hairs do not shine out conspicuously on a reddish brown blanket -when they are well imbedded in the fabric. Yet when Detective Piggott -picked up this reddish brown blanket in the darkness of a vestibule, -a fortnight after it had left the wine saloon, after it had been used -for packing pictures on the day of the removal, after it had been put -out to air on a line, after it had been in use for a fortnight at -Maidstone—all of which was sworn to—his quick eye immediately detected -“the sheen of golden hairs” on it. They must, therefore, have been -lying loosely on it. It would surely have been fair that he and his men -should have immediately started to pick them off—and in the presence -and with the knowledge of Ross. It was hardly in accordance with the -fairness with which the case was investigated throughout, to defer the -picking off until the blankets had been placed, on the following day, -over the screen in the Government Analyst’s room. Nothing was known -by Ross of the discovery of the hairs until the evidence was given, a -fortnight later, at the inquest. It is also remarkable that Piggott, -who, according to his own testimony, had the case against Ross “well in -hand” on December 31, never even went into the cubicle on that day to -see if it would reveal anything, although he knew the place was to be -vacated and dismantled on that very evening. - -On the trial, evidence for the defence was given that Mrs. Tom Ross -and her sister, Miss Alice Ballantyne, had gone into the cubicle on -the Wednesday before the murder, and had “done” their hair in it, each -letting her hair down and combing it. Alice Ballantyne’s hair bore -the strongest resemblance to Alma Tirtschke’s, and leaving out the -improbability of the hairs remaining on the blanket for a fortnight, it -was far more likely that 27 hairs would come out under the operation of -combing than that they would come out from a girl simply lying on the -blanket. Something might have been said on this point by Ross had he -been apprised at the time of “the sheen of golden hairs.” - -It was not mere thoughtlessness that allowed the examination of the -blankets to be delayed for a fortnight, for, if Ross’s supplementary -statement of January 5 is looked at, it will be seen that he said -on that day, in answer to a question, “I did have two blankets in -the saloon. They were used as a rug or cover to lie down in the -afternoons.” Thus put on his guard, one would have thought that, if -Ross were a guilty man, he would have seen that the blankets did not -rise up a week later to confront him. And one certainly would have -thought that the detectives, if they had the case against Ross “well -in hand” on the 31st, would have seen the desirability, at least on -January 5, of sending out, while they had Ross temporarily in custody, -and getting possession of the blankets. - -There was still another fatal weakness in the “reddish brown blanket” -as a link in the chain connecting Ross with the murder. When Ivy -Matthews was shown this blanket, she decisively tossed it aside as not -having been in the saloon in her time. Either it was, or it was not, -in the saloon on December 30. If it was not, the hairs on it could not -have come from Alma Tirtschke’s head. If it was, then how comes it that -not one spot of blood was found on it, when, according to the Harding -“confession,” the place was like a shambles, and, according to the -medical evidence, there would be much bleeding? It may be suggested -that this blanket was under the girl’s head, and another blanket was -under her body, and received the blood stains. If so, it would, if -discovered, have been the most damaging piece of evidence against Ross, -and its disposal must have been a matter of the gravest concern to him. -Yet although he is supposed to have given to Harding the most minute -details of unimportant matters, together with a complete account of -how he disposed of the girl’s dress, he never said one word about this -blanket, or its disposition! - - -THE GIRL’S ATTIRE. - -Another of the facts urged as showing that Ross murdered the girl was -the exact description he gave of her clothing on the morning following -the girl’s disappearance. On being asked by Piggott how the girl was -dressed, he described her dress and her hat with the college band on -it, said in answer to a question that she had on a white blouse, and, -on being asked “what else?” said: “Well, she had black stockings, -and boots or shoes—I think boots.” (In the signed statement the -corresponding passage is “she wore dark stockings and boots, or she may -have had shoes on.”) Again, on being asked about her hair, he said it -was golden coloured and hung down her back. - -The answer to the suggestion that that was a minute description for a -man to give of a girl’s dress is that, in the first place, it was given -mainly in answer to questions, and it ought not to be difficult for a -man to visualise the girl’s dress after a lapse of 18 hours, especially -as she was dressed in conventional school-girl style. (Her dress was -quite as accurately described by a hotel porter who saw her walking -up Little Collins Street.) Harding’s “confession” credits Ross with -saying that he told the police she wore boots, and with suggesting that -this was an erroneous description designed to mislead. The evidence -does not bear Harding out, and the idea that in any case the trifling -discrepancy was designed to deceive is ridiculous. And while Harding -suggests that Ross was purposely inaccurate in order to deceive, the -Crown Prosecutor used Ross’s accurate description to show that he -was accurate not merely because he had seen the girl in the Arcade, -but because he had taken her clothing off. Since the question of the -disposal of the clothing was supposed to have been raised by Harding -and dealt with by Ross, it is curious, by the way, that nothing was -said to Harding of the underclothing, or of the distinguishing hat, or -of the parcel of meat, for these, too, had to be disposed of. But this -is only another proof that Harding put nothing into Ross’s mouth which -was likely to be falsified by independent testimony. - -Here, again, this very matter of hesitation about the boots or shoes -tells entirely in Ross’s favour. Either he gave a description to the -best of his ability, or he gave a description purposely designed to -deceive. The latter alternative may be dismissed at once, because -the description was so nearly accurate that it is absurd to suppose -it was meant to mislead. There remains, then, the alternative that -he described the dress to the best of his ability. A man describing -the appearance of a conventionally-dressed school-girl has not room -to go far astray. The one thing he would not be likely to remember, -or to carry in the mind’s eye, was whether she had on boots or -shoes—especially if her stockings were black. But if Ross had stripped -the body, that is the one thing that he would have been clear about, -for by the hypothesis he took the boots off, and he could hardly have -forgotten the gruesome task of unlacing them. - - -THE LIGHT IN THE SALOON. - -There is one piece of evidence which causes some difficulty in that -it suggests that someone was in Ross’s saloon after midnight. It is -the evidence of the two Italians who swore that there was a light in -the saloon at 10 minutes to 1. There does not appear to be much room -for mistake in this evidence, for the Italians said they talked with -one another about the unwonted circumstance of the light. There does -not appear to be any reason to doubt their honesty, even though they -have since shared in the reward. During argument before the Appeal -Courts, it was suggested as a possibility that other persons might have -gained access to the saloon. It was proved in evidence by Mr. Clarke, -the Manager of the Arcade, that the door of the saloon nearer Bourke -Street could be opened by inserting a knife or piece of tin between the -bolts of the Yale lock and the part into which it fits, the lock being -loose and the door ill-fitting. Apart from Mr. Clarke’s unchallenged -testimony on this point, the fact may be accepted as being beyond -controversy, for Mr. Clarke, on the eve of the trial, opened the door -in the way mentioned without the slightest difficulty, in the presence -of the counsel and solicitors for Ross. - -This being the fact about the door, it was not altogether improbable -that it would be known to some patrons of the wine saloon who were -tenants of the Arcade. The suggestion made in the Appeal Courts was -that other persons with a dead body on their hands, which it was urgent -they should dispose of, might have bethought themselves of the disused -cellars in the wine cafe as a possible hiding place. This would be -the more probable by reason of the fact that it was known that the -following day would be the last on which the wine saloon would be open, -the license expiring with the year. It was known in fact that the -police questioned, and detained for a time, at least one occupier of a -room in the Arcade whose reputation was far from good. In any event, -there is strong evidence that Ross knew nothing about the light in the -saloon if it was, in fact, there. On the day of his arrest, he was -interrogated for the third time by Piggott. Piggott said: “It will be -proved that a light was burning in your wine shop on the early morning -of the 31st.” Ross replied promptly: “That is a lie—a deliberate lie.” -Piggott said: “It will be proved that a little girl was seen in your -wine shop on the afternoon of the 30th.” Ross said: “That’s a lie.” “It -will be proved that she had a glass in front of her and was sitting in -the room,” continued Piggott, and again Ross answered: “That’s a lie.” -And being asked if he had any explanation to give, he added: “You have -got nothing over me.” - -If that light had been in the wine saloon at 1 o’clock with Ross’s -knowledge, he must have known, or at least have thought, that the fact -might be proved by a dozen independent and reputable witnesses. If it -had been a fact he would have been ready with an explanation, such as -that they were dismantling the premises. But his emphatic, if not very -polite, answer was: “That’s a lie.” The same remark applies to the -answers in regard to the little girl being seen in the saloon with the -glass in front of her. If she had been there she would, as has already -been said, have been seen probably by a hundred people. But Ross’s -answer to the suggestion that she was there was to brand it as a lie. -And Matthews and Maddox were the only persons called to prove it was -not a lie. That, however, is not the present point. We are dealing with -the light in the saloon. - -Since the trial a further fact has been disclosed in connection with -this question which lends a great deal of support to the theory put -forward by counsel on the appeals. A Sydney paper, still in its youth -and advertising stage, has degraded journalism in connection with -the Ross case in a way that is happily rare in the annals of the -newspaper world. As Ross lay in the condemned cell, it gloated over -his impending doom in a manner that showed that it did not appreciate -the cowardice of kicking a man, even a criminal, when he is down. But -it apparently had plenty of money to spend for the work of pushing its -circulation among those who like that kind of literature. Its Melbourne -representative did undoubtedly get well into the secrets connected -with the working up of the case against Ross. In its issue of March -25, it had an article dealing with the preparation of the case which -was clearly inspired. One paragraph referred to “another piece of -unrecorded history,” as follows: - -“There is a card school that assembles frequently at the Arcade, or did -prior to the trial. On the night of December 30, the players dispersed -shortly before midnight. They went out of the Arcade by way of Little -Collins Street. Passing the wine shop, they noticed that it was lit up. -But this they also noticed—that Room 33 also showed a light. The tenant -was not in the room. He had lent it to a friend who was entertaining -there a young woman, the daughter of a former officer of police. Ross, -too, had seen the light. He must have noticed it at intervals during -the evening, and watched it with despairing hope that its users would -go away instead of staying on, hour after hour, spoiling his plans. -At last it appeared as though the room was going to be occupied all -night. Some new way had to be found. It was then that he thought of Gun -Alley....” - -Ross’s thoughts, it will be seen, are here set down as though the -writer were recording some plain matter of fact. The suggestion is -that Ross had intended putting the body in this room, but was thwarted -by the unfortunate circumstance that someone, not the tenant, had got -the use of it for the night. The allegation about the intention of -Ross to put the body in Room 33 is taken bodily out of the supposed -Matthews confession. It has no other foundation, in fact. How closely -the correspondent was in touch with Ivy Matthews is shown by the fact -that another number of the same paper gave the story of her life. But -again we are face to face with the fact that Harding, to whom Ross is -supposed to have given such minute details of the disposition of the -body, has not a word to say about this unexpected obstacle. A murderer -and a ravisher who was confessing his double crime was hardly likely to -have boggled at admitting, if such were the fact, that he contemplated -disposing of the body by putting it in another man’s room. But at -least, since he gave such details of his plan for disposing of the -body, and his execution of them, it is curious that he said nothing -about the difficulty which the light in Room 33 created. - -Again there is the remarkable circumstance that not one of the card -school was produced on the trial to say that in fact there was a light -in the saloon at midnight. But whatever may be the facts about a light -at 10 minutes to 1, it is certain that if there was a light in the -saloon at midnight, Ross was not responsible for it. If the guilt or -innocence of Ross depends upon the question of whether he was, or was -not, in the saloon at midnight, it may be taken to be established, as -clearly and definitely as human testimony can establish any fact, that -Ross is innocent. Those who heard the evidence of Patterson, Studd, and -Bradley, (to be mentioned later) as to Ross going home on the last tram -to Maidstone, the suburb out from Footscray where Ross lived, and had -the advantage of private consultations with these witnesses, cannot -entertain the slightest doubt that Ross was on the tram. Conceivably, -his brother and mother, as deeply interested witnesses, were lying as -to what took place after he got home, though they never wavered, and -were never shaken in the slightest degree in their testimony, but as -to the honesty and accuracy of the three disinterested witnesses named -there can be no doubt whatever. But, even if the confessions are relied -on, it should be noted that both negative the suggestion that Ross was -in the saloon at midnight. - -Not a word about the light in room 33 or of the observations of the -card school came out on the trial. Of course, there may be no truth in -the story. But, true or not, no questions concerning either were put -to Ross by the detectives which would have allowed these matters to -get out on the trial. This is not meant as adverse criticism of the -conduct of the case. It merely illustrates what has been said earlier -how events so shaped themselves as to cast all the light on Ross, and -leave others, who at one time or another were suspected, entirely in -the shadow. - -The detectives explain the light in the one room by the theory that a -stranger to the room had been given the use of it for the night for -an immoral purpose; they explain the light in Ross’s room, if the -newspaper account is true, by the theory that he is engaged disposing -of a dead body. But if the jury had known that all night a light was -burning, not only in the saloon, but in a room opposite to it, they -might not have been so easily satisfied about either theory, as it is -suggested the detectives were. - -No insinuation is made against the fairness with which the detectives -presented the case against Ross. In particular, Piggott’s account -of the conversations with Ross give, with great frankness, Ross’s -answers, when it would have been perfectly easy for the detective, had -he desired to be unfair, to minimise the emphasis Ross put upon his -denials. There are two passages in Taylor’s great work on “Evidence,” -however, which are peculiarly applicable to this case. One deals with -the caution necessary in considering all police evidence. - - “With respect to policemen, constables, and others - employed in the detection of crime,” says the - learned author, “their testimony against a prisoner - should usually be watched with care, not because - they intentionally pervert the truth, but because - their professional zeal, fed as it is by an habitual - intercourse with the vicious, and by the frequent - contemplation of human nature in its most revolting - form, almost necessarily leads them to ascribe actions - to the worst motives, and to give a colouring of guilt - to facts and conversations which are, perhaps, in - themselves, consistent with perfect rectitude. ‘That - all men are guilty till they are proved to be innocent’ - is naturally the creed of the police, but it is a creed - which finds no sanction in a court or justice.” - -The other passage deals with the dangers which have necessarily to be -guarded against in any case depending on circumstantial evidence. Says -the learned author:— - - “It must be remembered that, in a case of - circumstantial evidence, the facts are collected by - degrees. Something occurs to raise a suspicion against - a particular party. Constables and police officers - are immediately on the alert, and, with professional - zeal, ransack every place and paper, and examine into - every circumstance which can tend to establish, not his - innocence, but his guilt. Presuming him guilty from - the first, they are apt to consider his acquittal as a - tacit reflection on their discrimination or skill, and, - with something like the feeling of a keen sportsman, - they determine, if possible, to bag their game. - Innocent actions may thus be misinterpreted, innocent - words misunderstood, and as men readily believe what - they anxiously desire, facts the most harmless may be - construed into strong confirmation of preconceived - opinions. It is not here asserted that this is - frequently the case, nor is it intended to disparage - the police. The feelings by which they are actuated are - common to all persons who first assume that a fact or - system is true, and then seek for arguments to support - and prove its truth.” - -Piggott himself admitted that the press were giving them “a pretty -rough time” about their failure to effect an arrest. How “rough” it -was may be gauged from one editorial in “The Argus” about three days -before Ross’s arrest, which said: “As each day passes the grievous -disappointment of the public at the failure of the police to track down -the murderer of the child, Alma Tirtschke, grows more profound.... Even -among citizens less given to displays of anger the sense of disgust is -acute. The detectives and police force of Melbourne are on their trial, -and no matter how exacting they may find the ordeal they must realise -that the public will not tolerate failure on their part.” Being thus -on their trial, with their reputation at stake, they had a tremendous -incentive to try and sheet the crime home. - - -POINTS THE JURY MISSED. - -But even with what they had before them, the mystery still remains -how any jury of reasonable men, appreciating the evidence properly, -could say that there was no doubt as to Ross’s guilt. Reviewing -it as dispassionately as one may, and without comparing it with -the evidence for the defence, to be adverted to in a moment, the -balance of probability, to say the very least, dips on the side of -his innocence. The inherent weakness of the Crown case would remain -though not one witness were called for the defence. The unfortunate -thing for Ross was that the jury never was told that there was any -weakness or inconsistency in the Crown evidence. On the contrary, -the evidence was left to them, and, indeed, put to them, as though -there was a cumulative force about it. At one stage they were told by -the learned Judge that “the accused in his evidence denies what is -attributed to him by Brophy, denies the statements of Ivy Matthews -incriminating him, denies the statements of Olive Maddox incriminating -him, denies Harding’s and Dunstan’s evidence, and denies also the -evidence of Upton.” The inherent improbability of the supposed -admission to Brophy, or the inherent probability of Ross’s account of -it, was never suggested; the conflict between the Matthews and the -Harding confessions was never hinted at; the fact that Dunstan had -read Harding’s evidence, as given at the Morgue, and had not reported -what he is supposed to have heard until after he had read it, was -never adverted to; and the fact that Olive Maddox’s evidence could not -be true that the girl was awake in the beaded room at 5 o’clock if -Harding’s “confession” was true that she was asleep in the cubicle at -that time was never referred to. - -It was never pointed out to the jury that Harding and Matthews were -deposing only to confessions, and that, while it is possible for a man -to say things that are verbally inconsistent, it is not possible for -him to do things that are actually inconsistent, and that what the jury -had to determine was not what Ross said, but what he did. - -They were never asked to consider why he should have made two different -confessions to two different people, or why he should have made a -confession at all. They were never told that, in dealing with an -alleged confession, they must approach the consideration of it in -a manner entirely different from that in which they would approach -evidence purporting to deal with substantive facts. Indeed, in the -passage above quoted, Upton’s evidence of supposed facts is put in -exactly the same category as Matthews’s and Harding’s evidence of -supposed confessions. The learned lawyer, Sir Michael Foster, author of -an historic legal work, may have realised that confessional evidence -“is not, in the ordinary course of things, to be disproved by the sort -of negative evidence by which the proof of plain facts may be, and -often is, confronted,” but a Melbourne common jury was hardly likely -to realise that truth by the light of nature. Mr. Justice Cave, in -delivering the judgment of a very full Bench in a trumpery case of -embezzlement not so very long ago, said: “I would add that, for my -part, I always suspect these confessions which are supposed to be the -offspring of penitence and remorse, and which, nevertheless, are -repudiated by the prisoner at the trial. It is remarkable that it is of -very rare occurrence for evidence of a confession to be given when the -proof of the prisoner’s guilt is otherwise clear and satisfactory, but, -when it is not, the prisoner is not infrequently alleged to have been -seized with the desire, born of penitence and remorse, to supplement it -with a confession—a desire which vanishes as soon as he appears in a -court of justice.” How aptly those words applied to this case! - -They were never warned that they could take the confessions, if they -were satisfied that they were made, and accept as much of them, or -either of them, as they chose, but that, if they rejected any portion -of them, they could not fill in the gap by conjecture if there was no -other evidence on the point. - -They were never reminded of the difficulties of cross-examining -two persons who purport to depose to a confession, for, whatever -inconsistency with the facts is pointed out, the witness merely -replies, “That may be so; I know nothing but what he told me.” - -They were told that Ellis’s evidence was important “because it was -so contradictory of the evidence of some of the witnesses for the -defence,” but they were never reminded that, if Ellis’s evidence -was true, they would have to reject a great portion of the supposed -confessions to Matthews and Harding. - -It is extremely likely that, in dealing with Matthews’s and Harding’s -evidence, they would reason that “Harding says this” and “Matthews -says this,” and then draw inferences unfavourable to Ross from the -supposed cumulative effects of the two sets of evidence; and extremely -unlikely that they would reason that “Harding says that Ross said -this,” and “Matthews says that Ross said that,” and then go on to -draw inferences favourable to Ross from the fact that they make him -say totally inconsistent things. Yet this is what they should have -done. They probably have not yet realised that they were dealing -with a case absolutely without parallel in the annals of British -criminal jurisprudence, in which they were invited to hang a man -on contradictory confessions, which he is alleged, by thoroughly -disreputable witnesses, to have made, which on his oath he denied -having made, for the making of which no reason could be assigned, and -which were so seriously in conflict as to suggest that they were never -made. - -In the nature of things they were likely to put Harding, Matthews, -Maddox, Dunstan, Ellis, and the Italians on one side, and Ross and his -witnesses on the other, and were not likely to recall that the one set -was a contradictory jumble, and the other set a solid mass of unshaken -testimony, much of it disinterested, directed to establishing certain -definite things. - -To the writer, these all seem matters that it was of the first -importance the jury should have had in mind. True it is, that many -of them were touched upon in Mr. Maxwell’s eloquent address for the -defence; but the last words, and the weightiest words, must always -come from the presiding judge. It is also true that before two appeal -courts it was urged that these omissions constituted a ground for -saying that the summing-up fell short of what was required, and that -both courts rejected the contention. But that does not preclude the -respectful comment that the jury, overlooking them, may have approached -the evidence from the wrong standpoint. That they did, for some reason, -approach it from the wrong standpoint seems established by their -verdict. - - - - -PART IV. - -FRESH FACTS. - - -There is, perhaps, more truth than poetry in the lines that, “of all -the sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are those, ‘it might have -been.’” If everything which is known now had been known on the trial -the result might have been different. And, as we can all be wiser after -the event, it may even be conceded that, if different use had been -made of things that were known, or were at least within the grasp of -knowledge, another conclusion might have been arrived at by the jury. -Facts not brought out on the trial were placed before the Court of -Criminal Appeal, and when all legal remedies had been exhausted were -put before the Cabinet. The one tribunal declined, on legal principles -(which are not here criticised), to act upon them; the other, in the -exercise of its discretion, declined to give weight to them. None the -less, they may be of interest to the public, and they may be here -appropriately recalled to the public mind with some observations which -were not before either court or Cabinet. - - -HALLIWELL’S STRANGE STORY. - -Reference has been made more than once to an extraordinary story told -by a young man named Percy Halliwell, and as it has gone unchallenged, -in circumstances which seemed to call for challenge if it were untrue, -it may be given first place in the recital of the fresh facts. -Detective Piggott was strong throughout the case in his assertion -that Ivy Matthews had never made any statement to the police as to -what she could or would say. Literally that was, no doubt, true, but -it remains to be seen whether, in view of what follows, it was not an -assertion which, while literally true, was well calculated to create -a totally false impression. When representations were being made to -the Government with a view of securing a reprieve of Ross, pending an -appeal to the Privy Council, a statutory declaration by Halliwell was -(inter alia) laid before the Attorney-General. This declaration, in -addition to being laid before the Government, has been published in the -press, and it has never been contradicted. In it Halliwell said that he -was in the saloon during the Friday afternoon; that at 6 o’clock he was -in the cubicle with the two Rosses and another man named Evans (who, -in the meantime, had left the country), and that they drank a bottle -of beer in it; that they all left together, and that it would have -been impossible for the little girl to have been in the saloon without -him seeing her. His evidence about the bottle of beer is all the more -valuable because neither Stanley nor Colin Ross were asked anything -about it on the trial, and, consequently, said nothing of it. - -Halliwell’s declaration then goes on to say that on Monday, January -9, Ivy Matthews called at his house in Gore Street, Fitzroy, and told -him that she had told the detectives that he had made a key for Ross. -Halliwell said: “That is untrue.” It is important to remember that, at -this time, the problem of how Ross, if he were the murderer, got back -to the Arcade, was troubling the detectives, and Matthews appears to -have come forward with a suggestion, for she knew that Halliwell was -a locksmith. Matthews then said: “I want you to tell the detectives -you made a key,” and she said that she also wanted him to tell the -detectives that he was in the saloon on the Saturday, and asked Ross if -he knew anything of the murder, and that Ross replied: “I have never -been a ‘shelf’”—a “shelf” being, in criminal language, an informer. -Matthews then said to him: “I’ve got a friend down at the corner in -a motor, who is very much interested in this case, and I want you to -tell him what I have said to you.” He accompanied her to the corner of -Westgarth Street, where he found Detective Piggott in a car. Piggott -directed him to sit in the front seat with the driver, and Matthews -got up beside Piggott on the back seat. Piggott after a time said to -him: “What about those keys?” and he replied that he knew nothing about -them. Piggott said: “I want you to come to the Detective Office with -me,” but Matthews said: “I want to see him this afternoon.” Piggott -and Matthews had a conversation, and then Matthews said to Halliwell: -“I want you to meet me at the corner of the Queen’s Mansions at 3 -o’clock this afternoon,” and when Halliwell said he did not know where -they were, she explained that they were at the corner of Rathdown and -Victoria streets. He then got out of the car, and later he met Matthews -at the time and place appointed. She took him to her house, supplied -him with some drink, and then said: “I don’t want you to slip in -anything I told you this morning; why did you tell Piggott you never -made the keys?” Halliwell said: “I was only telling the truth when -I said it.” She then sent him to the Detective Office, where he was -questioned by Piggott and Brophy. When he said he was at the saloon on -the Friday Piggott said: “No, it was on the Thursday,” and told him he -was also there on the Saturday, and that the conversation, as indicated -above, took place between him and Ross. Halliwell signed a statement -and left. There is little doubt that statement contains the assertion -that Halliwell was at the saloon on the Thursday. - -The simple fact that Halliwell was in the saloon on the Friday, and -could not have failed to see the murdered girl had she been there, -was put before the Court of Criminal Appeal on affidavit. In reply, -Detective Brophy filed an affidavit that Halliwell, before the trial, -called at the Detective Office and informed Detective Piggott and -himself that Stanley and Ronald Ross wanted him to swear that he was -in the saloon with Colin Ross when they closed the place on the night -of Friday, December 30. Brophy said to him: “Were you there?” and -Halliwell replied: “No, but they wanted me to say so, and I am not -going to commit perjury.” Nothing was said in the affidavit as to -whether or not he gave a signed statement to the police, but if he -did it is not clear why he should have been got to sign a statement -that he was in the saloon on the Thursday (which could have been of -no affirmative use to the police), unless he had said something about -being there on the Friday. The fact remains that he was never called -as a witness by the Crown, which proves that he was not prepared to -assist the Crown case. He was not called for the defence for two -reasons—firstly, because the statement he had signed effectually -prevented him being called; and, secondly, because, when seen at the -court, he told Ross’s solicitor that “what he had to say he would -say in the box.” When it was too late, Halliwell was willing to make -amends, and was firm in his assertion that he was in the saloon on the -Friday afternoon, as stated above. - -The important part of Halliwell’s declaration, however, is not his -backing and filling as to whether or not he was in the saloon on the -Friday, but whether, on January 9, Ivy Matthews was taking an active -part, in co-operation with the detectives, in getting evidence against -Ross. This was not mentioned in Halliwell’s declaration as laid before -the court, but was in the declaration put before the Cabinet. If she -was not, then Halliwell should have been prosecuted for perjury; if she -was, then Piggott’s evidence may remain literally true, that Matthews -never gave a statement to the police; but its effect was to convey a -wrong impression as to the part which Matthews took in making a case -against Ross. It will be noted that there is a curious resemblance -between the account which Maddox gives of the conversation she had with -Ross on Thursday, Jan. 5, and the conversation which Halliwell swears -he was asked to say took place on Saturday, December 31, between him -and Ross. In neither case was there a direct admission, but in each -there was the suggestion that Ross knew all about the tragedy if he -would only speak. - -There is another fact which shows that Ivy Matthews gave more -information to the detectives than the evidence given in court would -suggest. In her evidence at the inquest Matthews said that, when she -was conversing with Stanley, she said: “Where is Colin?”—an unlikely -thing, since she was not on speaking terms with Colin. Stanley said -(according to her): “He is not well; he has gone home.” Immediately -after, she said, she heard Colin laugh, and she said to Stanley: “I -thought Colin was not in?” Stanley said (according to her): “He must -have come in by the other door.” In his supplementary statement, made -on January 5, which was taken down in answer to questions, Colin Ross -said: “I was home all day Thursday—I was not well. I did not leave the -shop on Friday and say that I was ill. I was not away from the saloon -on the afternoon of Friday. I can give no reason why my brother should -say I was ill.” From this it is clear that on or prior to January 5 Ivy -Matthews had told the detectives, whatever else she told them, that -Stanley had said that Colin was away ill on the Friday. - - -MADDOX IN THE SALOON. - -Another very important thing is now known which was not known on the -trial. It concerns Olive Maddox’s visit to the saloon on the afternoon -of Friday, December 30, when she is supposed to have seen Alma -Tirtschke in the beaded room with a glass before her. (At this time, -according to the Harding confession, the little girl was asleep in the -cubicle.) Maddox, it will be remembered, said that, when she went into -the saloon on that afternoon, at five minutes past 5, there were two -girls whom she knew in the parlour, and one whom she did not know. She -left, she said, at a quarter past 5, and returned to the saloon at five -minutes to 6, but did not see either Colin or the little girl on that -visit. The girl whom Maddox did not know came forward voluntarily after -Ross had been condemned. She went out on the Saturday night of his -conviction to Ross’s house at Maidstone and told what she knew. She was -brought to Ross’s solicitor on the Monday, and made a statement as to -what took place in the saloon on the fatal Friday afternoon. Her name -need not now be mentioned. Suffice it to say she is a respectable girl, -a tailoress by occupation, who has never been out of employment a day -during the three years she has been in Melbourne. She has no relatives -in Melbourne, and she used occasionally to go to the wine shop because -it was in a quiet spot, and as she was on holidays at the time she -remained on this occasion for over an hour, arriving before 5 and -stopping until after 6. She was there when Maddox came in at about 5 -o’clock, and she is positive that Alma Tirtschke was not in the saloon -at the time. Maddox was under the influence of drink, and was talking -excitedly to her two friends. The tailoress sat listening to her, but -taking no part in the conversation, and, indeed, refusing to be drawn -into it. - -Maddox’s story that she left soon after coming in, and returned shortly -before 6, is not true, the tailoress says—her stay was unbroken. -This girl was cross-examined by Ross’s advisers before she made her -declaration, and she remained unshaken in her story. If Maddox’s -evidence is fabricated, her reason for saying that she left the place -for three-quarters of an hour is obvious. It saves her having to -explain how the murdered girl got out of the room and where she went -to. This evidence of the tailoress was rejected by the Full Court on -the ground that it was not shown that it could not have been procured -on the trial. It was dismissed by the Attorney-General as evidence that -“would not, and ought not,” to have affected the jury. It is hard to -follow this observation, since if the declaration were true it proved -that the main part of the case against Ross was false. - - -OTHER NEW WITNESSES. - -There were other persons about the saloon on the Friday afternoon -who are equally confident that the little girl was not there. When -interrogated by the detectives on the 5th, Ross was asked who was in -his wine bar when he came there on December 30, and he mentioned the -name of a man named Allen, and a woman whom he did not know, but who, -he said, was ordered out of the saloon by Detective Lee. Allen was one -of those whom the defence was anxious to call as a new witness. Every -effort to locate him before the trial failed. After the trial he was -found. He says that he went into the saloon first about a quarter to 2, -and saw there a man named Edwards and two other men. He remained for -some time, then left, and returned again about 5 o’clock, remaining -until 6. He spoke frequently to Colin Ross, heard him talking to -Gladys Wain in the cubicle, but saw nothing of any girl answering the -description of Alma Tirtschke. As many as fifteen and twenty people, -he says, were in the bar at the one time during his stay. One of the -men he saw was Thomas William Jordon. Jordon says that he came in about -a quarter past 3, and remained until 4 o’clock. He, too, saw Victor -McLoughlin, Allen, and Edwards. He talked with Ross frequently, saw him -talking to others, and is confident that there was no little girl in -the saloon during the time he was there. On January 5, the day after -Ross was first interrogated at the Detective Office, he went to the -Detective Office and told Piggott and Brophy what he knew. This was -not denied in Detective Brophy’s affidavit. When Piggott was in the -witness box he was asked as to this interview, but the question was -disallowed, and Jordon was not called as a witness for the defence. -Herbert Victor Edwards and Victor McLoughlin were both prepared to bear -out this evidence. These four young men, though acquainted, were not -of the one party. They came at different times. Some were there for -an unbroken period, and some left and returned, but between them they -covered the whole afternoon. They all knew Ivy Matthews, and none of -them saw her, or saw Ross leave the saloon, as Matthews said he did. -Two of them sat on the form, with their backs to the flimsy cubicle for -some time, and they are confident that, even if the little girl had -been asleep in that room, they would have heard her breathing or moving. - -The line of the Crown case indicated that the detective’s view was -that those witnesses were talking of the Thursday, and not the Friday. -Detective Piggott, in perfect honesty, no doubt, tried to establish -that fact early in the investigations. On the day that Ross was -arrested he said to him (inter alia), according to his evidence: “You -told me (on January 5) that Detectives Saker and Lee had put a woman -out of your bar on the Friday.” Ross replied: “So they did.” Brophy, -Lee, and Saker were present, and Piggott said to Lee: “Did you put a -woman out of the bar on Friday?” Lee said: “No,” and Piggott said: “How -do you know?” Lee replied: “Because Saker was with me, and Saker was -on leave on the Friday.” Piggott then said to Ross: “Do you recognise -those as the two men who put the woman out?” and he said: “Yes.” -Piggott said: “But Lee says that Saker was on leave on the Friday,” -and Ross replied: “Well, I must have been making a mistake; it must -have been the Thursday.” - -Now, it must be borne in mind that this was a conversation recalling -the incidents of a fortnight previously. Piggott was not necessarily -verbally accurate, and Ross, being under arrest, may have allowed -himself to be “led” into his answers. The first thing to notice is that -Piggott was wrong when he said: “You told me that Detectives Saker and -Lee had put a woman out.” What Ross said, according to Piggott’s own -account of what took place on the 5th, was that “Detective Lee” ordered -her out. Saker’s name was not mentioned. But if Ross had been a guilty -man, his answers would have been all ready prepared, and his candid -admission, “I must have been making a mistake; it must have been the -Thursday,” points to his candour rather than to his cunning. - -There was no opportunity of cross-examining either Lee or Saker as to -the date on which they were there, for neither was called as a witness, -but there is every reason to believe that the mistake was made by them, -and not by Ross. One of the four men mentioned above, who saw the -incident, was questioned later on as to the possibility of a mistake. -He had come from the wharf, where he had been on board a ship sailing -that day, and had come thence to the saloon, and he maintains (and -he maintains it in circumstances which can leave no room to impugn -his honesty) that there is not the slightest doubt as to the day that -he was at the saloon. One of the others had come from his factory at -Fitzroy, after it had closed for the week, and though he did not see -the incident, he saw the other men, and he is equally confident that it -was the Friday, and not the Thursday. - - -THE CROWN’S NEW EVIDENCE. - -When the agitation was on foot for Ross’s reprieve the Attorney-General -was reported to have said that he was in possession of evidence which -would convict Ross in five minutes. That statement was officially -denied, but it was always maintained that the Crown were, after the -trial, put in possession of facts which were most damaging against -Ross. All that the present writer can say as to that is this, that he -was made acquainted with the facts in the possession of the Government, -and that those facts were not such as would have the slightest weight -with him in confirming the guilt of Ross. - -It has further been publicly said that Ross wrote to Ivy Matthews a -letter which incriminated him, and that Mrs. Ross called on her and -begged her not to use the letter. Matthews is said to have given the -promise not to use it, and in consequence of the visit to have torn it -up. This has appeared in print, but whether Matthews herself ever said -it the present writer does not profess to know. Matthews’s character -was bitterly assailed, both at the inquest and on the trial, and she -never even hinted at such a letter. That she should have destroyed -it, if she received it, is incredible, and Mrs. Ross’s answer to the -allegation that she ever waited on Matthews has already been given in -her own words. - -Harding, too, is said to have received from Ross, while Ross was -awaiting execution, a letter which impliedly admitted his guilt, and -he, too, is supposed to have torn it up. In the witness box Harding -was attacked for what he is—the most oily and odious scoundrel that -ever polluted a court of justice. If he had, or had ever received, a -letter from Ross which would have done anything to rehabilitate his -tattered reputation, he would have used it. But, in fact, there is -in Melbourne one man at least whose lightest word would carry more -weight than Harding’s most solemn oath, who knows that Ross did write -a letter to Harding, knows its contents, and knows that, so far from -it containing an implied admission of guilt, it contained exactly the -opposite. - -[Illustration] - - - - -PART V. - -THE DEFENCE. - - -As has already been said, the purpose of this review is not to set out -the evidence on either side and ask the public to weigh it. That was -the function of the jury, and if they did their work unskilfully there -is no redress in this world. The main purpose has been to set out the -Crown case, and to show, by an analysis of it, that Ross’s guilt could -not, as a matter of logic, be deduced from it with the certainty which -the law requires in criminal cases. How far that has been done the -reader must judge. - -None the less it is right to show that Ross, from first to last, did -what was humanly possible to establish his innocence. - -As far as his evidence is concerned, it simply followed the lines -of his written statement made on January 5, and his answers to -questions given on that and other dates. His cross-examination left -him absolutely unshaken as to his story, though it has to be admitted -that his demeanour in the box, his unveiled hostility to the police, -his direct allegations against them, his blunt affirmation that what -Harding knew he had been told by “the coppers,” and his assertion that -the hairs on the blanket had been put there by the detectives, were not -calculated to make a favourable impression on the jury. He admitted -that he had spoken to Harding about the case, had told Harding that -he was in prison to keep the public’s mouth closed, and had mentioned -to him that he was with “his girl” that afternoon and evening, but he -denied strongly that he had ever confessed to Harding. He said, also, -that he knew Harding’s reputation as a “shelf,” and defined a “shelf” -as a man who not merely tells tales on prisoners, but makes them up -as well—a man “who hears one thing and builds on it.” It is well, -however, that Ross’s outline of his movements, both on the fatal day -and on January 5, when he is supposed to have made damaging admissions -to Olive Maddox during a chance meeting at Jolimont, should be -recapitulated in order to see how it was borne out by the long string -of witnesses who were called to support him. - - -ROSS IN THE BOX. - -Ross said that when he got into the saloon at about 2 o’clock on the -Friday, he saw there, besides his brother Stanley and others, two -men named Albert Allen and Lewis. He did not see Ivy Matthews that -afternoon, and had not seen her since a couple of days before his trial -for robbery under arms in the November previous. He did see a little -girl “answering the description” of Alma Tirtschke. It should be borne -in mind, in view of Ross’s dying speech, that that was the furthest -he ever went, viz., that he saw a girl, between 14 and 15 years of -age, whose dress answered the description of Alma, but he never spoke -to her, and she had never been in his saloon. She was, when he saw -her first, walking towards Bourke Street, and at his next glance was -looking in the window of a fancy goods shop next to Madame Ghurka’s. -He remained about the saloon all the afternoon, talked to Gladys Wain -for a long time, made an appointment with her to meet him again at 9 -o’clock, and left the saloon about ten minutes past 6. He then went -home. When he got home about 7 he met his eldest brother, Ronald, -coming out of the gate. At home he met his mother and his brother Tom, -with whom he had tea. He cleaned himself up, and left home again with -his brother Tom about 8. They went by the tram to Footscray, and saw -and spoke to Mrs. Kee and George Dawsey on the tram. The brothers took -the train together at Footscray, and Tom left him at North Melbourne, -to go to his (Tom’s) wife’s people, the Ballantynes, at West Melbourne. -He got to the Eastern Arcade about a quarter to 9, and waited about -the Little Collins Street entrance until a little after 9, when he -was joined by Gladys Wain. They went into the saloon, and remained -there until half-past 10 or a quarter to 11. They came out into -Little Collins Street, went along Russell Street to Lonsdale Street, -along Lonsdale Street to King Street, where they remained talking for -about ten minutes, close to the girl’s home. He left her at about ten -minutes past 11, and went to Spencer Street, where he took train to -Footscray. He got to Footscray about fourteen minutes to 12. He there -took the tram, and on the tram he met a friend named Herbert Studd, -who introduced him to a man named James Patterson. He got off the -tram at the terminus, and walked from the terminus to his home with -a young fellow named Frederick George Bradley, who was a very casual -acquaintance living further along in Ross’s street. He reached home -about 12, his mother being still up. He went almost straight into the -room, where his brother Ronald was in bed, but awake, and went to bed. -He never left his room that night. His brother, Tom, who was working in -the neighbourhood, and had come back for breakfast, came into the room -about twenty minutes to 7 next morning. He himself had breakfast later -on with his mother and Ronald. He then went in to the Arcade, where he -was told by Stanley of the murder, and was later on interviewed by the -detectives. To them he gave offhand this account of his movements, not -with all these details as to meetings with persons, but exactly the -same account of his main doings on the previous day and night. Stanley, -in the meantime, had given to the detectives his own account of his -own and Colin’s movements, and it exactly corresponded with Colin’s -account, so far as the movements of the two impinged on one another. -In addition to that, the detectives later saw Gladys Wain and got her -independent account, and it, too, exactly coincided with Ross’s account. - -Turning to his movements on January 5, Ross said that he was seen by -the detectives at 11 a.m., and detained until 7 p.m. About that there -is no doubt. From the Detective Office he went to Mrs. Linderman’s -(Gladys Wain’s mother), in King Street, saw there the Linderman family, -Mrs. Kennedy, his own mother, and Mrs. Tom Ross, his sister-in-law, -Mrs. Kennedy and his mother arriving soon after him. His mother and -Mrs. Kennedy left before him to go down to the “Age” Office. Mrs. Tom -Ross also left to go to the house of her mother (Mrs. Ballantyne), -some twenty minutes’ walk away, and about 9 he left and went to -Ballantyne’s, where he remained, with several others, until about -half-past 10, when he left, with his brother Stanley and others, to -catch the train at North Melbourne. - - -STRONG CORROBORATION. - -Stanley Gordon Ross said that Colin arrived at the saloon about 2 -o’clock on Friday, December 30. He remembered Allen being there at the -time, sitting in the corner, and Lewis coming in a little after. Ivy -Matthews he had not seen that afternoon, and had not spoken to since -about eight or ten days before Christmas. No girl answering to the -description of Alma Tirtschke was in the saloon that afternoon, or -could possibly have been there without him seeing her. His brother was -talking at the door for a good while that afternoon, the first person -he noticed him talking to being a lady in an Assam coat, whose name he -gave. Shortly after 4 o’clock he noticed Colin talking to Gladys Wain, -and about 5 Gladys came into the “cubicle” (though he had never heard -it called by that name before), and remained for about ten minutes or -a quarter of an hour. He remained in the bar until about 6 o’clock, -or a little after, and Colin left before him. Stanley then locked up, -went and had tea at the Commercial Cafe, in Elizabeth Street, had a -shave, and came back into the Arcade at about half-past 7, and got the -lavatory key. He went to the lavatory and returned the key soon after. -There was no person in the saloon at this time. He returned to the -saloon on the following morning, and opened it up according to custom, -swept and scrubbed it out, and saw no signs of it having been scrubbed -on the previous night. Early in the forenoon he was seen by Piggott and -Brophy, who gave him, so he says (though this is denied by Piggott) -a description of the dress worn by the murdered girl, a description -which he, in turn, gave to Colin when Colin arrived soon after. -Stanley and Colin were not, at the time, living in the same house, and -between 6 o’clock on the Friday night and Colin’s arrival at the saloon -on the Saturday morning they had not seen one another. - -It is noteworthy that Stanley gave a full account of his movements to -the detectives before they had seen Colin. The evidence he gave exactly -agreed with the statement, except that he told the detectives that he -got back to the saloon on the Friday evening at about 7, whereas in -his evidence he said it was about half-past 7. He explained this very -slight discrepancy by saying that he spoke offhand to the police, but -that, on reckoning up afterwards the time he had spent having tea and -the time he was in the barber’s saloon, he thought it would be about -half-past 7 when he returned to the saloon. The cross-examination of -Stanley on this point was directed to show that he had made the time -half-past 7 because he had heard in the meantime that the witness -Alberts had sworn that he saw Colin Ross in the Arcade at half-past 7. -This was another of the incidents that pointed to the honesty of the -evidence for Ross. Counsel for the defence were under the impression, -owing to some misapprehension, that the answer to Alberts’s evidence -was that he had spoken to Stanley, and had mistaken him for Colin, the -two brothers being very much alike. Alberts, therefore, was not very -strongly cross-examined on the point. He was given permission, after -his evidence had been taken, to leave the court, as he had to go to New -South Wales. In his evidence-in-chief Stanley was asked: “Did you talk -to any person in the Arcade?” (when he returned at half-past 7). The -unexpected answer was “No.” Alberts could not then be got for further -cross-examination. But if the Rosses had desired to make a case on this -point, they could have easily done so by getting Stanley to say that it -was he who had asked Alberts for the lead pencil. - -Turning to the events of January 5, Stanley said that, pursuant to a -message left for him where he was boarding, he went to the Detective -Office about a quarter to 7, and found that Colin was still there. He -went by train to Footscray, and he came back to Ballantyne’s, in West -Melbourne (the family of Mrs. Tom Ross), at about half-past 9. There -he met Colin and several other persons, and about half-past 10 he and -Colin and two others left the house for Footscray. - -Mrs. Elizabeth Campbell Ross, the mother, said she remembered her son -leaving home on Friday, December 30, after lunch. At about 7 that night -he came home for tea. Her eldest son, Ronald, her married son, Tom, and -herself had had tea when he arrived. She got him his tea, and he left -the house afterwards with Tom. She herself left home, and went down -to Footscray to do some shopping, it being the late shopping night. -She returned at about 10, Ronald arrived soon after, and Colin came in -at midnight and went to bed. She locked up the house and went to bed, -Colin then being in his own and his brother’s room. She got up at 6, to -get Tom’s breakfast at 7, and she closed the door of her son’s room, -as Ronald was a sufferer from malaria, and a light sleeper. Colin and -Ronald were then both in bed. She got them their breakfast later on, -and Colin left to go to the cafe. - -On Thursday, January 5, the detectives called and took Colin away at -about 11 a.m. At about 7 o’clock, Mrs. Ross said, accompanied by her -son Tom, she went to the Detective Office, calling at Mrs. Linderman’s -on the way. At the Detective Office they were told that Colin had just -been released. They returned to Mrs. Linderman’s, and saw there the -people mentioned in Colin’s evidence. She and Mrs. Kennedy, in about an -hour’s time, went to the “Age” Office, and from there she went home. - - -AN UNBROKEN PHALANX. - -It is needless to set out in detail the evidence called to support -the story told by the three foregoing witnesses. Suffice it to say -that Tom Ross, Ronald Ross, Gladys Wain, Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Kee, Oscar -Dawsey, Herbert Studd, James Patterson, F. G. Bradley, Mrs. Tom Ross, -Mrs. Linderman, and Miss Alice Ballantyne were all called, and each -testified to his or her own portion of the story. There were some -persons at Ballantyne’s house on Thursday, January 5, who were not -called, for the reason that the evidence seemed overwhelming that -Colin Ross was at Ballantyne’s soon after 9 on that date. They would -have been called had it been known that Olive Maddox was going to say -that it was about half-past 9 that she saw Colin at Jolimont. But that -was not said until after the case for the defence was closed. The -Crown Prosecutor then asked leave to recall Olive Maddox to get from -her the time that she said she met Ross at Jolimont. She had been in -court while the evidence for the defence was being given, and knew its -effect. Being recalled, she was questioned as follows:— - -Mr. Macindoe: Do you remember the 5th January last—you told us you saw -the accused that night?—Yes. - -What time was it?—It may have been—it was—any time after 10 to -half-past 10, when I first seen him. - -From 10 to half-past 10!—From 9 to half-past 9—any time until then. - -Assuming, however, that Maddox got into the box intending to say that -the time was from 9 to half-past 9, and merely made a slip, it will -be noticed that the time she fixes is significant. It only conflicts -with the witnesses who deposed to seeing Ross at Ballantyne’s, and -is consistent with the testimony of those who swore to seeing him at -Linderman’s, for it was possible, apart from the evidence, that Ross, -after leaving Linderman’s, went to Jolimont. The inherent improbability -that, after having been detained for eight hours by the police, and -questioned about the tragedy, he should have gone to Jolimont, and -should have happened, when there, to meet quite accidentally, one of -the only two people in the world who say they saw the child in the -saloon, would still stand out, even if the poor street-stroller’s -testimony were not confuted by a host of unbroken and unshaken -witnesses. - -It is not going too far to describe the whole of the evidence for -the defence as unbroken and unshaken. The test to which it was -subjected was remarkable. The other witnesses were all out of court -while a particular witness was being examined. Some deposed to all -the time covered by Ross, some to part only. Their evidence locked -and interlocked in a remarkable way. All were ably and severely -cross-examined, but with the exception of one slight disagreement as -to which two of three blankets were in the saloon—a natural mistake, -seeing that all the blankets were of the same type, though differing -slightly in colour—not the smallest flaw was revealed in the story -told by any of them. It is true that Ross swore that, when he and -Gladys Wain were in the saloon on the Friday night, the lights were out -some of the time, whereas Gladys Wain swore they were alight “every -minute of the time,” but Gladys Wain knew what Ross had sworn on the -point, and she went into the box insisting on her right to put her own -account of the matter. It was not a case of revealing a conflict by -cross-examination. - -The different pieces of evidence were like a mosaic which, when put -together, form a complete and harmonious pattern. From its nature it -was full of pitfalls if concocted. The Crown Prosecutor skilfully -searched the witnesses to find some break in the completed pattern, but -failed signally to do so, and the whole story stood, as every one of -the witnesses stood, absolutely unimpeached before the jury. But the -weakness seems to have been in the jury rather than in the story. - -The criticism usually levelled against an alibi is that the witnesses -are either honestly mistaken about the day or have deliberately taken -the movements of another day and applied them to the vital day. The -alibi, if it can be properly called an alibi, in this case was not -open to either criticism. The Friday was the late shopping night, -just before the New Year. It was a day that could be easily recalled -after the lapse of a week or two. The Thursday following was the day -that Ross had been detained by the detectives for eight hours, and was -not likely to be soon forgotten by the members or friends of the Ross -family. Mrs. Ross could be making no mistake about the day, because it -was in regard to her son’s detention that she went to the “Age” Office. -The theory that the wrong day was deliberately chosen by the witnesses -involves the inference that independent witnesses, like Mrs. Kee, Mr. -Dawsey, Mr. Studd, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bradley, and Mrs. Kennedy, all -took part in a conspiracy with the object of saving a man who, if -guilty, did not deserve to be saved. Anyone who had the advantage of -conferring with them, or of hearing their testimony in the box, could -not fail to be impressed by the story they told. - - -ROSS’S FIRMNESS. - -As far as Ross himself is concerned, he not merely stoutly maintained -his innocence from the day he was arrested to the day he was hanged, -but his conduct and bearing throughout was that of an innocent man. It -was not tactful or amiable. It was blustering and bad-tempered, and -at times aggressive. But it was, throughout, that of a sullen man, -suffering under a sense of wrong. - -He made a free statement to the police on the day that the body -was recovered, admitting that he had seen a girl answering to the -description of the murdered girl. On January 5, after, or in the course -of, a detention of eight hours, he made a full statement to the police -which was committed to writing. Not one word of that statement is -shown to have been false, by evidence that is worth a moment’s serious -consideration. A great deal of it the police did not dispute. A solid -phalanx of witnesses, as has been shown, was called on the trial to -bear out the statement, and not the smallest flaw was revealed by a -skilful cross-examination in that long chain of evidence. - -But more than that, on Thursday, January 6, the day following his eight -hours’ detention and interrogation, like a man suffering from a sense -of wrong and indignity at the questions put to him and the suggestions -made against him, Ross went boldly back to the Detective Office and -said to Piggott: “Who has been saying these things to you about me?” -Piggott said: “I won’t tell you.” “Well, I want to know,” said Ross. -Piggott replied: “Well, you won’t know. I never divulge where I get my -information. Why are you so anxious to know?” “Because,” said Ross, “I -will warm them up,” and he went so far as to tell Piggott that he did -not believe anyone had told him. Piggott himself gave this in evidence. -It was all very foolish and impudent on Ross’s part, no doubt. It was -characteristic of his quite fearless and “cheeky” attitude throughout. -But a guilty man, who had just escaped from an eight-hour ordeal with -the detectives, might surely be expected to keep as far away from -Russell Street as possible. - -Again, on the 12th, the day he was arrested, Ross answered: “That’s -a lie,” “That’s a lie,” to each new allegation made against him. On -the following day he was brought before the Police Court. He was -undefended, and was asked if he had any objection to a remand. “Yes,” -he said, “I don’t require a remand. There is no reason why I should be -here. I can prove my whereabouts on that night. I strongly object to a -remand. I have all my witnesses here.” As he left the dock, remanded, -he called out: “That’s the country’s law,” and then he added, in his -characteristic, blustering tone: “This is a great country, there’s no -doubt about it.” It may have been all simulated, but it did not sound -like simulated indignation. - -It is worth recording, too, that his mother, unable to restrain -herself, rose in court that day and said: “I can prove where my son was -that night.” - -On the morning of February 25th he was found guilty of murder. Asked if -he had anything to say why the death sentence should not be pronounced, -he stood forward, and, without a quiver on his lip or in his voice, -he answered: “Yes, sir; I still maintain that I am an innocent man, -and that my evidence is correct. If I am hanged, I will be hanged an -innocent man. My life has been sworn away by desperate people.” He -listened calmly to the death sentence, and repeated: “I am an innocent -man.” - -Hanged he duly was, or, rather, he was hanged with more than usual -expedition. Within less than a week of his doom being sealed by the -High Court, a special meeting of the Cabinet was called, and his -execution was fixed to take place in a fortnight. The Government, -notwithstanding strong representations, supported by affidavits of new -facts, declined to allow time for an appeal to the Privy Council. Ross -went to the gallows. He was attended by his minister throughout, and -he accepted the ministrations in the most worthy spirit. But he never -wavered for a moment in his profession of innocence, either to his -minister or to his solicitor. Standing on the scaffold, with the rope -around his neck, he delivered a final protestation of his innocence in -words which have rung through Australia. - - “~I am now face to face with my Maker~,” he - said, “~and I swear by Almighty God that I am an - innocent man. I never saw the child. I never committed - the crime, and I don’t know who did it. I never - confessed to anyone. I ask God to forgive those who - swore my life away, and I pray God to have mercy on my - poor, darling mother and my family.~” - -Some sticklers for accuracy, who have never made a public speech, and -who, it may be hoped, will not have to make a start with a hangman’s -rope around their neck, and the gallows for a platform, have fastened -on to the words, “I never saw the girl,” as being the assertion of -an untruth. Ross signed a statement that he saw a girl answering the -description of Alma Tirtschke; he went into the witness box and swore -that he had seen such a girl. The words, therefore, at the worst, could -only mean, and could only be read by an intelligent man as meaning, -that he had never spoken to the girl or seen her otherwise than as he -had already said. He was not given much time for correction, or for -second thoughts, because within a moment or two of uttering the words -he had passed to eternity. - -But it is now known that Ross’s words were deliberately chosen, and -that he meant to tell the world with his dying breath that he never, as -far as he knew, set eyes on Alma Tirtschke. That being his intention, -his actual words, it must be admitted, went too far, or not far enough, -for from the description he gave of the girl, combined with the other -facts, it appears certain that the girl he saw and described was Alma -Tirtschke. But that he did not mean to recede from the position he had -all along taken up seems so clear as to be beyond the realm of argument -or the reach of adverse comment. - - -ROSS AND HIS FAMILY. - -Cowards, who have sought to steel their consciences against the effects -of Ross’s dying speech, have circulated the story that Ross’s brother -begged him, whatever he did, not to make a confession on the scaffold. -It is part of the same policy of easing the public conscience as the -base and baseless statements about the letters written to Harding -before his execution and to Matthews before his trial. The story of the -farewell injunction to the brother can be most fittingly described as a -dastardly lie. Whether Ross be guilty or innocent, the brothers never -wavered in their belief in his innocence. The idea of a confession -would never be present to the minds of any of them. - -There was another thing Ross did on the last night of his life which -has affected many people even more than his dying speech. His family, -including his mother, took farewell of him on the Sunday afternoon. -When they had left him, when all hope of mercy was gone, he sat down -in his cell and wrote to his mother a letter which was not delivered -to her, and was not intended to be delivered to her, until after his -death. It is well worth giving, because it is so strongly in accord -with the attitude he maintained throughout. It is almost impossible to -believe that it is a tremendous piece of hypocrisy. The letter was as -follows:— - - “Good-bye, my darling mother and brothers. On this, - the last night of my life, I want to tell you that I - love you all more than ever. Do not fear for to-morrow, - for I know God will be with me. Try to forgive my - enemies—let God deal with them. I want you, dear - mother, and Ronald, to thank all the friends who have - been so kind to you and me during our trouble. I have - received nothing but kindness since I have been in - gaol. Say good-bye to Gladdie for me, and I wish for - her a happy life. Dear ones, do not fret too much for - me. The day is coming when my innocence will be proved. - Good-bye, all my dear ones. Some day you will meet - again your loving son and brother. - - “COLIN, x x x x x x x x x x” - -Ross has been described as inscrutable, and his conduct as puzzling. -His firmness or obstinacy—it has been called indifferently either—has -been criticised as suggesting a curious nature. But Ross and his -conduct are only inscrutable if one starts with the assumption that he -was a guilty man. Concede that he was innocent, and everything that he -did, or said, or failed to say, not merely ceases to be inscrutable, -but becomes quite natural. It is that, amongst other things, which has -caused the widespread feeling that his life has been “sworn away by -desperate people.” - - -IS THE MYSTERY SOLVED? - -If Ross is innocent, the mystery of the death of Alma Tirtschke -remains. It was, however, no part of Ross’s duty to solve it. In -this connection it is doubtful whether sufficient attention has been -ever paid to the evidence tendered by Joseph Thomas Graham. He is a -cab driver by occupation, middle-aged, respectable, intelligent, and -thoroughly level-headed. On Friday afternoon, December 30, at about -half-past 3, he was in Little Collins Street, nearly opposite the Adam -and Eve lodging-house, when his attention was arrested by a series of -heartrending screams coming apparently from a young girl. They became -higher in pitch as they succeeded one another, to the number of five or -six, and then they died away. They were so noticeable that Graham and a -man on the opposite side of the street both stopped and listened, but -as the screams faded out each man went about his business. On or about -Saturday, January 7, Graham saw a notice in the paper saying that, as -the girl had been throttled, she was probably throttled to stop her -screams, and asking anyone who had heard screams to communicate with -the Detective Office. He went on the Monday to the Detective Office -and reported what he had heard, but his reception does not appear to -have been sympathetic. Graham was never called at the inquest. The -police explanation is that he was not sure whether it was Thursday or -Friday that he heard the screams, and that, in any case, he placed them -as coming from higher up Little Collins Street. Neither explanation -can be accepted, for Graham was absolutely definite as to his every -movement on the Friday, and absolutely definite as to time and place. -An absurd story was told by Detective Brophy about making inquiries in -the neighbourhood, and learning of some child that had a reputation for -screaming, as though an intelligent man could not tell the difference -between the bad-tempered screaming of a naughty child and the agonised -death screams of an adolescent girl. When Ross was condemned Graham -went to his solicitor and repeated his story. That was the first the -defence knew of it. The Full Court heard his evidence, but it declined -to allow a jury to hear it. - -Whether it would have had any effect on the jury can now be only a -matter of conjecture. There is this to be said of it, however, that -it fits in with the medical evidence, for it suggests a struggle, and -the medical evidence of the abrasions suggests a struggle. It fits -in, also, with all we know of Alma Tirtschke’s nature. The fact must -be faced that, if the Matthews confession is true, the girl was not -what her relatives believed her. She boldly went to Ross, and boldly -remained in Ross’s saloon for three hours, like a pert and forward -youngster, not to put it any further. If it comes to a choice, most -people will prefer to think of the child as good and innocent and -retiring, rather than to accept anything to the contrary which comes -unsupported from the lips of Ivy Matthews. If the Harding confession is -accepted the matter is very little better, for you then have the girl -walking deliberately back into the Arcade after she was seen in Little -Collins Street by the Youngs, accepting the invitation of a stranger -to come into his wine saloon, and taking wine at his hands—wine of -which no trace could be found when the stomach was opened less than -eighteen hours afterwards. The attractive feature of Graham’s evidence, -if the screams he heard were connected with Alma Tirtschke, is that it -allows us to think of the little girl as we would all like to think -of her—pure, innocent, and modest. That little girl met her death, -in all human probability, within a few minutes of the time she was -last seen alive by the Youngs, she met it in some place which was -much handier to Gun Alley than Ross’s wine saloon, and she met it in -a house provided with a fireplace or other conveniences for disposing -of incriminating evidence. If anyone would like to see one other -improbability in connection with the Crown case against Ross, he should -visit the Little Collins Street entrance of the Arcade by night, and -ask himself whether it is likely that any man would carry the dead -body of a murdered child such a long distance up a brilliantly lighted -thoroughfare even at 1 o’clock in the morning. - -[Illustration] - - - - -APPENDIX. - - -During the progress of the trial numberless letters, anonymous and -bearing signatures, were received by Ross’s legal advisers. They were -of all classes—helpful criticism, incoherent comment, threatening, -laudatory, and censorious. One received on the eve of Ross’s execution, -with a covering note asking that it should be handed to him, and saying -that it would have been sent direct only the writer had doubts whether -the prison regulations would allow Ross to get it, bore on its face -some suggestion of genuineness. No one, of course, can say definitely, -but the letter may perhaps be given as possessing some public interest. -The envelope bore the postmark of a small country town, but there was -nothing otherwise to indicate whence or from whom it came. With the -elision of a sentence or two, rather Zola-esque for publication, it was -as follows:— - - “Colin C. Ross, - “Melbourne Gaol. - - “You have been condemned for a crime which you have - never committed, and are to suffer for another’s fault. - Since your conviction you have, no doubt, wondered what - manner of man the real murderer is who could not only - encompass the girl’s death, but allow you to suffer in - his stead. - - “My dear Ross, if it is any satisfaction for you to - know it, believe me that you die but once, but he will - continue to die for the rest of his life. Honoured and - fawned upon by those who know him, the smile upon his - lips but hides the canker eating into his soul. Day and - night his life is a hell without the hope of reprieve. - Gladly would he take your place on Monday next if he had - himself alone to consider. His reason, then, briefly - stated, is this: A devoted and loving mother is ill—a - shock would be fatal. Three loving married sisters, - whose whole life would be wrecked, to say nothing of - brothers who have been accustomed to take him as a - pattern. He cannot sacrifice these. Himself he will - sacrifice when his mother passes away. He will do it - by his own hand. He will board the ferry across the - Styx with a lie on his lips, with the only hope that - religion is a myth and death annihilation. - - “It is too painful for him to go into the details of - the crime. It is simply a Jekyll and Hyde existence. - By a freak of nature, he was not made as other men.... - This girl was not the first.... With a procuress all - things are possible.... In this case there was no - intention of murder—the victim unexpectedly collapsed. - The hands of the woman, in her frenzy, did the rest. - - “May it be some satisfaction to yourself, your - devoted mother, and the members of your family to know - that at least one of the legion of the damned, who is - the cause of your death, is suffering the pangs of - hell. He may not ask your forgiveness or sympathy, but - he asks your understanding.” - - -[Illustration: FINIS.] - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gun Alley Tragedy, by T. C. Brennan - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GUN ALLEY TRAGEDY *** - -***** This file should be named 62861-0.txt or 62861-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/8/6/62861/ - -Produced by Paul Marshall and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from scans of public domain works at The National -Library of Australia.) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - diff --git a/old/62861-0.zip b/old/62861-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c191526..0000000 --- a/old/62861-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h.zip b/old/62861-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 38b24d2..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/62861-h.htm b/old/62861-h/62861-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 0895cfe..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/62861-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4652 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Gun Alley Tragedy, by T. C. Brennan - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; } - -h1,h2,h3 { text-align: center; clear: both; } -h1 {page-break-before: always; } -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} - -p { margin-top: .51em; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1.5em; margin-bottom: .49em; } -p.no-indent { margin-top: .51em; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0em; margin-bottom: .49em;} -p.author { margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 5%; text-align: right;} -p.indent { text-indent: 1.5em;} -p.f120 { font-size: 120%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } -p.f150 { font-size: 150%; text-align: center; text-indent: 0em; } - -.space-above1 { margin-top: 1em; } -.space-above2 { margin-top: 2em; } -.space-below1 { margin-bottom: 1em; } -.space-below2 { margin-bottom: 2em; } -.space-below3 { margin-bottom: 3em; } - -hr.r5 {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: 47.5%; margin-right: 47.5%; } -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%; } - -ul.index { list-style-type: none; } -li.isub2 {text-indent: 2em;} - -table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } -.tdl_top {text-align: left; vertical-align: top;} -.tdl_ws1 {text-align: left; vertical-align: top; padding-left: 1em;} -.tdc {text-align: center;} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; -} - -.blockquot { margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%; } -.blockquot2 { margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 90%; font-family: sans-serif;} -.bbox {border: solid 2px;} -.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0; } -.u {text-decoration: underline;} - -img {max-width: 100%; height: auto;} - -.figcenter { margin: auto; text-align: center; } - -.footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gun Alley Tragedy, by T. C. Brennan - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Gun Alley Tragedy - Record of the Trial of Colin Campbell Ross - -Author: T. C. Brennan - -Release Date: August 6, 2020 [EBook #62861] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GUN ALLEY TRAGEDY *** - - - - -Produced by Paul Marshall and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from scans of public domain works at The National -Library of Australia.) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p class="author u"><big><b>Third Edition</b></big></p> - -<h1><small>The</small><br />Gun Alley Tragedy</h1> -<hr class="r5" /> -<p class="f150">Record of the Trial</p> - -<p class="center">:: of ::</p> -<p class="f150">COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS</p> - -<p class="center">Including<br />A Critical Examination of the Crown Case<br /> -with<br />A Summary of the New Evidence</p> - -<p class="center space-above2 space-below2">by<br />T. C. BRENNAN, Barrister-at-Law</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/illo_01.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="104" /> -</div> - -<p class="f120 u"><b>1922</b></p> - -<p class="center">FRASER & JENKINSON, Printers, 343-5 Queen St., Melbourne<br /> -GORDON & GOTCH (Australia) Ltd., Publishers</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<div class="chapter"><h2 class="nobreak">PREFACE.</h2></div> - -<p>No trial in Australian history has created such a public sensation as -did the trial in Melbourne of Colin Campbell Ross for the murder of -the little girl, Alma Tirtschke, on the afternoon of December 30th, -1921. It was presided over by Mr. Justice Schutt and lasted for more -than five days. Mr. H. C. G. Macindoe conducted the case for the Crown -and Mr. G. A. Maxwell appeared, with Mr. T. C. Brennan as junior, for -the defence. For many reasons, it is desirable that the proceedings at -the trial should be placed on record. It is not merely that the story -itself—a veritable page out of real life—makes tragically interesting -reading. The nature of the evidence was so unusual, and the character -of the chief Crown witnesses was so remarkable, that it is entirely in -the interests of justice that the whole proceedings should be reviewed -in the calm light of day.</p> - -<p>While the trial was on, and for weeks before it was on, anything in -the nature of a dispassionate review was impossible. Public opinion -was inflamed as it has not been inflamed within the memory of this -generation. Ross was tried for his life in an atmosphere charged and -overcharged with suspicion. Whether guilty or innocent, he entered -the dock in circumstances under which few men are compelled to enter -it. As everyone in Australia knows, he was condemned almost entirely -on the strength of two confessions he was alleged to have made. It -would probably be admitted that, in the absence of those alleged -confessions—which he strenuously denied ever having made—no jury -could have convicted him. It is doubtful, indeed, if without them there -was a case for the jury. But did he actually say what either the woman -Ivy Matthews or the man Harding declared he said? The verdict of the -jury does not supply an answer. The question remains unanswered, and -the doubt in regard to it constitutes the enduring mystery of the Ross -trial.</p> - -<p>All students of criminology—and all friends of truth—are under a -debt of gratitude to Mr. Brennan for the cool, precise and perfectly -dispassionate manner in which he has, inter alia, analysed the -statements of these two people, Harding and Matthews. He has placed the -salient features side by side. There seems no escape from the -irresistible logic of his conclusion—that Matthews and Harding, -knowing certain facts about Ross from an outside source, were compelled -to fill in the gaps in their own way. They could not have been drawing -from the one alleged source when they differed so absolutely as to the -essential circumstances of the crime.</p> - -<p>As Mr. Brennan points out, he is not undertaking to prove that Ross was -innocent of the Gun Alley murder. Anyone who reads his closely reasoned -pages can have little doubt that such is his opinion. But his task is -simpler. It is to show that Ross should not have been convicted on -the evidence, that the evidence for the Crown was, to a large extent, -contradictory—far more so than in the heat and passion of the trial -was allowed to appear. He is able to go even further than that, and to -show that a great part of it, so far from being cumulative on other -parts, as the jury may have naturally believed, was really destructive -of those other parts.</p> - -<p>He has performed his task with care and discretion. No one who reads -Mr. Brennan’s review of the case can doubt that he has thrown off the -role of advocate—ably as he sustained it at the trial and on the two -appeals—and is only anxious to arrive at the truth. There should be no -other desire in the minds of any reader; and the people of Australia, -who cannot possibly have followed the case with the care that Mr. -Brennan has followed it, will appreciate both the value of his work and -the deep interest of the story that he tells. Whether they think the -mystery of the Gun Alley murder was cleared up by the jury’s verdict, -or whether it remains a mystery is for them to say.</p> - -<p class="author">A. J. BUCHANAN.</p> -<p>Selborne Chambers, Melbourne.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> - -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak">PART I.<br />⸻<br />INTRODUCTORY.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="space-above2">On the early morning of the last day of the -year 1921 the dead body of a little girl of 12, named Alma Tirtschke, -was found by a bottle-gatherer in an L-shaped right-of-way off Little -Collins Street. She had been violated and strangled, and her nude body -had been placed in Gun Alley.</p> - -<p>On the morning of Saturday, February 25th, 1922, Colin Campbell Ross, -a young man of 28, was found guilty of her murder, and on the morning of -April 24th he was executed in the Melbourne Gaol. Face to face with his -Maker, as he himself put it, he asserted his innocence on the scaffold -in terms of such peculiar solemnity as to intensify the feeling, -already widely prevalent, that an innocent man had been done to death.</p> - -<p>In the eyes of officialdom the mystery had been cleared up. Detectives -walk the streets with the consciousness that they are the men who -cleared it up and brought the murderer to the gallows. The list of -persons who shared in the reward offered by the Government, with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> -amounts allotted to each, has been published.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> -It does nothing to allay the sense of public uneasiness to reflect -that by far the greater part of the reward has gone to men and women -whose society would be shunned by every decent person. That in itself -should be sufficient to raise doubt. But there are graver reasons for -thinking that justice may have miscarried in this extraordinary case. -The purpose of this short review is to show how strong are the grounds -for the prevalent feeling of uneasiness, and how much reason there is -for believing that the life of Colin Campbell Ross was, as he himself -asserted as he went to the cells with the death sentence ringing in his -ears, “Sworn away by desperate people.”</p> - -<p>Why, it may be asked, rake over dying embers and fan again into flame -a fire that is dying down? Is it not better that the Ross case should -sink, with Ross, into oblivion? Even if he were now proved innocent, -it may be said, he cannot be recalled to life, and no good purpose -can be served by reviving the case. But in the first place, there are -hundreds of people in whom the memory of the case is still quite fresh. -With them it is not a question of reviving, but of discussing. And even -though Ross be dead, death is not the end of all things. In Ross’s -case it is a small matter compared to the dishonor associated with it. -Ross has left behind him a mother and brothers who bear his name, and -for a generation to come the name of a Ross will never be mentioned -without recalling that particular bearer of it who died an ignominious -death for a revolting murder. If all the truth has not come out, the -community owes it to those of his blood left behind him that it shall -be brought out. It is largely at the solicitation of those bearers -of the name that this review is being written. But the interests of -abstract justice also require something. Ross was condemned on evidence -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> -of a kind which puts the case in a class by itself. It has no parallel -in the annals of British criminal jurisprudence. A perusal of this -review, whether or not it satisfies the reader of the innocence of -Ross, will, at least, satisfy him of the need for a close scrutiny -of evidence of this kind; and future juries will be reminded of the -necessity of never being stampeded by newspaper or popular clamor -into preconceived ideas of the guilt of any man, and of ever being on -their guard against perjury and conspiracy, even though they are not -satisfied that either were present in this case.</p> - -<h3>THE APPELLATE COURTS.</h3> - -<p>At the outset it is desirable to correct a wrong impression which, -very widely felt, has tended to allay the feeling of uneasiness in the -public mind. Ross, as is well known, appealed to the Full Court of -Victoria, which dismissed the appeal. Thence he carried his case to the -High Court of Australia, which refused, one learned Judge dissenting, -to interfere with the decision of the Supreme Court. From this fact -it has been assumed that two Appellate Courts, consisting of three -Judges and five Judges respectively, have endorsed the verdict of the -jury. Nothing could be further from the facts. Substantially what the -Appellate Courts were asked to say was (1) that there was no evidence -on which a jury could rightly convict Ross; (2) that the Judge had -failed to direct the jury properly on various points enumerated. To -take the second point first, the Courts both declined to say that there -was any non-direction, though Mr. Justice Isaacs, in the High Court, -held that on one point the Judge had failed to direct the jury properly.</p> - -<p>As to the first point, the position is this: An Appellate Court will -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span> -not interfere with the finding of a jury if there is any evidence on -which a jury could find as it did. It will not weigh the evidence to -see on which side the balance lies. That is the function of the jury, -and the Court will not usurp that function.</p> - -<p>That position was made quite clear in the judgments of both Courts. -In the Supreme Courts the Chief Justice of Victoria said: “There was -abundance of evidence, if the jury believed it, as the jury apparently -did believe it, to support their finding, and we need add nothing more -upon that point.” In the High Court, the Chief Justice of Australia, -speaking for the majority of their Honours, dealt with the same point -thus: “As we have before indicated, there was, in our opinion, abundant -evidence, if the jury believed it, to sustain their verdict. But we -desire to add that, if there be evidence on which reasonable men could -find a verdict of guilty, the determination of the guilt or innocence -of the prisoner is a matter for the jury, and for them alone. And with -their decision, based on such evidence, no Court or Judge has any -right or power to interfere. It is of the highest importance that the -grave responsibility which rests on jurors in this respect should be -thoroughly understood and always maintained.” Even Mr. Justice Isaacs, -who dissented from the majority on a point not material to this review, -was quite at one with his learned brothers on this matter. “The ground -upon which,” said his Honour, “I agree to a rejection of all the other -grounds brought forward by Mr. Brennan is that, however powerful -the considerations he advanced, however tainted and discrepant and -improbable any of the facts relied on by the Crown might be, that was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> -all matter for the jury alone, and I have no right to express or to -form any opinion about them in favour of the prisoner.”</p> - -<p>No Court and no Judge has, therefore, ever pronounced judgment on the -correctness or incorrectness of the jury’s verdict. All that they have -said is that there was some evidence on which the jury could find as it -did, and that that being so, the responsibility for the verdict must -rest with the tribunal which the law has set up to pronounce upon the -evidence. The purpose of this review of the case is to show, not that -the Appellate Courts were wrong, but that there are strong grounds for -believing that the jury was wrong. And that brings us naturally to a -second preliminary point.</p> - -<h3>WHY THE JURY MISJUDGED.</h3> - -<p>Not often, indeed, do juries err on the side of convicting an innocent -man. But the circumstances of this case were peculiar. Not merely -was the ravishing of the child and the strangling of her a crime of -a peculiarly detestable nature, but the stripping of the body, and -the placing of it on the cold stones of a squalid alley, though it -really added nothing to the horror of her death, was an incident well -calculated to excite the deepest human sympathy. In addition, it was -a crime of which none but a degenerate would be guilty, and it is an -extremely unfortunate thing that at the inquest the Coroner allowed, -under the guise of evidence, statements to be made by witnesses which -would tend to show that Ross was such a degenerate. Those statements -were not allowed to be made on the trial for the simple reason that -they violated the fundamental rules of evidence. The Coroner allowed -them in, holding that he was not bound by the rules of evidence, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> -apparently labouring under the impression that the laws of evidence -are arbitrary rules, tending at times to obscure the truth, instead -of being, as they are, rules evolved from the experience of the ages -as being best calculated to bring out the truth. There was probably -no truth in the statements made, for the plain fact is that Ross had -never been charged with a sexual offence, and had never even been -questioned about one. But such was the interest in the case that every -line written about it was eagerly devoured, and not one member of the -jury was likely to have forgotten what was said on that head at the -inquest—false though it all may have been.</p> - -<p>Again, the little girl had been seen near Ross’s wine shop in the -afternoon. Her dead body was found about 115 yards from it. The police -had been 12 days making enquiries about the case before Ross was -arrested. They had followed clues, and abandoned them when they led -nowhere; they had suspected individuals and questioned them, only to -reach a dead-end; they had formed theories, and dropped them because -they could not get the facts to fit them. But the public, from which -a jury is drawn, knew nothing of all this. Indeed, Detective Piggott -said, in his cross-examination: “We had the case well in hand on the -31st.” This may be dismissed as a little bit of puff. It excited the -smiles of Piggott’s brothers in the force, who knew the dead-end the -detectives were at after the first week. If it were strictly accurate, -it would show that Piggott’s conduct of the investigations was -disfigured by a colossal blunder, for the detectives, although they -were in Ross’s saloon on the first day, did not even go into the little -room off the bar from which came the incriminating blanket, though they -knew that the whole place was about to be abandoned and dismantled. -Once Ross was put upon his trial nothing was, or indeed could be, -said which did not appear to point to his guilt. The result was that -the searchlight was thrown directly on to him. Other suspected people -were in the shadows. Everything, therefore, appeared, superficially at -least, to point to his guilt. The crime called for vengeance, and in -all these circumstances it is not wonderful that the jurors were unable -to divest themselves of the preconceptions with which they had gone -into the jury-box. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/i011.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="684" /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> -Never in the history of serious crimes in Victoria, or, indeed, in the -British Empire, it may be safely said, has a man been convicted on such -a jumbled mass of contradictions as served to convict Ross. The only -explanation of it is that, in view of the nature of the crime, the jury -quite unconsciously formed opinions before they went into the box, and, -with their judgments clouded by their natural indignation, they were -unable to view the matter dispassionately.</p> - -<p>How strong public feeling was, how the judgments of even level-headed -men and women were clouded, how completely the public was convinced of -the guilt of Ross before ever he was put upon his trial, is shown by -the fact that the counsel for the defence were criticised, in public -and in private, for accepting briefs in his defence. People holding -those views were apparently unable to see where they led. There is no -logical stopping-place between such views and lynch law. If a man is to -be adjudged guilty on what appears, ex parte, in the press, it is as -logical to blame a judge for trying him as a counsel for defending him. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> -He is guilty, and why go through the hollow form of trying him? Why not -settle the matter at once in the easy manner of the less civilised of -the American states.</p> - -<p>But the position of the bar in these matters has been well settled. The -same view was presented by Lord Chief Justice Reading in 1916 as by -Erskine in 1792. When Erskine took a brief for the defence of Tom Paine -130 years ago, and insisted on holding it in spite of the protests of -the courtiers, his obstinacy, says Lord Chief Justice Campbell, in his -“Lives of the Chancellors,” was much condemned “by many well-meaning -people, ignorant of professional etiquette, and of what is required by -a due regard for the proper administration of criminal justice.” But -Erskine appeared, and on the trial, referring to the storm which his -conduct had provoked, he said:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“Little, indeed, did they know me who thought that -such calumnies would influence my conduct. I will for ever, at all -hazards, assert the dignity, independence and integrity of the English -bar, without which impartial justice, the most valuable part of the -British Constitution, can have no existence. From the moment that any -advocate can be permitted to say that he will or will not stand between -the Crown and the subject arraigned in the court where he daily sits to -practice, from that moment the liberties of England are at an end. If -the advocate refuses to defend from what he may think of the charge or -of the defence, he assumes the character of the judge; nay, he assumes -it before the hour of judgment; and, in proportion to his rank and -reputation, puts the heavy influence of, perhaps, a mistaken opinion -into the scale against the accused, in whose favor the benevolent -principle of English law makes all presumptions, and which commands the -very judge to be his counsel.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> -When Sir Roger Casement was tried for treason in 1916, the same -question arose, as it had arisen many times in the interval. Lord Chief -Justice Reading, addressing the jury, then said:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“There are some persons who, perhaps a little -thoughtlessly, are inclined to rebel against the notion that a member -of the English bar, or members of it, should be found to defend a -prisoner on a charge of treason against the British State. I need not -tell you, I am sure, gentlemen, that if any person has those thoughts -in his mind, he has but a poor conception of the high obligation and -responsibility of the bar of England. It is the proud privilege of the -bar of England that it is ready to come into court and to defend a -person accused, however grave the charge may be. In this case, we are -indebted to counsel for the defence for the assistance they have given -us in the trial, and I have no doubt you must feel equally indebted. -It is of great benefit in the trial of a case, more particularly of -this importance, that you should feel, as we feel, that everything -possible that could be urged on behalf of the defence has been said, -and particularly by one who has conducted the defence in accordance -with the highest traditions of the English bar.”</p> - -<p>With the lapse of a little time the public may be able to look more -judicially at the case. Let us, therefore, look briefly at the facts.</p> - -<p>Though the case took the full legal week, and encroached on the -Saturday, the facts relied upon by the Crown to support its case may be -put in a comparatively short compass.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span></p> -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak">PART II.<br />⸻<br />THE CROWN CASE.</h2> -</div> - -<p>The girl, who, so far as is known to the public, was a modest, -obedient, intelligent, quiet child, between 12 and 13 years of age, -left her aunt’s home at Jolimont between half-past 12 and a quarter -to 1, to go to Bennet and Woolcock’s butcher’s shop in Swanston St., -Melbourne, where her uncle acted as secretary. She wore a navy blue -box-pleated overall, a white blouse with blue spots, and a Panama -hat with a conspicuous badge of a high school on it. At about a -quarter past 1 she arrived at the shop, went upstairs to her uncle’s -room, returned shortly afterwards without seeing her uncle, and left -the shop about a quarter of an hour after her arrival at it, carrying a -parcel of meat some eight or nine pounds in weight. She was next seen -in Little Collins Street, and she evidently went up Little Collins -Street to Russell Street, and down Russell Street into Bourke Street, -because “well after a quarter past 2” she was noticed by Mrs. and Miss -Edmonds about 50 yards from the entrance to the Eastern Arcade. She -went into the Arcade in front of the ladies, and when she was about -half-way through they turned up the stairs to the right, and did not -see her again. Colin Ross at this time, according to Mrs. Edmonds, was -standing in front of his door. In cross-examination, Mrs. Edmonds fixed -the time at which she last saw the girl at a quarter to 3, because, she -said, “I looked at the clock on the balcony.” Between half-past 2 and 3 -o’clock Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Young saw the girl come out of the Arcade, -walk across Little Collins Street, and stand at what they described as -the Adam and Eve corner. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/i016.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="926" /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> -This means that she was standing near a lodging-house kept by a witness -named Ellis, in the delicensed premises which was formerly the Adam -and Eve Hotel. It is on the corner of Little Collins Street and Alfred -Place, Alfred Place being a rather pretentious right-of-way running -through to Collins Street. Had she desired to go to her destination, -which was the Masonic Chambers at the east end of Collins Street, -she might have gone either along Alfred Place to Collins Street, or -up Little Collins Street to Exhibition Street, and thence to Collins -Street. According to Mrs. Young, the girl looked frightened, and she -was seen to drop and pick up her parcel. The Youngs walked on down to -Russell Street, which would take her two or three minutes, they said, -and when they looked back the girl had disappeared. She might have -still been standing in Alfred Place, or she could have returned to the -Arcade, but they do not think she would have had time to have got to -Exhibition Street. That is the last seen of the girl by any witness -whose evidence is admitted by both sides to be credible. It should -be noted that she was then within an easy 10 minutes’ walk of Bennet -and Woolcock’s, and she had taken an hour and a quarter to cover the distance.</p> - -<h3>ROSS INTERVIEWED.</h3> - -<p class="space-below2">The detectives first saw Ross on the morning of -the 31st. He said that he had seen a child answering to the description -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> -of the murdered girl, but in reply to a direct question by Detective -Piggott, “Ross, how much do you know?” he replied: “I do not know -anything.” On January 5th they again saw Ross at his home, and brought -him to the Detective Office, where he was detained for eight hours, -and made a statement, which was taken down in writing. To show how -consistent Ross was throughout as to his movements on the fatal day, -it is well that this statement should be given in full. It is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p class="no-indent"><big>COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS states:—</big></p> - -<p class="space-above1">“I am at present out of business. I was the -holder of the Australian Wine Shop license in the Eastern Arcade for -about nine months past. The license expired on the 31st December, 1921. -I reside at ‘Glenross,’ Ballarat Road, Footscray. On Friday, the 30th -December, I came into the shop about 2 p.m. It was a very quiet day. -Between 2 and 3 p.m. I was standing in front of my shop, and looking -about I saw a girl about 14 or 15 years of age in the Arcade. She was -walking towards Bourke Street, and stopped and looked in a fancy dress -costume window. I later saw her walking back, and she appeared to have -nothing to do. She wore a dark blue dress, pleated, the pleats were -large, light blouse, white straw hat with a colour on it (looked like a -college hat), wore dark stockings and boots—she may have had shoes on. -I went back into the cafe. I cannot say where she went. I was about the -cafe all the afternoon.</p> - -<p>“About 4 o’clock, a friend of mine, Miss Gladys Linderman, came to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> -the saloon front. I spoke to her for about an hour. She came into the -private room, and we had a talk in the room off the bar, the one in -which the cellar is which is unused. She and I went into the Arcade at -4.45; remained talking for about 10 minutes. I then saw her out into -Little Collins Street. I made an appointment to meet her again at 9 -p.m. at the place I left her. I went back into the cafe, and remained -until 6 p.m., when I left for home, got home about 7 p.m., had tea, -left home at 8 p.m., came into the city, waited at the corner of the -Arcade in Little Collins Street. Miss Linderman came to me at 9 p.m., -and we went straight into the cafe. We remained in there till 10.45, -then left, locked the place up, went to King Street. She went to her -home, 276 King Street. After leaving her I went to Spencer Street -Station, took a train, arrived home at 11.50 p.m., and remained there -all night.</p> - -<p>“I know the shop opposite, No. 33. It is occupied by a man named -McKenzie. Several men visit there. I have seen a stout, foreign man -go there. I don’t know his name—I never spoke to him in my life. I am -sure he has not visited the saloon. He has come to my door and spoken -to me. On one occasion, about four months ago, I went over to that -shop by his invitation. He desired to explain a certain signalling -patent. He unlocked the door, and I went inside with him. I saw a box -affair, a couch, and nine or twelve chairs. I did not see the patent—it -was locked. I have never possessed a key of that shop, and no person -has ever loaned me one. I have two keys of my wine saloon. I had one, -and my brother Stan had the other. On Friday I possessed one, and -my brother had the other. These keys are Yale keys. No person could -enter that wine shop unless let in by my brother or myself. I think my -brother was in the city that night with his friends. I can’t say where he was. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p> - -<p>“On the Saturday I was again in the saloon. It was the last day of -the license. I saw Mr. Clark, manager of the Arcade, about 11 a.m., -and arranged with him to get me a key of the back gate of the Arcade, -which is locked by means of a chain and padlock. He gave me a key about -noon, and I left there about 6.15 p.m. I came back to the Arcade at -6.50 a.m., Monday, and a van came at 7 a.m., and then took my effects -from the saloon, which consisted of 26 chairs, 6 tables, a small couch, -a counter, 2 wooden partitions, shelves, and linoleum off the floor, -about 20 bottles of wine, and 9 flagons of wine. There were two dozen -glasses, and about 18 pictures. My brothers Stanley and Tom were with -me. I left there at 8.30 a.m., and went home. I handed the keys to the -caretaker.</p> - -<p>“I cannot say what goes on inside No. 33 in the Arcade, but I have -seen several women going in and out, and in company of McKenzie. I -have never seen the other man, who looks like an engineer, take women -in there. The ages of the women would range from about 20 years and -upwards. I cannot say if any person saw me with Gladys Linderman -while at the Arcade. I was not in the company of any other woman that -afternoon or evening at the saloon. Close to the saloon, and about -36 feet distant, is a man’s lavatory, the door of which is generally -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> -locked. At night time it is occasionally left open. I had a key of that -lavatory. The water used in my saloon was obtained from a tap in a -recess adjoining the cafe.”</p> - -<p class="author">“COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS.”</p> -<p>Witness: FREDERICK J. PIGGOTT.</p> -</div> - -<p class="space-above1 space-below1">This statement was obtained -largely, as all police statements are, by question and answer, and -committed to paper in narrative form. When it was concluded, further -questions, more disjointed, were put to Ross, and his answers being -given, the question and answer were committed to writing, and were -signed by Ross. The supplementary statement thus obtained is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>“I admit I did walk up and down Little Collins Street in front of -the Arcade from about 8.45 until 9 p.m. I say there was not a light in -my saloon after 10.45 p.m., unless my brother was in there. My brother -was first to enter my saloon on the Saturday morning. I came while the -detectives were talking to my brother. He did not make any complaint -about the condition of the shop when I arrived. I did have two blankets -in the saloon. They were used as a rug or cover for the couch to lie -down on in the afternoons. I was home all day Thursday. I was not -well. I did not leave the shop on Friday and say that I was ill. I was -not away from the saloon during the afternoon of Friday. I can give -no reason why my brother should say I was away ill. I have not been -engaged in a telephone conversation with a man named Williams. I have -not spoken on a telephone since Thursday, 29th. I remember, before Miss -G. Linderman came to the cafe, there were two young women in the bar. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> -They would be 19 or 20 years of age, and they left the saloon in -company with two men. That was on Friday, 30th. In my opinion No. 33 is -a brothel. Several men have keys of the room.”</p> - -<p class="author">“COLIN CAMPBELL ROSS.”</p> -<p>Witness: FREDERICK J. PIGGOTT.</p> -</div> - -<p>Ross was still further interrogated, but this part of his statement -was not taken down in writing. Piggott said: “Where did you have lunch -on Friday, December 30th?” and he replied: “At home,” and question and -answer proceeded as follow:—</p> - -<p>What time did you get into your wine bar?—About 2 o’clock.</p> - -<p>Who was in the bar?—A man named Allen and a woman.</p> - -<p>Who was the woman?—I do not know, but Detective Lee ordered her out.</p> - -<p>What time did you see Gladys Linderman?—About 4.45, and I remained -talking with her about three-quarters of an hour.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> - -<p>What time did you leave her?—About 6 o’clock, but I had to meet her again.</p> - -<p>Did you meet her?—Yes, I met her at 9 o’clock, as arranged.</p> - -<p>What time did she leave?—About half-past 10.</p> - -<p>Where did she go?—I saw her home. I got the train, and got home about -midnight.</p> - -<p>This was the material that the police had to work on up to that time, -but about Tuesday, January 10, they received an important addition to -their stock of knowledge from a girl named Olive Maddox. This girl, an -admitted prostitute, said that, being a bit “potty” on Monday, January -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> -9, she had a conversation with Ivy Matthews, who advised her to go and -tell the police what she knew. What she told the police will appear -from her evidence to be given later. It is important to remember -that at this time, according to the police, Ivy Matthews had herself -given no information to them. In fact, she had been interrogated by -the detectives on January 5, and had told them that she knew nothing. -More than that, she met certain members of the Ross family outside the -Detective Office on that night, and indignantly protested against being -brought there to be catechised, saying that she knew nothing about the -matter. On the day of Ross’s arrest she was again at the Detective -Office, and seems to have hinted at something, because, while declining -to make any statement, she said: “Bring me face to face with Colin, and -I will ask him some questions.” She was never brought “face to face” -with Colin Ross. There is ample reason for believing that though the -police knew that when she came to give her evidence Matthews would -advance their case, they did not know exactly what she was going to -say. The position, therefore, is that, on January 23, the police had -practically no evidence against Ross. On that day Harding disclosed his -“confession,” and by January 26 Matthews had given to the world her -account of what she alleged she had seen and what she alleged Ross had -told her.</p> - -<h3>THE TRIAL.</h3> - -<p>Ross was committed at the Coroner’s inquest on January 26, and came up -for trial before Mr. Justice Schutt on February 20. Evidence was given, -as indicated above, as to the movements of the girl on the day of her -death. Medical evidence, to be dealt with later, was also given and then -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> -the Crown called a succession of witnesses, who deposed as to certain -extraordinary “facts,” and as to certain admissions or confessions -supposed to have been made by Ross.</p> - -<h3>THE BLOODY BOTTLE.</h3> - -<p>The first of these was a man named Francis Lane Upton. Upton had not -been called at the inquest. The defence had been served with notice -that he would be called on the trial, and a short summary of his -evidence was given, according to practice. His evidence is remarkable, -not so much for its glaring improbability as for the fact that it was -dramatically abandoned by the Crown Prosecutor in his closing address -to the jury with the contemptuous intimation that he would not ask the -jury to “swing a cat on it.” How it has been assessed by the police is -shown by the fact that, in the distribution of the reward offered by -the Crown, Upton has not shared. That his evidence was prompted wholly -by a desire to share in the reward, or gain notoriety, was revealed by -his cross-examination. When that is borne in mind, it supplies its own -comment on the Crown’s contention that it is incredible that witnesses -like Olive Maddox, Ivy Matthews, Sydney Harding, and Joseph Dunstan -would have been so wicked as to come forward with false testimony to -swear away the life of an innocent man.</p> - -<p>The story told by Upton was that he was a labourer out of work, that -he had been about the town on December 30, fell asleep in the Flagstaff -Gardens, walked through the Victoria Markets “and all round trying -to rake up a drink,” and found himself, at about half-past 12 or 1 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> -o’clock, at Ross’s saloon, which he had heard of some months before. By -this time he was sober, but very thirsty. Entering the Arcade by the -little Collins Street gate, and seeing a light in the saloon, he went -to the second door of the establishment—the door nearer Bourke Street. -It was not locked, and he pushed it, and it came open. As he did so he -heard a woman’s voice saying: “Oh, my God, darling, how are we going to -get rid of it?” Just then Ross said: “There is somebody here,” and he -rushed out like a lunatic. Upton said to him when he got to the door: -“What about a bottle?” Ross had a bar towel or some such thing on his -arm, his hands were covered with something that looked like blood; he -rushed back, and seized a bottle from behind the bar, thrust it into -Upton’s hands, and pushed him from the room, without even waiting to -take the money which Upton had ready in his hand. Upton walked down -Little Collins Street to Russell Street, where he discovered that there -was blood on the bottle. He walked on down Little Collins Street to -William Street, thence down to Flinders Street, and at the corner of -William Street and Flinders Street he disposed of the bottle (out of -which he had had one drink) in what he described as a culvert or sewer.</p> - -<p>In cross-examination it was disclosed that Upton had come from the -Mallee a day or two before the tragedy. He read of the murder in the -Footscray Gardens on the Monday, and he immediately returned to the -Mallee, worked in several places, drank the proceeds of his labour, -heard about the reward, and, when he was without money, went to the -Donald Police Station and told the officer in charge that he “was -connected with Alma Tirtschke’s murder.” He was detained, and a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> -detective went up from Melbourne to bring him down. Upton’s evidence -may be dismissed with the remark that it was physically impossible for -him to have seen from where he said he was the things he said that he -did see (for a glance at the plan will show that, from the second door, -he could not see the cubicle), and with the further observation that -his evidence having been formally repudiated by the Crown, no notice -whatever was taken of it in either Court of Appeal. He was a derelict, -a drunkard, a wife deserter, a notorious romancer, a convicted -criminal, and his evidence was a fitting prologue to that which was -immediately to follow.</p> - -<h3>OLIVE MADDOX’S EVIDENCE.</h3> - -<p>Olive May Maddox was the next witness. She was living at the time of -the inquest at Cambridge Street, Collingwood, and when asked, “Have you -any other means of livelihood but prostitution?” she answered: “No, -not exactly.” She said she knew Ross well, and she used to visit his -premises every day up to the time of the shooting affray. (That was -in the previous November, and up to that time Ivy Matthews had been -employed there.) Since the shooting affray she had only visited the -cafe “once, sometimes twice, sometimes three times or four times or -five times a week at the most.” She went to the wine cafe on December -30 at five minutes past 5, walked straight into the bar with another -girl named Jean Dyson, and ordered two drinks at the counter. She then -looked into the parlour through the curtains hanging from the arched -doorway between the two main rooms in the saloon, and seeing a girl -named Lil. Harrison in that room she went in. As she passed the beaded -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> -curtains of the small compartment on the right she saw the little girl -in it—that is to say, she described the girl she saw, and if her -evidence is true there can be no doubt the girl was Alma Tirtschke. -There was a glass in front of her, “but you couldn’t tell whether the -contents were white or whether it was empty.” There were, she said, -a couple of strange men also in the room. The two men were near the -entrance, and the girl was near the corner. After talking to Harrison -for a time, she came back into the bar to her friend, and seeing Ross, -she said, “Hello, Col., she is a young kid to be drinking.” He replied: -“Oh, if she wants it she can have it.”</p> - -<p>At a quarter past 5 Maddox left, and she returned about five minutes -to 6. She ordered drinks, and went again into the other room. Lil. -Harrison was still there, but the little girl was no longer in the -beaded room. Maddox left soon after 6, and she did not see Ross on that -occasion. She next saw him on Thursday night, January 5, “down where -the old Repatriation was in Jolimont, just off Flinders Street.” Maddox -had been there with some girls, and Ross, when she saw him, was with -“a girl named Florrie Dobson and another named Pauline Warburton, and -their two young chaps.” “We started talking about different things,” -she said, “and then Ross said: ‘What do you think about this case, -Ol.?’ I said: ‘I don’t know; if I knew anything I wouldn’t tell the -police.’ He said: ‘You don’t want to tell them if you know anything. -The papers all say that she was a goody-goody, but that is only for the -sake of the public. She was a cheeky little devil, and’”—and he added a -disgusting comment. He said also, the witness added: “I tried to pool -the b⸺ b⸺ of a Madame Ghurka. The police came to me and asked me -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> if I -saw anything about the little girl, and I told them I saw her looking -in Madame Ghurka’s window, and I tried to pool the b⸺ b⸺ because she -decoys little girls when they are missing away from home.”</p> - -<p>In her cross-examination Maddox admitted that she knew from the papers -the description of the little girl’s dress, and that it was after -she had had a conversation with Ivy Matthews on the subject that she -informed the police. That conversation took place on the Tuesday, -January 10. She told Matthews she was afraid to go to the police on -account of her convictions, and Matthews asked her whether she really -had any doubt it was the little girl, and she said she was positive. -Matthews said: “The police cannot touch you,” and she replied: “Well, I -will chance it, and go and do it.” She also admitted that on Saturday -afternoon, December 31, she was arrested for absconding from her bail, -and she remained in the watchhouse until the Sunday afternoon. It is -worthy of note that no proceedings have been taken against Olive Maddox -on that charge. She admitted also that the meeting on the Thursday -evening was purely by chance, as far as she was concerned. Asked how -many people were in the saloon when she was there at 5 o’clock, she -said she did not know how many were in the bar, but in the parlour -there were two girls she knew, and one she didn’t know, and two or -three men, and there were two other men in the beaded room with the -little girl.</p> - -<p>Therefore, there were seven or eight persons who were in as good a -position as Maddox to see the little girl, if, in fact, she had been in -the saloon. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span></p> - -<h3>THE MATTHEWS CONFESSION.</h3> - -<p>Ivy Matthews was the next witness. She “didn’t quite know” what to say -her occupation was, as just at present she was out of employment, but -she had been a barmaid. She had been employed by the accused from the -23rd of December, 1920, up to some time in November, 1921. She left the -day following Ross’s acquittal on the shooting charge. She described -minutely the interior of the wine saloon as it was in her time, and on -being shown two blankets, said that one of them—a greeny-blue military -blanket—was on the couch in the cubicle in her time, but not the -other, a reddish brown blanket. On the afternoon of Friday, December -30, she was at the bar door, she said, talking to Stanley Ross, who -had beckoned her up while she was talking to a friend in the Arcade. -Whilst she was talking to Stanley, Colin Ross came out of the little -room at the end of the bar, and as he opened the curtains to come out -she saw a child sitting on a chair. Colin came along the bar and poured -out a drink. She saw the glass, but did not see what was poured into -it. Colin returned to the little room, and as, he did so he must have -said something to the girl, because she parted the curtains “and looked -straight out at me.” She gave a very minute description of the child’s -hair and clothing, considering the very cursory glance she admitted -having had. Colin, she said, must have noticed her, but he did not -acknowledge her in any way.</p> - -<p>Matthews said nothing of how long she stayed. Next day, at the -Melbourne Hotel, at 3 o’clock, where she had an appointment, she read -in “Truth,” so she said, of the murder of the little girl, and she went -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> -straight to Ross’s wine cafe. “He was busy serving behind the bar,” -she continued, “and I walked past the wine cafe door twice. I mean -that I walked past and I came back again. The second time he saw me -and he came to the door without a coat, and he spoke to me [although -he wouldn’t acknowledge her on the previous day]. I was the first -to speak. I said, ‘I see about this murder; why did you do it?’ He -said,‘What are you getting at?’ I said, ‘You know very well; why did -you do it, Colin?’ He said, ‘Do what?’ I said, ‘You know very well what -you did. That child was in your wine cafe yesterday afternoon, for I -saw her.’ He said, ‘Not me.’ And with that he said, ‘People are looking -at us; walk out into Little Collins Street, Ivy, and I will follow -you.’ He returned to the wine cafe and put on his coat. I stood at the -corner in Little Collins Street for perhaps two minutes, and then he -followed me. Before that, when he said, ‘I did not do anything like -that,’ I said, ‘Don’t tell me that, because I know too well it is you, -for I saw the child in your place yesterday.’ It was then he passed the -remark that people were looking.”</p> - -<p>“When he came into Little Collins Street what did he say,” -she was asked.</p> - -<p>“I cannot think of the exact words,” she replied.</p> - -<p>“Well, tell us the substance of it,” said His Honour.</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: What did he say when you resumed the conversation?—First -of all he tried to make out that I did not see the girl.</p> - -<p>His Honour: Well, what did he say?—He said it was not the child. He -simply said: “You know I did not have that child in there.” I said, -“Gracious me, I looked at the child myself, and I know it was the same -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> -child by the descriptions given,” and for a long while he hung out that -this was not the child.</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: How did he hang out?—He said it was not the child. I -cannot tell you exactly every word he said.</p> - -<p>This was in the Arcade?—It was in Little Collins Street, just at the -corner of the Arcade.</p> - -<p>Well, what then?—I was so sure it was the child, and I would make him -know it was the child.</p> - -<p>Will you tell us what he said?—I am trying to explain it.</p> - -<p>His Honour: You have been told several times that you are only supposed -to tell what was done, or what was said, between you and the accused, -instead of telling your inferences, or assumptions, or suppositions. -Tell us now what took place—what was said.</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: Don’t tell us why he said things; just tell us what he -said.—Well, at last he told me that it was the child. He told me -that the child came to him while he was at the door, on the Friday -afternoon. He said there was no business; there was no one there and -he was standing at his door, and when the child came up and asked him -for a drink he said, “I took her in and gave her a lemonade.” I said, -“When the child came and asked you for a drink of lemonade why didn’t -you take her into the bar? Why did you take her to that little room?” I -said, “I know you too well. I know what you are with little children.” -He said: “On my life, Ivy, I did not take her in there with any evil -intention, but when I got her there I found that she knew absolutely -what I was going to do with her if I wanted her. Assuming that this -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>⸺”</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: Never mind the assumption. Did he say what he assumed?—Well, -you cannot expect me to say it just the way he put it to me.</p> - -<p>His Honour: No, it is the substance of it we want.—Well, I am trying -to tell you to the best of my ability.</p> - -<p>I am not saying that you are not, but tell us what he said.—He said -that after taking the child in there he gave her a drink of lemonade. -He did not say wine; he said lemonade. And she stayed on there talking -to him for a while. She stayed there until about four. He said a girl -named Gladys came to see him and he told the child to go through to -the little room with curtains and he kept her in there until Gladys -Linderman left, and he then brought her back into the little private room.</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: What did he say then?—After that, he said he stayed with -her during the rest of the afternoon, with the full intention at six -o’clock of letting her go; but when six o’clock came she remained on. -He said that after six o’clock, when Stanley went, he left us in there -together. I could not tell you just exactly what he said that led up to the⸺</p> - -<p>His Honour: No, you need not tell us exactly; just as far as you -remember the substance of it.—I can remember everything quite well, -but it is⸺</p> - -<p>His Honour: I think if you would not go quite so fast you would -remember better.</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: What did he say then?—Just after that he said that he -had outraged the child; he said that between six and eight o’clock he -had outraged her.</p> - -<p>What did he say about it?—What do you mean? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span></p> - -<p>Well, I suppose he didn’t say, “I outraged the child”? No, that is the -hardest part of it.—I cannot say it.</p> - -<p>His Honour: Is it because you cannot remember it, or because it is too -foul?—It is because the language he used is too foul. I cannot say it.</p> - -<p>Will you write it down?—I will try to the best of my ability to say it.</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: What was it, as near you can remember?—He said, first of -all, “After Stan went, I got fooling about with her, and you know the -disease I am suffering from, and when in the company of young children -I feel I cannot control myself. It was all over in a minute.”</p> - -<p>Are those his words?—That is just using my own language.</p> - -<p>His Honour: Is that the substance of what he said?—Yes, that is the -substance, and he said: “After it was all over I could have taken a -knife and slashed her up, and myself too, because she led me on to it. -He tried to point out to me that, so he believed, she went there for an -immoral purpose. That is what he said to me. That is what he tried to -imply to my mind.”</p> - -<p>The witness then wrote down the exact words used, which was a statement -in coarse language that the girl had previously been tampered with.</p> - -<p>The witness went on to tell what happened after the girl’s death. -“After it had happened, he said that he had a friend to meet—a girl -friend. He took the body of the little girl and put it into the beaded -room, and left it wrapped up in a blanket, and at nine o’clock, or -half-past nine he brought a girl named Gladys Wain there. She stayed -until ten o’clock. He took her home at ten o’clock, and came back -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> -between ten and half-past, after seeing her to the station or tram, and -removed the body from the beaded room into the small room off the bar. -He then went to Footscray by train, but came back again between one -and two a.m. I asked him how he got back, and he said he came by motor -car, and went in there and looked for a place to put the body. He first -thought of putting it in the recess alongside the wine cafe, but that -the ‘Skytalians’ would be blamed for a thing like that. Then he thought -he would put it in Mac’s room (that is room 33 opposite, occupied by a -man named McKenzie). I said what an awful thing to do. He said: ‘I did -the very best thing. I put it in the street.’”</p> - -<p>It will be noted that up to this time the witness had not said a word -of the actual death of the child, and that great difficulty had been -experienced in dragging a consecutive story from her. She was brought -back to the main point by the question: “Did he tell you at any time -how the girl had died?” She answered: “I had better write it down. He -strangled her while he was going with her. He said he strangled her -in his passion. He said he heard or saw where they were saying a cord -had been round the child’s neck. He said that was not so. He said: ‘I -pressed round her with my hands. I did not mean to kill her; but it was -my passion that did it.’ He said she was dead before he knew where he -was. That was just his words to me.”</p> - -<p>In cross-examination, the witness absolutely declined to say anything -that would let light in on her past life. She objected to saying where -she lived, and when that was forced from her she said at an apartment -house at 25 Rathdown Street. Asked if among the people who lived there -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> -was a woman named Julia Gibson, she replied that she was the -proprietress. Asked if Julia Gibson was identical with Madame Ghurka, -she said she did not feel called upon to say anything as to the names -Mrs. Gibson assumed. She knew her as Mrs. Gibson, the proprietress of -the boarding-house, but didn’t know she was a fortune-teller, though -she knew her as a phrenologist. She had lived with her since the -previous November. She admitted that she had made several additions to -her evidence as given at the inquest, and these are so suggestive that -they will be referred to in more detail later. She admitted that she -had gone—or “may have gone”—at different times under the names of Ivy -Sutton, Ivy Dolan, and Ivy Marshall. She swore that she was married, -but declined to say what her married name was. She admitted that Ross -had dismissed her from his employ following the shooting case with -the intimation that, after the evidence she had given in the case, he -“would not have a bitch like her about the premises.” “Those were his -exact words to me,” she said. She admitted that, after her dismissal, -she claimed to be a partner, and that a lengthy correspondence ensued -between her solicitor and Ross, in which she demanded a week’s wages -in lieu of notice, and claimed a share in the partnership; that Ross -claimed £10 from her as a debt, and that her solicitors wrote to him, -in reply, accusing him of insulting her by calling her Miss Matthews, -instead of Mrs., “on account of not being able to force from her the -sum of £10 which he wished to obtain.” She admitted that Ross sued her -for the £10, but withdrew the case on the morning of the return of the -summons in petty sessions; that her solicitor wrote saying that, if the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> -costs were not paid, a warrant would issue. All these letters were -written with her authority, but she denied that there was any -ill-feeling whatever between her and Ross. She did admit, however, that -Ross and she had never spoken from the day she left his employ until -the day she spoke to him about the tragedy.</p> - -<p>By comparing the evidence which Matthews gave at the inquest with -that which she gave at the trial, it will be seen that on the trial -important additions were made. The significance of the additions will -be discussed later when her evidence is being analysed, but here it -may be said that at the inquest she said nothing about Ross going back -for his coat; she never mentioned the name of Gladys Wain (or Gladys -Linderman), or anything about meeting with such a woman. She did not -say in the Coroner’s Court anything about the tragedy having happened -after Stanley left; she did not say anything about Ross having got the -murdered girl in the afternoon to go from the little room (the cubicle) -off the bar to the little room off the parlour (the beaded room), in -order to clear the way for Gladys Wain, or about having brought her -back when Gladys Wain was gone; she did not say that Ross had said -that, when Gladys was coming in the evening, he took the dead body from -the cubicle to the beaded room, and then came back between 10 o’clock -and half-past 10, and shifted it from the beaded room back to the cubicle.</p> - -<p>What is more important than all this, at the inquest Matthews made the -conversations all take place in Little Collins Street. In one way this -may seem a small matter, but it is very important, because when one is -retailing a conversation he can clearly visualise the place where he was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> -standing when certain things were said. Matthews’s exact words at -the inquest were: “After I passed the third time he came out, and I -spoke to him in Little Collins Street.” She gives some words of the -conversation, and then she added: “then he told me to walk along a -little bit, as people were looking at us from the Arcade. I walked -along a little bit, and several people went past, and they could -have noticed me.” On the trial the witness made the early part of -the conversation take place at the door of the saloon, and then the -suggestion came from Ross, she says, that they should walk out into -Little Collins Street, as people were looking at them. The significance -of this alteration will also be adverted to later.</p> - -<h3>HARDING’S STORY.</h3> - -<p>Deferring comment upon these matters for the moment, we will proceed -with the evidence of the next disreputable witness—the odious Sydney -John Harding, who now obtains £250 out of the reward and a free pardon -for his “services to the State.”</p> - -<p>Harding at this time was awaiting trial on a charge of shopbreaking, -together with another man named Joseph Dunstan. He had a list of -convictions at the time so long that he could not remember them all. He -was a wife deserter, and was living in adultery with the so-called Ruby -Harding. A verdict of guilty against him might almost of a certainty -have been expected to result in an indeterminate sentence for him. The -“key,” as it is called, has a peculiar terror for criminals. As he -lay in the Melbourne Gaol awaiting trial he had a tremendously strong -inducement to try and render some service to the State. Harding arrived -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> -in Melbourne from Sydney on January 4, a fugitive from justice. He was -on bail in that city, and he bolted. He was arrested on the 9th, and -lodged in the Melbourne Gaol. He was in the remand yard with different -persons, including Ross at different times, and on the 23rd of January -was in the yard with four men, again including Ross. The conversation -was general for a while, he said, and then reverted to Ross’s case.</p> - -<p>“I remarked to Ross,” he said, “that a girl named Ruby, whom we both -knew, informed me that a woman was down in the female division of the -prison in connection with his case. He said: ‘I wonder if it is Ivy -Matthews?’ I said: ‘It could hardly have been her, for Ruby knows her, -and would have told me so.’ He said: ‘I wonder what she says?’ I said: -‘Can she say anything?’ and he said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Why worry?’” Ross -and he meantime were walking up and down the yard, which is triangular -in shape, while Dunstan, because he had rheumatism, was sitting under -the shed on a form, “idly turning over the pages of a magazine.”</p> - -<p>“After saying ‘Why worry?’” said Harding, “I said: ‘Did you see the -girl?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘How was she dressed?’ He said: ‘She -was dressed in a blue skirt and a white blouse, and a light-coloured -hat with a ribbon band around it, and black shoes and stockings.’ I -said: ‘Did you tell the detectives you saw her?’ and he said: ‘Yes, -but I told them she had black boots on.’ I said: ‘Did you speak to the -girl?’ and he said: ‘No.’ After a little while he said to me: ‘What do -you think of the case?’ I said: ‘I do not know any of the details of -the case, and, therefore, I am not qualified to offer an opinion.’ We -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> -ceased talking on that for a little while, and continued walking up -and down, and then he said to me: ‘Can a man trust you?’ I said: ‘Yes; -I have known you a good time, and have not done you any harm, have -I?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Did you speak to the girl?’ and he said: -‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Where?’ He said she was standing in front of Madame -Ghurka’s, and she came down the Arcade, and when she got in front of -his place he spoke to her, and she took no notice of him at first. He -said: ‘You have nothing to be afraid of. I own this place, and if you -are tired you can come in and sit down.’ I asked him what time this -was. He said about a quarter to 3, or a quarter past 3, I am not sure -which. I said: ‘Did you tell the detectives you spoke to her?’ and -he said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Did you take her into the cafe?’ and he said -yes, she went in, and he took her into the cubicle near the counter. I -said: ‘Could not any of your customers see her?’ He said: ‘No; we were -not busy that day, and the customers were in the parlour.’ When he had -the girl in the cubicle, he said, he spoke to her for a few moments, -and then offered her a drink of sweet wine. She at first refused it, -but eventually accepted it and sipped it, and appeared to like it. He -said he gave her a second glass, and gave her in all three glasses. -He said about this time a woman whom he knew came to the door of the -cafe, and he went and spoke to her for about three-quarters of an hour, -that when she left he went back to the cubicle and the girl was asleep. -About this time his own girl came to the door of the cafe, and he went -and spoke to her until nearly 6 o’clock. I asked him who served his -customers while he was talking to the girl. He said his brother did. I -said: ‘Could not your brother see the girl in the cubicle when he went -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> -behind the counter to get the drinks?’ He said: ‘No, the screen was -down, and when the screen was down no one dared to go into the cubicle.’</p> - -<p>“At 6 o’clock, or a few seconds afterwards, he closed the wine cafe -and went back into the cubicle. The little girl was still asleep, and -he could not resist the temptation. I asked him did she call out, and -he said: ‘Yes, she moaned and sang out,’ but he put his hand over her -mouth, and she stopped and appeared to faint. After a little time -she commenced again to call out, and he went in to stop her, and -in endeavoring to stop her from singing out, he said, he must have -choked her. He further added that ‘you will hear them saying that she -was choked with a piece of wire or a piece of rope, but that was not -so.’ He said he picked up her hand, and it appeared to be like a dead -person’s hand, because it fell just like a dead person’s hand would -do. I said to him: ‘I suppose you got very excited when you realised -what had happened?’ He said: ‘No; I got suddenly cool, and commenced -to think.’ There was a great deal of blood about, he said, and he got -a bucket and got some water from the tap, and washed the cubicle and -around the cubicle, but seeing that, by comparison, the rest of the bar -looked dirtier than the cubicle, he washed the whole lot. I asked him: -‘What time was this—7 or 8?’ and he said: ‘Yes, about that time.’ I -said: ‘Was it before you met your girl?’ He said: ‘Yes,’ that he had -time to clean himself and go for a walk around the town before meeting -his girl. I asked him did he meet his girl, and he said he did. I said: -‘You took a risk, didn’t you, in meeting her?’ He said: ‘No, I would -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> -have taken a bigger risk had I not met her, because I would have had a -job to prove my whereabouts.’ I said: ‘Could not she see the girl when -she went into the wine cafe?’ He said: ‘No, we had our drink in the parlour.’</p> - -<p>“He said he took his girl home at half-past 10, and caught the twenty -to 11 train to Footscray. When he got to Footscray he got on to the -electric tram for his home. Whilst on the tram he created a diversion -so as to attract the attention of the passengers and conductor, so that -he could have them as witnesses to prove an alibi. I asked him if he -went home, and he said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Did you come back to Melbourne -by car?’ He said: ‘No,’ that he had a bike. I said: ‘A motor bike?’ He -said: ‘No, a push bike.’ I said: ‘Have you a push bike of your own?’ He -said: ‘No, but a man I know, who lives near us, had a push bike, and I -know where it is kept.’ I said: ‘Did you go straight into the Arcade?’ -He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘But the gates are locked there at night.’ He -said: ‘Yes, but I have a key.’ I said: ‘When you went to the Arcade did -you go straight in and remove the body?’ He said: ‘No. I went in and -took the girl’s clothes off,’ that he went out and walked around the -block to see if there was anybody about, that he came back and rolled -the body in a coat or an overcoat—I don’t know which—and carried -it to the lane. I asked him was he going to put it in the sewer, and -he said he did not know. I said: ‘Did you not know there was a sewer -there?’ He said he did, but he heard somebody coming, and he went from -the lane into Little Collins Street, and saw a man coming down from the -Adam and Eve Hotel. He added that, if they tried to put that over him, -he would ask what the old bastard was doing there at 1 o’clock in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> -morning. I said: ‘Where did you go then?’ He said he went back to the -cafe. I asked him what he did with the clothes. He said he made a -bundle of them, put them on his bicycle, and rode to Footscray, that -when he got to the first hotel on the Footscray road he got off the -bicycle and sat on the side of the road and tore the clothing into -strips and bits. He went round with the bicycle and distributed the -strips and bits along the road, and when he came to the bridge crossing -the river he threw one shoe and some of the strips into the river, and -then distributed more strips, and went down the road and down Nicholson -street to the Ammunition Works, to the river, and threw the other shoe -and some more strips in. He then went back and got his bicycle and rode -home to bed.</p> - -<p>“Before this I said: ‘Supposing they open the girl’s stomach and find -wine in it?’ He said: ‘What do they want to open her stomach for when -they know she died of strangulation?’ I said: ‘Suppose they do open -it?’ He said: ‘I’m not the only one who could give her wine; couldn’t -I sell a bottle of wine over the counter in the Arcade to anyone, and -couldn’t they give it to her to drink?’ I said: ‘That is so.’ He then -said: ‘What do you think of the case?’ I said: ‘Pretty good; have you -told anybody else?’ He said: ‘No. Sonenberg told me to keep my mouth -shut.’ I said: ‘Why didn’t you keep your mouth shut?’ He said: ‘I can -trust you; anyhow, you are in here.’”</p> - -<p>On the next day, said Harding, the conversation was resumed. “I asked -him did he always have a screen up in that cubicle. He said: ‘No; I -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> -used the one in the parlour—the red screen.’” Ross also said -(according to the witness) that there was a good deal of blood about, -and on being asked by the Crown Prosecutor: “Did he say anything about -the old man again?” Harding replied: “He passed the remark that this -old bloke, about 70 years of age, was there, and if they put that over -on him he said: ‘I will ask what he was doing there, and that he is -just the sort of fellow they would pick for that sort of crime, and -that they would never think a young fellow like me would do it.’”</p> - -<p>In cross-examination, Harding was asked by Mr. Maxwell: “Did Ross tell -you that, on that night, he had had hard luck in that he was seen by so -many people?” “He did not,” said Harding.</p> - -<p>“Did he not tell you that, when he was in the Arcade, a man had come up -and asked him whether he could lend him a pencil?”—No.</p> - -<p>Mr. Maxwell was slightly in error there, for what Alberts had said was -that Ross came to him and asked him for a pencil.</p> - -<p>“Did he not tell you that, while he was preparing the body for removal, -a man pushed his way into the wine cafe, and that he (Ross) went -out with his hand covered with blood, and served him with a bloody -bottle?”—“No.”</p> - -<p>“Did he not tell you that he had told about the tragedy to Ivy -Matthews?”—“No; each time he mentioned Ivy Matthews it was with some -execration.”</p> - -<p>Asked as to his record, Harding said he was 30 years of age, had been -convicted “about nine or ten times—it might be eleven.” His offences -included housebreaking, larceny, assault, wounding, escaping from -custody, and a fourteen days’ “solitary” while in prison for making -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> -false statements against two warders. The confession, he said, was made -on Monday, January 23rd, and that same evening he sent for the governor -and asked him to send for Detective Walsh, and when Walsh came he -communicated it to them. The inquest was on the 25th and 26th, and it -finished about midday on the latter date. He thought he saw a report of -his evidence in the “Age” of the next day, and Dunstan might have seen -that report. When asked how long he remained in gaol after making his -statement to the Governor, he answered: “Until the 27th of January—no, -it was more than that, I think the 30th January.”</p> - -<h3>DUNSTAN’S CORROBORATION.</h3> - -<p>Dunstan was then called to corroborate Harding. He was awaiting trial -with Harding for housebreaking, and at the Police Court he had pleaded -guilty, and had exonerated Harding. It should be recalled here, -however, that when the two men came up for trial, and the same course -was adopted, the jury declined to accept the story that Harding knew -nothing of the charge, and he was found guilty of receiving. Dunstan -had twice previously been convicted of larceny, and he was one of the -five that were in the remand yard on January 23. His story was that -he heard certain answers made by Ross, but only one question put by -Harding. The answers were: “I was talking to the girl”; “if they do -find any wine inside her, that ain’t to say I gave it to her”; “my -brother was serving”; “I left my girl at half-past 10”; “I ain’t the -only man that has got a disease”; “no, a bike”; “I will ask the old -bastard what he was doing there at half-past 1”; “Ammunition Works.” -The only question he heard Harding ask was: “How was she dressed?”</p> - -<p>Dunstan admitted that when Ross came back from the inquest Ross said to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> -him: “That is a nice cobber of yours, to go into the box and swear a -man’s life away.” Dunstan had not been called at the inquest. He said -that he first told the Governor what he had heard on the Friday or the -Saturday two or three days after the inquest. He had had opportunities -for quiet talks with Harding in the meantime, but there had been no -conversations on the subject of Harding’s evidence. He said he had -never read in the papers any account of Harding’s evidence. Harding had -asked him had he heard the conversation, and he had told Harding that -what he had heard he would tell to the governor of the gaol. He had not -told Harding, because he “didn’t have much time for him.” Being shown a -copy of the “Herald,” with Harding’s photograph in it, and being asked -if he had seen that before, he said: “I do believe I did.” He couldn’t -say when it was, but it was when it was in gaol. He had said that he -never read a paper in gaol, but that didn’t mean that he had never seen -one. It was only a passing glance of the “Herald” as he walked up and -down the yard.</p> - -<p>Harding, who had been out of court, was then recalled, and further -cross-examined by Mr. Maxwell. He said that, on the day following the -inquest, he and Dunstan were reading a paper, either the “Age” or the -“Herald”—that is, he was reading it aloud, and Dunstan was looking -over his shoulder. He had often had papers lent from the adjoining -yards, and on these occasions Dunstan got the benefit of them.</p> - -<h3>ROSS’S MOVEMENTS.</h3> - -<p>We now come to a different class of evidence—the evidence which -purported to tell of the movements of Ross on the important dates. The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> -conflict between this evidence and the supposed confessions and the -inherent improbability of the evidence itself will be dealt with later.</p> - -<p>David Alberts, an eccentric-looking individual, who described himself -as a vaudeville artist, residing at 47 Little Smith Street, Fitzroy, -said that he left home about half-past 6, and between half-past 7 and -a quarter to 8 he walked into the Arcade through the Little Collins -Street gate. Opposite the wine saloon he saw a man whom he now -recognised as Ross. The man asked him if he could lend him a pencil. -Alberts said: “I am sorry; I have not got one,” and walked on. He -went as far as the middle of the building, and seeing there was no -light in the office upstairs, he walked back, and the man was then -standing in the doorway of the wine saloon. He recognised Ross by his -gold teeth and by his hair, which was brushed neatly back. It would, -he said, be about three weeks after the incident that he went to the -Detective Office and reported it. He knew the reward was offered -in the meantime, “but,” he said, “I was looking for no reward.” It -should, however, be mentioned here that he has shared in the reward. -It may also be taken as certain that, if Alberts was honest, he was -mistaken, for the evidence that Ross was at home between 7 and 8, and -came back to Footscray on the tram with Mrs. Kee and George Dawsey, -may be accepted as being beyond question. Apart from that, however, it -is simply incredible that a man who was engaged in the gruesome task -of washing away the bloodstains of a murdered victim, and who would -have the deepest interest in keeping his presence in the Arcade at an -unwonted hour a close secret, should have gone out deliberately to ask a -passer-by for a lead pencil, which could be of no imaginable service to him. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span></p> - -<p>Alexander Olson, who described himself as a phrenologist, carrying on -business in the Eastern Arcade, said that, between 9 and a quarter -past 9, he walked out into Little Collins Street, to go to a Chinese -laundry, and he saw the accused man pacing up and down between the back -gate of the Eastern Market and the back gate of the Eastern Arcade. How -this evidence, so far from being damaging, supports the truthfulness -of Ross’s statement to the police, can be seen by a reference to the -statement, for this was the exact time that he was waiting outside the -Arcade gates for Gladys Wain.</p> - -<p>Then we come to the evidence of George Arthur Ellis, “and very -important evidence it is,” said Mr. Justice Schutt in summing up to -the jury. Ellis keeps the “lodging-house” previously referred to as -the old Adam and Eve Hotel. On the night of the 30th December he was -sitting at his front door, at the corner of Alfred Place and Little -Collins Street. He saw Ross a little after 9 on that night. He next saw -him before 10 o’clock, then at 11, and two or three times after that, -until ten minutes to 1, when the witness wound his clocks and went to -bed. Ross was walking in and out of the Arcade. There was an arc lamp, -hung over the centre of the street, between where the witness sat and -where Ross was walking up and down. At a quarter to 1 two Italians -came out of the Arcade and bade him good-night. Some time after he had -gone in he heard a loud report, and he rushed out on to the pavement, -and looked up and down for a few seconds, but saw no one. He had never -before seen Ross until that night. The light was almost equal to broad -daylight, and he admitted that he would be as obvious to Ross as Ross -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> -was to him. When the two Italians came out the man walked down towards -Russell Street. They went up to Exhibition Street, and when Ellis -turned to look again Ross was back at his post. He would walk in and -out of the Arcade. Half the gates were open, and it was very dark -inside. He first informed the police of what he had seen on the Sunday -after the tragedy. His house, he said, was a lodging-house—night and -day. Anyone could get a bed for the night; they paid in advance, and -were sometimes gone before he got up. He identified Ross on the day he -was arrested—January 12. He had known the wine shop for years, but -had never been in it, though he had seen some “terrible bad characters -there,” and had seen some “terrible carryings on” there as he had been -coming through from Bourke Street. It was his habit to sit outside his -lodging-house every night as long as it was fine.</p> - -<p>The two Italians, Michaluscki Nicoli and Francisco Anselmi, had been -in the Italian Club until about a quarter to 1. The club is at the -Little Collins Street end of the Arcade, upstairs, and the stairs go -up close to the wine saloon. There was an electric light upstairs, and -as they came down they noticed a light in the wine shop. When they -got into Little Collins Street one of them saw a man walking towards -Russell Street. They said “Good-night” to Ellis, and walked up towards -Exhibition Street. A third Italian, Baptisti Rollandi, the caretaker -of the Italian Club, came down about a quarter of an hour or twenty -minutes after Nicoli and Anselmi had gone, to lock the back gate, and -he saw no light in the wine shop when he came down. It was his duty to -lock the gate when the last member had left the club, whatever time -that happened to be. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span></p> - -<p>A curious piece of evidence came out quite incidentally whilst this -last witness was in the box. Ross, at about 3 o’clock, or half-past 3, -on the Friday, had asked Rollandi for the loan of a key of the back -gate. The witness said: “I can’t give my key to anybody; go to Mr. -Clarke, the manager; he might give you one.” This looked suspicious, -until it was revealed that Ross wanted the key in order to get into -the Arcade early on the Monday morning to remove his things from the -saloon, Saturday being the last night of the license, and Monday being -the New Year’s Day holiday. The prisoner did get the key from Mr. -Clarke on the Saturday afternoon, and did remove his things early on -the Monday morning. This was mentioned to the police in the statement, -was no doubt verified by the detectives, and was not challenged when -Mr. Clarke was called. So far, therefore, from the circumstances of -Ross wishing to borrow the key being incriminating, it was entirely -in his favor, for it showed he had no key of his own, and is almost -conclusive evidence against his having told Harding that he had a key, -or having told Matthews that he came back “between 1 and 2,” when he -could not have got into the Arcade unless he had a key.</p> - -<h3>THE SHEEN OF GOLDEN HAIRS.</h3> - -<p>Two other pieces of evidence, of still another class, were used against -Ross. One was that hairs, which it was claimed were identified as -Alma Tirtschke’s, were found on blankets taken from Ross’s house at -Footscray on January 12; the other was that pieces of serge, which it -was claimed were identified as being part of the child’s dress, were -found on January 27 on the Footscray road, thus confirming the supposed -confession to Harding. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span></p> - -<p>The story of the hair is one of the most remarkable and one of the most -unsatisfactory, in a case every feature of which is unsatisfactory. -On January 3, the day Alma Tirtschke was buried, Constable Portingale -went to the house where the body was lying, and with a pair of scissors -he cut a lock of hair from the left side of her head, just over the -ear, “and about six inches from her head.” When the detectives went -to Colin Ross’s house to arrest him on January 12, nearly a fortnight -after the tragedy, they took two blankets from a sofa in a vestibule. -“Brophy and I,” said Piggott, “opened one of the brown blankets which -were folded up. I turned the blanket back, and I could see the sheen of -what appeared to be some golden coloured hair. I said to all present: -‘Fold those blankets, and carefully place them in the car; they must -go to the Government Analyst.’” They did go to the Government Analyst -next day. Where they were kept in the meantime was not disclosed on the -trial, except that Ross, at about 2 o’clock on the afternoon of his -arrest, saw them lying across the back of a chair in the clerk’s room -of the Detective Office. The detectives, in the room of the Government -Analyst (Mr. Price), next day, spread the “reddish brown blanket” over -a wooden screen, and removed from it in his presence twenty-two hairs. -Five hairs were taken from the other blanket by Mr. Price himself. Mr. -Price then took ten or twelve hairs from the envelope containing Alma’s -hair. They had an average length, he said, of 6½ inches, the longest of -them being 9 inches. Let it be remembered that these were cut 6 inches -from the girl’s head. He then took the twenty-two hairs, and found -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> -they, too, averaged 6½ inches, but the longest of them were 15, 12, 10, -9 inches, down to 2½ inches.</p> - -<p>“They were not identical in colour with the hairs in the envelope,” -said Mr. Price; “they were of a light auburn colour. They were not a -deep red; they were of a light red colour. They were not cut-off hairs; -they had fallen out, or had been taken from the scalp somehow or other. -They did not appear to have been forcibly removed. One had a bulb root, -but the others did not show the presence of any bulbous portion or -root, as they would if dragged direct from the scalp. I came to the -conclusion that they were hairs about to be cast off in the ordinary -process of nature.”</p> - -<p>“If hairs were cast off,” Mr. Price was asked, “would there be any -distinction in their colour as compared with hair that was actually -growing?” “Well, I cannot say that directly,” he replied, “but the -conclusion I formed, as regards the hairs I found on the blanket, was -that they did not come from the frontal portion; that they had not -been exposed much to the light; that they came from the back portion -of the head, and that that is the reason why their colour was not as -deep as those on the front portion.” The two sets of hair, he said, -were “very similar.” Microscopically, they agreed, because there was a -kind of coarseness about them, and when treated with caustic soda it -tended to bring out the pith portion of the hair, “and that pith was -identical with the hairs on the blanket.” The five hairs from the grey -blanket, Mr. Price said, were “similar in colour” to the hairs on the -reddish brown blanket, but that was all he had to say about them. When -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> -being re-examined, he said that his reason for thinking the front and -back of the hair would differ was that in one head he had tested “the -frontal portion was quite red, and the hair from the back of the head -quite dark.”</p> - -<p>On cross-examination, Mr. Price admitted that it was “several years” -since he had last made an examination of hairs from any woman’s head. -“It does not often come under my notice,” he added. He had made very -few such examinations in his life. Not only did the hairs from the -child’s head and the hairs from the blankets differ in colour, he said, -but they differed in diameter, and it was possible, but not probable, -that the hairs on the blankets may have come from another head. He had -examined many hairs since he had conducted this particular examination, -and he had, in the course of his examination, found some hairs that -were as like Alma Tirtschke’s as the hairs on the blankets.</p> - -<p>It will be shown later that Mr. Price might, on the facts which he -deposed to, have been called as a powerful witness for the defence. -Yet in the atmosphere that prevailed, it seemed to be assumed that his -evidence advanced the case for the prosecution.</p> - -<h3>THE FINDING OF THE SERGE.</h3> - -<p>The finding of some pieces of serge on the Footscray Road, on the 26th -or 27th day of January, was also relied on strongly by the Crown. Mrs. -Violet May Sullivan was on the Footscray Road on January 26, and she -saw certain strips of serge on the left-hand side going to Kensington. -She didn’t pick them up. On the next day she read, in the alleged -confession to Harding, that Ross had said that he had strewn the serge -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> -of the girl’s dress on the Footscray Road, and Mrs. Sullivan went back -to the road, and on the opposite side to where she had seen it on the -previous day she saw a roll of serge. She picked it up and handed it to -the local police. One piece she left at home. The serge was produced in -court. One piece was fairly large, in no sense a strip, looked quite -new and fresh, and bore no signs, as Mr. Justice Isaacs indicated in -his High Court judgment, of having lain on a dusty and busy road for -nearly four weeks. Of the rest, one was a strip of a quite different -texture, and looked much older than the piece. There were also a couple -of other fragments. None of them appeared to have been four weeks in -the dust. The serge that she had seen on the first day, Mrs. Sullivan -said, resembled the fragments, but were not like the larger piece, so -that, whether it was the same bundle she saw on both days does not -appear. When Mrs. Murdoch, the girl’s aunt, was in the box, the serge -was handed to her for identification, and she was asked to say what -she had to say about it. “It is very similar to the serge she had on -on that day,” said the witness. “All of it?” she was asked. “That has -nothing to do with it, I should say,” said the witness, discarding the -larger piece. The three other pieces, she said, were “very similar” -to the material of which the girl’s dress was composed. When asked -further, she said she recognised a row of stitching on two of the -pieces. “Do you recognise it as a row of stitching you did yourself?” -she was asked, and she answered: “No; I <b>fancy</b> the stitching -there is from the old stuff I made up. I <b>believe</b> that is the -stitching. It did have stitching on.” She remembered the old stitching, -because she had had some difficulty in ironing it out. She made the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> -dress out of old material. It was box-pleated, and the stuff she had -in her hand <b>looked</b> to be box-pleated, <b>but</b> there was a -portion missing.</p> - -<p>Summarised, then, Mrs. Murdoch’s identification amounted to this, that -she remembered there was some stitching on the dress that she had made -up, and there was also a little bit of stitching on two of the three -pieces handed to her which she “fancied” was the same stitching, while -the fourth piece handed to her, which was part of the same bundle, “had -nothing to do with it.” It was on such “evidence” that Colin Ross was -hanged!</p> - -<p>It will be remembered that Harding’s account of what Ross said was that -he “tore the clothing into strips and bits, and distributed them along -the road.” Yet we are asked to believe that, by some operation of the -laws of cohesion peculiar to the Footscray Road, four or more of them -had rolled themselves together by the 26th, and that they had succeeded -by the next day in crossing the road and joining up with another and -dissimilar piece of blue serge.</p> - -<p>On January 23 the police knew that Ross was supposed to have said that -he scattered the fragments of the girl’s dress along the Footscray -Road. If this could have been verified it would have clinched the case -against Ross, for it would have established beyond question the fact -of some confession. Every effort should have been directed to clearing -up this point. The road Ross said he took was clearly indicated—so -clearly that it showed beyond question that Harding knew the locality -well. If that is doubted, let anyone who does not know the locality try -to describe Ross’s alleged route after reading the description once. If -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> -one knows the locality, he has a mental picture, as the words are -spoken, which he can reproduce. If he does not, the words are words -merely, and cannot be repeated without rehearsal. But the point is -that, on getting this alleged confession, the detectives should have -got half a dozen men to take the road, or the two roads if necessary, -in a face in order to discover the serge. It was so plain, Mrs. -Sullivan said, that “it could not be missed.” The local police did not -find it, the detective’s agents did not find it, but a casual wayfarer -stumbles across it twice, because “you could not miss it.” Piggott’s -answers to questions were that, on learning of the confession, “we took -certain steps,” and “gave certain directions”; and his explanation of -the failure to find the serge was that his men searched the wrong road! -One would have liked to have heard the comments of, say, the late Mr. -Justice Hodges, on this extraordinary admission.</p> - -<h3>THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.</h3> - -<p>The last class of evidence, though given first on the trial, was the -medical testimony. It showed that there was an abrasion on the left -side of the neck which extended across the mid-line, and measured -2½ inches in length by ⁷/₁₆ of an inch in breadth at its widest -part. Below this, on the left side of the neck, there was a narrower -abrasion, about ⅛ of an inch in width, and not extending across the -mid-line. There was another abrasion on the left side of the lower jaw, -an inch in length, and a quarter of an inch in breadth. There was a -small abrasion on the outer side of the right eye, a small abrasion in -the centre of the upper lip, another small abrasion at the back of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> -right elbow, and the skin of the back of the left elbow had been -slightly rubbed. There was some bruising and lividity on the right -side of the face. The upper part of the chest was livid, and showed -small hæmorrhages. Hæmorrhages were also found in the scalp and on the -surface of the eyes. There were some small bruises on the right side of -the neck. Internally, there was a bruise on the left tonsil.</p> - -<p>In view of absurd rumours that have been circulated as to the injuries -to the body, it is well to give Dr. Mollison’s next words as he uttered -them: “I think those were all the abrasions and bruises.” It has got -abroad that there were facts about this case that were unprintable. -There is no truth in the report. With the exception of one coarse -sentence said to have been used to Matthews, and one coarse word said -by Harding to have been used by himself, there was nothing in the case, -from start to finish, which has not appeared, either literally or -euphemistically, in the reputable press. The child had been violated, -but the cause of death, in the doctor’s opinion, was strangulation from -throttling. The violation would have led to a considerable amount of -blood being lost. The stomach was opened, and contained some thick, -dark-coloured fluid, mixed with food. No smell or trace of alcohol -was detected, but the doctor added that the smell of alcohol would -disappear fairly rapidly. In this, it may be here stated, Dr. Mollison -is not supported by a number of other medical men of standing. The -post-mortem examination was held within a few hours of the discovery -of the body, and within about sixteen hours of the child’s death, if -she died between 6 and 7. “Alcohol,” said the doctor, “starts to be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> -absorbed almost immediately it is swallowed.” This subject was -discussed at the British Medical Association Conference in Glasgow -at the end of July, 1922. Professor Mellanby, who has made a special -study of the effects of alcohol on heredity, said that, “after a good -carouse, it had taken from ten to eighteen hours for the alcohol to be -cleared out of the circulation of a man.” Now, three glasses of sweet -wine is a “good carouse” for a child who probably never drank a glass -of wine before. Sweet wine contains a very high percentage of alcohol. -Accepting the Harding story, the girl was dead within an hour or two -of taking them, and the process of clearing the alcohol out of the -circulation would cease, or be greatly retarded. And still the fact -remains that no trace of alcohol was found in the body.</p> - -<h3>DETECTIVE BROPHY’S BLUNDER.</h3> - -<p>That was the full case as made by the Crown against Ross, with the -exception of an admission said to have been made to Detective Brophy. -This admission may be stated and dealt with at once. Brophy said that, -on the 16th of January, he took a man named White to the Melbourne -Gaol, and confronted him with Ross. White said: “Yes, that is the man.” -Brophy then said: “This man has identified you as the man whom he saw -in the Arcade speaking to the little girl, Alma.” Ross said: “Oh,” -and then, turning to White, he said: “What time was that?” White said -about 3.30. Ross said: “Yes, that’s quite right.” Ross’s version of the -conversation, as given in evidence, was that Brophy said: “This man -says he saw you talking to a girl in the Arcade at 3.30, and he said: -‘That is correct.’” Brophy made no comment. It is not only clear that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> -Ross’s was the correct account, but it is extremely hard to see how an -intelligent man could have any doubt about it. Let us look at the facts.</p> - -<p>Ross had denied on December 31, when first seen by the detectives, that -he had spoken to “the girl Alma,” but had said that he was speaking -to a girl at the door at about the time mentioned; in his written -statement on January 5 he denied that he had spoken to the girl; when -brought to the Detective Office, under arrest, on January 12, Piggott -said to him: “It will be proved that the little girl was seen in your -wine shop on December 30,” and he promptly answered: “That’s a lie.” -From first to last he had denied specifically that he had ever spoken -to the girl Alma, and from first to last he had said that he was -speaking to Gladys Wain at the saloon door about that time. Gladys -Wain, it should be remarked, though a married woman, is very small, -and extremely girlish in appearance. Yet we are asked to believe that -Ross, by a quite casual remark on January 16, made an admission, the -most important by far he had made during the course of the police -investigation, and that one of the detectives in charge of the case -turned away from him without the slightest comment on his startling -admission.</p> - -<p class="space-below2">But there is the further fact that White cannot -have said that he saw Ross speaking to “the little girl Alma,” for -the simple reason that White did not know Alma. From that it follows -that Brophy could not have said, if he were speaking accurately—and a -detective should be accurate—that “this man saw you speaking to the -little girl Alma.” If Ross had intended to refer to Alma, he would not, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> -and need not, have inquired “What time was that?” The time would have -been quite unimportant. If he had another girl in his mind, the enquiry -as to the time was natural. In any case, the evidence never should -have been tendered or admitted, for if it was sought to be proved that -Ross was seen speaking to the murdered girl the proper way to prove -it, according to the “rule of best evidence,” was to call White to -prove it. And White was not called, not because he had disappeared, -but because it was known that he would not swear that he had seen Ross -“talking to the little girl Alma.”</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/illo_01.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="104" /> -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span></p> -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak">PART III.<br />⸻<br />ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="space-above2">In seeking to show how doubtful it is that -Ross should have been convicted on the evidence, it is not proposed -to go deeply into the case for the defence, and argue that the weight -of testimony lay with the prisoner. It will be shown later that not -one word that Ross said as to his movements was shown to be false, and -that every word he did say was supported by strong evidence, but in -the meantime the Crown evidence will be subjected to analysis, with a -view of showing that from it it was impossible to arrive at a certain -conclusion that Ross was guilty.</p> - -<h3>WHY CONFESS TO MATTHEWS.</h3> - -<p>Let us take first the evidence of Ivy Matthews. Suppose Ross were -guilty, why should he have made a confession to this woman? They were -at daggers drawn. He had cast her out of his employment with terms of -the deepest insult. They had fought bitterly, through their lawyers, -almost up to the date of the tragedy. They had not seen one another, -much less spoken to one another, between the date she was turned out of -his employment and the 31st of December. Yet on the 31st of December, -according to the Matthews evidence, we have them addressing one another -as “Ive” and “Colin,” and we have Ross handing his life over to the -unsafe keeping of this “woman scorned.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span></p> - -<p>The strongest appeals were made through the press for anyone who saw -the child to inform the police. But Ivy Matthews, if her evidence is -true, not only saw the child in the saloon on the Friday, but on the -Saturday she had a full confession from Ross. Yet she remained silent, -according to herself and the detectives, until she gave her evidence at -the inquest. She gave no reason for keeping silence, and she gave two -reasons for eventually speaking. At the inquest she said: “I pledged -my word to Ross I would not give evidence against him,” but even if -he had not been arrested, she said: “Perhaps my conscience might have -made me tell.” “If some other man had been put in the dock on this -charge,” she added, “I would have come up and said Ross is the guilty -man.” On the trial, when asked why, if she had given her word, she had -not kept it, she answered: “Would you expect me, a woman, to keep the -secret?” But the fact is that she did keep the “secret” for over three -weeks. At the inquest she said that the circumstance that the £1000 -reward was offered should not be put to her, for, she said, “money and -those sort of things hold no interest for me. I do not suppose I will -get anything, and I do not want it.” But, again, the fact is that now -she has been allotted £350 out of the £1000 Government reward offered, -and £87/10/- out of the £250 offered by the “Herald.” This is not a -negligible inducement for a lady who had done no work between November -and the end of February.</p> - -<h3>CHANGES IN MATTHEWS’S EVIDENCE.</h3> - -<p>But it is the changes in Matthews’s evidence, as between the inquest -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> -and the trial, that cast the most doubt on it. She makes Colin Ross in -his confession, as retailed at the trial, get the girl to come out of -the cubicle in the afternoon, and stay in the beaded room for an hour -or so, while he talks to Gladys Wain; she makes him bring the girl -back to the cubicle when Gladys Wain is gone; she makes him cause the -girl’s death there after 6 o’clock, and then carry the dead body back -to the beaded room, in order that he may make love to Gladys Wain in -the cubicle later on; she makes him come back, after seeing Gladys Wain -home, and carry the dead body back from the beaded room to the cubicle.</p> - -<p>There are several features about that narration which are absolutely -incredible. Nothing was said about any of these incidents at the -inquest. In the first place, how did this modest, good, retiring -little girl come to remain for over an hour in the beaded room in the -afternoon, while Ross talked with Gladys Wain in the cubicle? It was -separated from the Arcade only by a sheet of glass, and there were two -doors opening into the Arcade through which the girl could have passed. -Again, it is utterly unbelievable that Ross would have indulged in the -unnecessary perambulations with the dead body, as deposed to, and it is -equally unbelievable that, if he had done so, he would have given those -details to a person to whom he was confessing the simple fact of the murder.</p> - -<p>Why, then, were the additions put in? The answer is quite simple. -At the inquest Olive Maddox gave her evidence before Matthews, and -Matthews was out of court. Olive Maddox said that she saw the child in -the beaded room at five minutes to 5. Ivy Matthews followed her into -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> -the witness box, and said that she saw the child in the cubicle at 3 -o’clock. How or why did it come about that the child went from the -one room to the other? On the trial Matthews has to be, or thinks she -ought to be, ready with an explanation. So she makes Ross say that he -sent the little girl into the beaded room while he was with Gladys Wain -in the cubicle. According to the stage setting, the death has to take -place in the cubicle, for there is where the only couch was, and there -is where the blankets with the sheen of golden hair came from. So Ross -is made to say that, when Gladys went, he got Alma to come back again -from the beaded room to the cubicle, where she met her death soon after -6. Ross in his statement said that Gladys Wain was with him again in -the cubicle in the evening from 9.15 for over an hour. The police were -satisfied that that was a fact. Matthews has again to reconcile her -story with that position, and again she is equal to it. She makes Ross -say that he carried the dead body from the cubicle to the beaded room -in order that he may make love to Gladys in the cubicle. But before she -gave her evidence on the trial, the hero of the bloody bottle had been -in the box, and his evidence had appeared in print. He is supposed to -have seen and heard certain things which showed that the body was in -the cubicle after midnight. Matthews thinks it desirable to meet that, -so she makes Ross say that he came back to the cafe after seeing Gladys -home, and before he went home himself, and carried the body once more -back from the beaded room to the cubicle. No possible theory can be -advanced why Ross should have done all these things; no possible theory -can be advanced why, if he had done them, he should have given the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> -details of them to Matthews. But if we assume Matthews’s knowledge of -Maddox’s evidence, and Upton’s evidence, and her knowledge that Gladys -Wain was in the cubicle from 9.15 until after 10.30—all of which we -are entitled to assume—then we are in possession of ample material for -explaining why Matthews should have invented the details.</p> - -<p>Then there is the change in the place at which the conversation is -supposed to have taken place. At the inquest it was put as beginning -in Little Collins Street, at the end of the Arcade, and as being -resumed a short distance from the end of the Arcade, but still in the -street. On the trial it was put as beginning, and going on for a little -time, at the door of the saloon, and then as being resumed, when Ross -suggested that people were looking, out in Little Collins Street. The -significance of this change will not be realised unless it is disclosed -that just prior to the trial notice was served on the defence that it -was proposed to call as a witness on the trial Julia Gibson, otherwise -Madame Ghurka, to prove that she saw Ross talking to Matthews on the -Saturday afternoon. Ghurka was not, in fact, called. There may be some -doubt as to whether her evidence would have been admissible. Probably -it would have been admitted in rebuttal, when Ross swore that he did -not have any conversation with Matthews on that afternoon. At any rate, -her evidence was not tendered. The fact remains, however, that Ghurka -must have told the police, or Ivy Matthews must have told the police, -that Ghurka saw the two in conversation, and was prepared to testify to -it. She could not, from her own door, have seen them in conversation in -Little Collins Street. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span></p> - -<p>Matthews, in her evidence, said that she had not told the police that -Madame Ghurka had seem Ross talking to her, and added that, if Madame -Ghurka was to give evidence of having seen them conversing, she did -not know how the police acquired the information. When asked, however, -“Have you discussed with Madame Ghurka at any time anything about this -case?” she answered: “To say I had not would be a lie—I have.”</p> - -<p>It has been published in a Sydney paper, which, during and after the -trial, was in the closest touch With the witnesses for the Crown, -that it was Madame Ghurka who induced Matthews to tell all she knew -about the case. It is also a fact that both were well acquainted -with Ross, and both were unfriendly with him, a circumstance which -would make discussion natural; and that Matthews had lived at Madame -Ghurka’s house from November, 1921, up to the date of the trial, a -circumstance which would make discussion easy. It is also a fact that -Madame Ghurka and two of her family have shared in the reward, though -nothing has ever appeared officially to show what services Madame -Ghurka rendered to the police, which entitled her thus to share. We -may assume, further, that the reward was not allocated until the views -of the police had been ascertained. When we know what Madame Ghurka’s -services to the State under this head were, and when we know—what may -appear irrelevant, but what is very germane to the matter in hand—why -nobody was ever prosecuted for the recent theft of Ivy Matthew’s box -of clothing, and when we know why a charge of indecent language laid -against Sydney John Harding was precipitately withdrawn when called on -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> -in the police court, then we shall know something which has a very -close connection with the making of a case against Colin Ross.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> -And if Madame Ghurka gave information (undisclosed) to the police, -which they felt entitled her to share in the reward, her information -should be considered in the light of the fact that she gave evidence in -a recent divorce suit, and was then described by the presiding judge -as a “bitter, vindictive woman,” and “the sort of woman who would say -anything, whether it was true or false.”</p> - -<h3>POWERS OF INVENTIVENESS.</h3> - -<p>Incidentally, during the trial, a remarkable sidelight was thrown -on Ivy Matthew’s powers of invention, and her unscrupulousness in -exercising them. The Crown Prosecutor cross-examined Mrs. Ross at some -length as to a visit she is supposed to have paid to Ivy Matthews on -February 6, in order to “beseech” her not to give evidence against her -son. The passage is worth transcribing in full.</p> - -<p>“Have you ever discussed anything with Ivy Matthews?” asked Mr. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> -Macindoe, the Crown Prosecutor. “No,” was the answer, “I have only had -one conversation with Ivy Matthews in my life,” and question and answer -proceeded as follow:—</p> - -<p>When was that?—That was the time of the shooting affair. That is some -time back.</p> - -<p>I am going to remind you of the 6th of February last?—I had no -conversation with Ivy Matthews on February 6.</p> - -<p>Do you know what day of the week it was?—No, I could not tell you.</p> - -<p>Do you know where you were on February 6?—On February 6 I would be home. -I have not been out of my home very much since this trouble has been on.</p> - -<p>You have been into town since this trouble?—I have only been into town -to see my son Colin.</p> - -<p>Have you not seen Ivy Matthews since the inquest?—At the inquest, but -not since the inquest.</p> - -<p>Do you know where Rathdown Street is?—I know Rathdown Street.</p> - -<p>Do you know where Mrs. Julia Gibson (Madame Ghurka) lives?—I do not.</p> - -<p>No idea?—I have not the slightest idea where she lives.</p> - -<p>Do you know where Ivy Matthews lives?—I do not.</p> - -<p>Or was living in February?—I do not.</p> - -<p>Did you not go to the house where Ivy Matthews was living in February -of this year?—I did not.</p> - -<p>You swear that?—I will swear it.</p> - -<p>You know, of course, that Ivy Matthews had given evidence at the -Morgue?—I did; at the Coroner’s inquiry, you mean? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span></p> - -<p>Yes; and that she had given evidence against your son?—Yes; I know that.</p> - -<p>Have you ever seen her and talked about that evidence?—I have never -set eyes on Ivy Matthews since the day I saw her at the Coroner’s Court.</p> - -<p>Do you say you did not go to the house in Rathdown Street, and were -shown into the parlour by a maid on February 6, and that you asked for -Ivy Matthews, and that Ivy Matthews came down to that parlour?—I did -not; I can swear it.</p> - -<p>And that you besought her not to give evidence?—No. I never did.</p> - -<p>If you had done it would you say so?—I would. I had no reason to do -so. Ivy Matthews is a woman I would not demean myself to talk to, let -alone to plead to.</p> - -<p>Why?—I talked to her once and once only, and that was quite -sufficient for me.</p> - -<p>Those who heard Mrs. Ross’s answers to the questions put to her, -saw the look of mystification spreading over her face as they were -developed, heard her solemn declaration that she had never even set -eyes on Ivy Matthews since the day she saw her at the Coroner’s Court, -heard her earnest, low-voiced assertion that “Ivy Matthews is a woman I -would not demean myself to talk to, let alone to plead to,” could not, -for a moment, doubt that she was speaking the truth. A somewhat similar -line of cross-examination was pursued when Stanley and Ronald Ross were -in the witness box, but in their case a different date was alleged. -Stanley Ross was cross-examined on the point as follows:— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span></p> - -<p>Do you remember, on February 3, the Friday night after the inquest, -going to Rathdown Street, Carlton?—No.</p> - -<p>Did you know where Ivy Matthews lived?—No.</p> - -<p>Will you swear you did not know that Ivy Matthews lived in Rathdown -Street?—I know she lived in Rathdown Street, but I could not take you -to the place.</p> - -<p>I did not ask you that, I asked you if you knew where she lived in -Rathdown Street?—No.</p> - -<p>Did you and your brother Ronald go to Madame Ghurka’s or Mrs. Gibson’s -house on the night of February 3?—No.</p> - -<p>Or at any time in February?—No.</p> - -<p>I am going to put this to you that a maid-servant opened the door to -you?—No.</p> - -<p>And that you went in and brought Ivy Matthews to the gate to talk to -your brother Ronald?—Never in my life; I could not tell you where -Madame Ghurka, or Mrs. Gibson, lives.</p> - -<p>So you say—and did you say to Ivy Matthews: “Are you going on with -this?”—No.</p> - -<p>Or did your brother?—No.</p> - -<p>And when she said: “I am” did you then, or did your brother, say to -her: “If you give evidence you will have your lights put out”?—No.</p> - -<p>Or anything to that effect?—No.</p> - -<p>Have you ever spoken to Ivy Matthews since last December?—Yes.</p> - -<p>Where?—On the Thursday, January 5, that we were detained at the -detective office.</p> - -<p>Since then have you spoken to her?—No.</p> - -<p>Never seen her?—No, only at the Morgue. I saw her at the inquest.</p> - -<p>You did not speak to her there?—No.</p> - -<p>When Ronald Ross was under cross-examination, he was questioned as to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> -the same alleged interview. A woman was asked to stand up in Court, and -he was asked if he knew her by sight. His answer was: “I never saw her -in my life before.” He was then further interrogated.—</p> - -<p>Did you go to Rathdown Street on February 3 last and see that young -woman?—I never saw that woman in my life before.</p> - -<p>Did you see Ivy Matthews on February 3?—I did not.</p> - -<p>At Rathdown Street, Carlton?—No. I did not.</p> - -<p>Did you and your brother go out there to see her?—No.</p> - -<p>Were you together on that day?—We might have been.</p> - -<p>Were you at Rathdown Street on that day?—I say I do not remember -where I was.</p> - -<p>You might have been?—Perhaps I might have been; on that particular day -goodness knows where I might have been.</p> - -<p>Did you go with your brother to a house where Ivy Matthews lives?—I -did not.</p> - -<p>Did your brother go to the front door and ask Ivy Matthews to come to -the front gate?—I do not know.</p> - -<p>In your presence?—He did not.</p> - -<p>Did Ivy Matthews come to the front gate and did you tell her if she -went on with this case she would have her lights put out?—No; I did -not.</p> - -<p>You would admit it if you had done it?—Yes; I am here to tell the -truth.</p> - -<p>One brother was out of Court while the other was giving his evidence. -It was again perfectly clear that neither brother had the slightest -knowledge of any such interview. It would have been competent for the -Crown to have called evidence to prove this conversation if it had -taken place, but no application was made to call the evidence. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span></p> - -<p>There is an importance—indeed a tremendous importance—about this -series of questions which, as they led to nothing, may not be -appreciated by the layman. According to the rules of cross-examination, -Counsel may not ask random questions. His questions must have a -basis of knowledge, or at least of information, to rest upon. Before -the Crown Prosecutor could ask these questions, he must have had -information to the effect indicated by his cross-examination. It is -impossible to conjecture anyone who was in a position to give such -information but Ivy Matthews. If that be so, then Matthews absolutely -invented the stories. There is not a scintilla of truth in either of them.</p> - -<p>But in still another way Matthews’ story can be shown to be, if not -false, at least highly improbable. She said that at 3 o’clock on the -Friday she was standing at the door of the wine saloon, talking to -Stanley Ross. “I was at the wine cafe door,” she said, “but not in -the saloon.” She came to the door, she said, because Stanley beckoned -her up from lower down the Arcade, where she was talking to a friend. -Stanley, of course, denies this absolutely. But if it were true, then -Stanley, in order to see her standing down the Arcade, must himself -have been standing flush with the building line of the cafe, and could -not have been in the recess by which the door is entered. When she -came to Stanley, she said she saw Ross come out of the cubicle, and as -he did so she saw the little girl sitting on a chair in it. When Ross -got the drink and went back, she says he must have spoken to the girl -because “she parted the curtains and looked straight out.” -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span></p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/i072.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="588" /> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> -Now if Ross had taken that little girl into the room, one would have -thought that he would have been very anxious not to reveal her presence -unnecessarily. According to Matthews, he seems to have been at pains to -disclose it.</p> - -<p>But if the plan of the saloon<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> -(on page 68) is looked at, it will be noticed that before Matthews -could even see the curtains on the cubicle she would have to be -standing right in the doorway of the saloon and not merely flush with -the building line. There are two circumstances which make it improbable -that she would be so standing. One is that if Stanley were standing -clear of, or even flush with, the building line, the conversation, if -any, would be likely to take place where he was standing. The other is -that she was not likely to stand right in the doorway of the saloon, -when she was not on speaking terms with the proprietor of it. But -again, the child, in order to be seen at all, would have to have her -chair almost blocking the 2ft. 7in. doorway of the cubicle. The whole -room is only 6ft. by 5ft. 5in., and Ross must have placed her in the -only portion of it in which she could be seen by a person standing -right in the doorway. Yet Matthews’ glance was sufficient to enable -her to describe the girl as wearing a little mushroom-shaped hat -“coming round her face something like mine”—a white hat with a maroon -sort of band like the one produced, pushed back a little from the face, -but coming down around the face, a white blouse or jumper “with just -straps over the shoulder; her hair was a sort of auburn shade, not -particularly a ginger hair, but that pretty shade of auburn,” while as -to her age “she struck me as being 12 or 13.” An excellent example of -instantaneous mental photography in colours! -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p> - -<p>There are some further facts about Matthews which help to explain why -she, although, according to the detectives, she made no statement to -them until she gave her evidence in the Coroner’s Court on January 25, -has yet got away with the lion’s share of the reward. That, however, -will be dealt with fully when we come to deal, under the head of the -new evidence, with the extraordinary story of a man named Halliwell.</p> - -<h3>OLIVE MADDOX TESTED.</h3> - -<p>Olive Maddox’s testimony is also worthy of a few lines of examination. -She said that, having seen the girl in the beaded room, two men also -being in it, she came out and said to Ross: “That is a young kid to -be drinking there.” The room in which the child was alleged to be was -only 7ft. by 6ft. 7in. The girl, therefore, must have been within three -or four feet of the men. Ivy Matthews, in her evidence at the Morgue, -said it was no unusual thing, when respectable women came into the -place for a drink with a child, to show them into the little room. -Olive Maddox, a daily visitor to the place in Matthews’ time, must -have known of this practice. Therefore, even if she did see the child -in the same little room with two men, there was not the slightest thing -about the circumstance to suggest that she was not with one of the men, -and everything to suggest that she was. At the worst, she had an empty -lemonade glass in front of her, and that, combined with the fact that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> -she was with two men, would never have prompted Maddox to say anything -about “a young kid” drinking.</p> - -<p>When it is remembered that Matthews and Maddox were old and close -acquaintances, and that Maddox admitted that it was after consultation -with Matthews that she decided to speak to the police, and when it is -remembered that this consultation was just at the time that Matthews -was trying to enlist the services of Halliwell, which will be referred -to later, and when it is remembered that just at this time the reward -had been increased to £1250 (including £250 offered by the “Herald”), -it does not seem hard to suggest what may have happened. Matthews says -that she saw a drink being brought into the cubicle to the child at -3 o’clock. It was suggested in the Appeal Courts that Maddox was to -say that she saw the child in that room at 5 o’clock, with an empty -glass before her; that Maddox was a stupid girl—according to her own -testimony, barely able to read; that she blundered in the simple task -assigned to her by the master mind, and put the child in the wrong -room. The rooms at that time had no distinguishing names. It was -not until the trial that they became known as the “cubicle” and the -“beaded” room. Matthews did not know at the inquest of this blunder, -but on the trial she tried to repair it by telling the absurd story of -how Ross got the girl to go into the beaded room, and kept her there by -some form of mesmerism for over an hour, while he entertained Gladys -Wain in the cubicle.</p> - -<p>Maddox herself says that when she saw the girl in the beaded room there -were three girls and two men in the adjoining parlour, and there were -two men in the little room with her. It was a busy afternoon, the eve -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> -of the closing of the wine saloon, and almost the eve of the New Year. -If that girl were in the wine shop from 3 until 5 or 6 she would -have been seen by anything from fifty to a hundred people. It is -incredible that all these people were degenerates, who would connive -at a dastardly outrage, by whomsoever committed. Yet the simple fact -remains that the only persons who came forward, in response to earnest -and widely-published appeals for information about the girl, were -the prostitute, Olive Maddox, and her mysterious friend, with the -inscrutable past, Ivy Matthews. And neither of them came forward until -a handsome reward was offered for the information. Of this reward, -Ivy Matthews has received £437/10/-, and Olive Maddox £214/5/-. If we -know all the services rendered by each, the positions should have been -reversed, for it was Olive Maddox who first gave the information which -put the police on what they, no doubt, still honestly believe was the -right trail. But do we know all? It will be shown later that, at the -time Colin Ross’s doom was sealed, we did not.</p> - -<h3>HARDING’S COCK-AND-BULL STORY.</h3> - -<p>Turning now to the alleged confession to Harding, it will be seen that -it will bear analysis no better than Matthews’s. The questions supposed -to have been put by Harding bear their own refutation.</p> - -<p>Take the words near the opening:—“I said: ‘Did you see the girl?’ He -said: ‘Yes!’” What would have happened had the conversation reached -that interesting stage? All eagerness, Harding would have followed it -up by asking what happened. But what does he do? He inquires weakly, -like a lady of fashion: “How was she dressed?” With great minuteness -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> -Ross described her dress, down to her shoes and stockings, and with -great accuracy Harding remembered it all. Then Harding inquired, still -curbing his curiosity: “Did you tell the detectives that you saw her?” -And Ross replied: “Yes; but I told them that she had black boots”—a -little touch not borne out by Ross’s written statement, but clearly -designed to furnish corroboration of Harding’s story that Ross had -confessed. Then a little later on we have Harding interposing with -the unreal inquiry: “What time was this?” as if time were, at that -stage of the inquiry, either important or interesting. There are many -other questions equally unreal. The purpose of all of them is quite -clear. They are plainly detective questions, devised to establish at -the outset, as he had no doubt been instructed to establish, or as -he knew by experience detectives are wont to establish, the identity -of the girl Ross was talking about. There was to be left no room for -misunderstanding, such as Brophy left in his bungled interview of the -16th.</p> - -<p>Again, take the question supposed to have been put by Harding when -the conversation was resumed on the second day. It is on a different -footing from the others. “I asked him,” said Harding, “did you always -have a screen up in that cubicle?” and Ross is supposed to have -replied: “No; I used the one in the parlour—the red screen.” The -reference, apparently, was to the screen which hung in the arched -doorway between the two main rooms of the saloon. Can any earthly -reason be suggested why Harding should have put such a question to -Ross? The only possible answer is: “None whatever.” But a reason can be -suggested why, if his story were an invention, he should have invented -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> -that particular part of it. Harding had been in the saloon, and he -could not have missed the conspicuous screen that hung between the two -rooms. He would probably not have remembered clearly whether there -was a curtain over the cubicle door or not. For aught he knew, he -might have been confronted by fifty witnesses who could swear truly -that there never had been a curtain there. He tried to rise to the -occasion, and invented the ludicrous story of Ross having said that he -removed the large curtain and hung it over the cubicle door to hide the -little girl from the public gaze—the same little girl as, according -to Matthews, Ross got deliberately to reveal herself when Matthews -took her hasty glance over Stanley Ross’s shoulder. The idea of Ross -removing the large curtain from between the rooms and hanging it over -the cubicle door (all in the presence of Stanley), in order to prevent -Stanley, amongst others, from seeing the girl, would be laughable if -anything about this terrible case could be laughable.</p> - -<p>Being reticent up to a certain stage, Ross, according to Harding, then -determined to speak, for what reason no one can suggest, seeing that -he knew Harding’s reputation as a “shelf,” and seeing that he had been -warned by his solicitor to “keep his mouth closed.” That much Harding -admitted, but in fact Ross was warned that the remand yard would be -full of pimps. The Harding touch was made apparent by another little -incident. He makes Ross throughout speak of the small compartment at -the end of the bar as “the cubicle.” It is a most fitting name, and -it has stuck to the room throughout the trial, but it had never been -called that by the Rosses. They had never even heard the word, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> -prior to the trial did not know what it meant. But Harding, during -his inglorious war service, had been employed on a hospital ship, -and that is the expression used in hospitals to denote a little room -with a couch in it such as this. Then Ross is made to say that none -of the customers could see the girl because they were in the parlour, -whereas, according to Matthews, the little girl thrust her head out -as if in order to be seen, and, indeed, thrust it out in pursuance of -Ross’s suggestion, and, according to Maddox, she was in the beaded room -with two of the customers, and was seen by Maddox herself, who was an -excellent customer. But, furthermore, if the Maddox story is true, the -customers would have had to be in the parlour in order to see her, for -the beaded room is part of the parlour. Then Ross offered this quiet, -bashful little girl a glass of wine, and she took three, and fell off -into a stupor in the cubicle, though, according to Matthews, he gave -her a glass of lemonade, and afterwards sent her over to the beaded -room, where she was seen by Olive Maddox, bright and alert, sitting up -with an empty glass before her, at 5 o’clock.</p> - -<p>The idea that Stanley should have seen, and been a party to, his -brother’s lust, was too much even for the credibility of a Harding, so -Ross is made to say that Stanley couldn’t see the girl when he went -behind the counter, because the screen was down, “and when the screen -was down no one dared to go into the cubicle.” The absurdity of the -story of the screen in one aspect has already been referred to, but a -glance at the plan will show its absurdity in another aspect. But even -the plan does not show that the cubicle walls were only 6 ft. 4 in. in -height, the lower 3 ft. being thin lining boards, and the upper 3 ft. 4 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> -in. being glass. There was no top or ceiling to it. A girl could -scarcely breathe in that cubicle without its being noticed by a man -squeezing in and out at the end of the bar counter. Everything, -according to Harding, took place in the cubicle, and the girl never -left it from the time she went in at 3 o’clock until she was carried -out, dead and nude, between 1 and 2 o’clock next morning. There are -none of the perambulations by the child when alive, or by Ross when the -child was dead, backwards and forwards with the body to and from the -cubicle of which Matthews speaks.</p> - -<p>According to the Harding confession, the crime was consummated soon -after 6, and the girl was dead. The fact that no trace of blood was -ever known to have been seen in the room had to be accounted for, so -Harding makes Ross first wash out the cubicle, and then the whole -bar. The washing of the cubicle would suggest itself to a much cruder -imagination than Harding’s, but the little touch about the rest of -the bar was worthy of him. Even Piggott and Brophy, when they had the -matter so “well in hand” on the morning of the 31st, that they did not -think to go into the cubicle, might be expected to notice that one -part of the bar was cleaner than the other, for Harding would not have -dreamt that the detectives would neglect the elementary step of looking -into the cubicle. And so Harding put in the touch of verisimilitude -about the washing of the whole bar.</p> - -<p>If Harding’s story be true, then it was while Ross was engaged in this -labour of scrubbing out the bar, with the dead body of an outraged and -murdered child keeping vigil over him, that he went out into the Arcade -to borrow a lead pencil from the vaudeville artist, Alberts, who just -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span> -happened to have reason, at the psychological moment, to walk half-way -through the Arcade and back again, like a famous character in history. -Of course Mr. Alberts may have been mistaken in his identification, but -at least he, too, as has been said, has shared in the reward for the -information he gave.</p> - -<p>Having finished his task of scrubbing out the bar, Ross had time on his -hands—still accepting the Harding narrative—to clean himself up and -go for a walk before meeting his girl. Having honoured his appointment, -and met his girl at 9 o’clock—though, as a tragedy had occurred in -the meantime which might have been expected to, and did, in fact, cost -him his life, he would have been excused for breaking it—one would -have thought that he would have suggested a walk in the park, or about -the streets—anywhere but back to where the stark body of the little -girl was awaiting him. Had he walked down Bourke Street the alibi -that he was so anxious, according to Harding, to establish would have -been much better established, for he might have been seen by a dozen -acquaintances, and the risk which even Harding saw he was taking would -have been avoided. But no! Ross must go and sit for an hour and a -half with his lady love a few yards away from the child he had foully -murdered so recently, and whose body he must dispose of within the next -few hours, under pain of death.</p> - -<h3>CONFLICTS IN THE CONFESSIONS.</h3> - -<p>Harding, so he says (and Harding “is an honourable man”) puts the -question to him directly: “Could Gladys not see the girl when she -went into the wine cafe?” “No,” said Ross, “we had our drink in the -parlour.” This again is the exact opposite of what Matthews says he -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> -said, for Matthews makes him carry the dead body out of the cubicle -into the beaded room (which is part of the parlour) in order that the -cubicle may be free for his reception of Gladys Wain. It might be -thought that Ross had special reasons for wanting the cubicle, as it -had a couch in it, but any idea that sexual misconduct took place that -night is negatived by the fact that Ross was physically unfit and that -Gladys Wain knew it.</p> - -<p>Harding next makes Ross, after seeing Gladys Wain home, himself take -train for Footscray, though he fixes the time at about an hour earlier -than it was in fact shown, by overwhelming independent testimony, to -have been. He also makes Ross say that he created a diversion on the -tram in order to call attention to himself, and have the conductor and -other witnesses to prove an alibi. The closest inquiries by the police, -which it may be assumed were made, failed to disclose the faintest -evidence of this “diversion.” In fact, it was absolutely negatived by -the three men, merely casual acquaintances, who travelled home with -Ross that night. Not only that, but the defence knows exactly how this -story of the row on the tram originated. A witness named Patterson, -on hearing of Ross’s arrest, went voluntarily to the local police -station to say that he had travelled home with Ross that night on the -tram. He was questioned as to the date, to see whether he was making -any mistake; and by way of fixing the actual night he said that he -remembered it because there had been a disturbance in the fish shop -where he was having supper with another man in Footscray, before taking -the tram for Maidstone, on which he saw Ross. The local police appear -to have misunderstood what he said, and reported the disturbance as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> -taking place on the tram. The Ross brothers, Ronald and Stanley, were -cross-examined as to whether they themselves had not called on the -motorman and conductor of the tram, and themselves indicated that a -disturbance had taken place on it. The cross-examination only served, -once again, to show the honesty of their belief in their brother’s -case, for it revealed that they went to the tram office to find the -names of the conductor and motorman who had charge of the tram Colin -travelled by, to ascertain if they had noticed Colin on the tram, and -to get, if possible, the names of any passengers on it.</p> - -<p>Harding next put the question to Ross: “Did you come back by car?” A -motor would naturally suggest itself as the means by which he would -return to town, and it will be remembered that, according to Ivy -Matthews, he said he had come back by car. But that was a matter that -could be tested, and the detectives had no doubt satisfied themselves -by inquiry before this that Ross did not return by a car. So Harding -makes him reply to the query by saying: “No, a bike.” “A motor bike?” -asked Harding. “No, a push bike,” Ross is supposed to have replied. -Harding probably knew that Ross had no bicycle of his own, or at least -he guarded against that contingency by making Ross say that he knew -a man who had a bike and knew where it was kept. The questions and -answers which follow are specially notable as carrying on their face -the mark of falsehood. Harding’s narrative at this point was—“I said, -‘Did you go straight into the Arcade?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘But the -gates are locked there at night?’ He said, ‘Yes, but I have a key.’ I -said, ‘When you went to the Arcade, did you go straight in and remove -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> -the body?’ He said, ‘No, I went in and took the girl’s clothes off -and went out and walked around the block to see if there was anyone -about.’” The stilted nature of the dialogue suggests at once that it -is the invention of a crude fictionist. But it suggests a good deal -more than that. How did Harding know, if he had not been told, that -the gates were locked at that time? How did he know, if he had not -been told, that a tenant in the ordinary course, would not have a key -to the Arcade? That is the first thing that would suggest itself if -Ross said that he went straight back to the Arcade. The walking round -the block to see if there was anybody about is equally incredible, -for there might be nobody about when Ross walked around the block on -one occasion, and several about when he came out with the body two -or three minutes later. The purpose of that unreal inquiry, and the -others that follow was to get answers fitting in with the story told -by the vigilant lodging-house keeper, Ellis. But Ellis, with all his -vigilance, strangely enough never saw Ross enter the Arcade with a -bicycle. How that part of the story not only does not fit in with -Ellis’s, but violently conflicts with it, will be shown in a moment.</p> - -<h3>A MODEL LODGING-HOUSE KEEPER.</h3> - -<p>Ellis’s story may be taken up here and analysed. He, as has been said, -is a lodging-house keeper, but the sort of lodging-house he keeps is -known by another name among the ribald. He saw Ross, according to his -evidence, “a little after 9, before 10, then at 11, and two or three -times between that and 10 minutes to 1,” when he retired. Strange to -say, he did not see Ross go in with Gladys Wain or come out with her, -though the sight of a young couple near his “lodging-house” is just the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span> -sort of thing that might have been expected to attract his attention. -He did not see Ross come back on the bicycle, as he had been said to -do, though one would have thought he could not have failed to see it, -if it were a fact, and if he did keep constant vigil until nearly 1 o’clock.</p> - -<p>It should, however, be noted that Ellis did not say, in so many words, -that he saw Ross at the times mentioned. According to the evidence, he -told the police on the Sunday following the murder that he saw a man -whom he did not know, and had never seen before, walking in and out -of the Arcade, as stated. On the 12th, when Ross was arrested, Ellis -was brought to the Detective Office, and he there and then identified -Ross as being the man whom he had seen. Ellis lives within a few yards -of the Eastern Arcade, and according to his own evidence, knew all -about the wine saloon. Through the Arcade would be his direct way to -Bourke Street. Ross had received great publicity seven or eight weeks -previously in connection with what has been referred to as the Arcade -shooting case. Ellis must have been an extraordinarily unobservant man -if, in spite of that publicity, of his knowledge of the wine saloon, -and of its close proximity to his residence, he had never set eyes -on Ross before. When called upon to identify Ross, he was bound, of -course, to say that he had never seen him before, because, if he knew -Ross, he would have been asked how it was that he did not tell the -detectives that it was Ross he saw walking in and out. It is also -curious if Piggott, as he said, had the case “well in hand” on the -first day, and had Ellis’s statement on the following day, that he -did not confront Ellis with Ross until a fortnight had elapsed. But, -conceding Ellis’s honesty, it is surely risking much to depend on the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> -fortnight-old observations of a witness who is so unobservant that he -had never observed a man who carried on business within a few yards of -him, and who, a couple of months before, was locally “the cynosure of -every eye, the observed of all observers.”</p> - -<p>But if the story told in the confessions is true, then Ellis can -not have seen Ross “at 11, and two or three times between that and -10 minutes to 1,” for Ross was away at Footscray at the time. Apart -altogether from the confessions, it was proved by overwhelming -independent evidence that Ross did catch a train at Spencer Street at -about 11.30, and caught a tram which left him at the terminus, not far -from his home, shortly before midnight.</p> - -<p>But here, again, apart from the evidence, the story told by Ellis is so -inherently improbable as to render it incredible, even conceding, as -has been said, that it was honest. The theory put forward for the Crown -was that Ross, in his anxiety and restlessness, was walking in and out -of the Arcade. If Ross were anxious and restless it would be about -the safety of his own neck. The safety of his own neck could be best -assured by keeping his presence at the Arcade, late at night, a secret. -Whatever his uneasiness, he was hardly likely to have let that fact -lapse from before his mind for an instant. It is incredible, on the one -hand, that he should have contemplated disposing of the body before -midnight in such a brilliantly-lighted and well-frequented spot. The -street might be empty while Ross was patrolling it, and yet before he -could go in to the saloon and get the body and carry it to Gun Alley, a -dozen people, including a constable, might be in it. It is incredible, -on the other hand, if he did contemplate disposing of it, and was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> -waiting for Ellis to disappear, that he should have needlessly exposed -himself to Ellis when, from the darkness of the Arcade (which Ellis -deposed to) he could have seen every movement of Ellis without himself -being seen. Ross must have known Ellis well by sight, and, whatever are -the facts, must have believed that Ellis would know him.</p> - -<p>This is one of the points at which the Crown case became not only -absolutely incoherent, but absolutely inconsistent. The evidence of -the Italians about seeing the light in the wine saloon at 10 minutes -to 1, of the caretaker that there was no light twenty minutes later, -of Ellis hearing a mysterious noise after he had retired and coming -out to see what caused it, of the Harding confession that Ross heard -Ellis coming and desisted from putting the body in the sewer, was all -designed to show that Ross chose the moment after the two Italians had -left and Ellis had retired, and before the caretaker closed the gate, -to rush out with the body and carry it to Gun Alley. But the Matthews -confession and the rest of the Harding confession were put forward to -show that after the gates were closed Ross came back, and, with his own -key, opened the gates and disposed of the body. The Matthews confession -makes him return “between 1 and 2,” and Harding’s confession makes -him say, in effect at any rate, that the gates were closed when he -got back, and that he opened them with his own key. A long interval, -according to the Harding confession, occurred between Ross’s return and -the disposal of the body, for in the meantime he took off the girl’s -clothes, and washed the body, and walked around the block. The gates -would be locked long before this, and Ross had no key. The stories, -therefore, fail hopelessly to fit in the one with the other. The mark -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> -of truth is that it must fit in with every other truth, while the mark -of falsehood is that it can only be made, by whatever ingenuity, to fit -in with a limited number of truths. If the Ellis evidence is true, the -Harding and Matthews evidence on this point cannot be true. It may be -true in the limited sense of being a true narration of what Ross said, -but it cannot be true in the important sense of being a true recital of -what Ross did. And unfortunately, in this case the jury was not told -that the vital thing was not what Ross said, if he said anything, but -what he did, and was not asked to consider why he should have said he -was at Footscray if, in fact, he was parading up and down in front of -Ellis.</p> - -<h3>CONFESSIONS COMPARED.</h3> - -<p>Then the objection will be raised, as it was raised by no less august -a tribunal than the High Court, that even though the two confessions -disagree in important details, and conflict hopelessly with the direct -evidence of Ellis, they are in agreement in the main fact that they -contain the admission that Ross outraged and killed the child, and -disposed of the body in the alley, and are in agreement in a number -of minor points. It is, however, the points of agreement and of -disagreement that suggest so strongly that the two confessions were -fabricated. Let us look at the facts.</p> - -<p>On January 23 the police had no account of the supposed confession from -either Matthews or Harding. By January 25 they had both. Let us see how -they agree. It is essential in testing the confessions to keep in mind -what the police knew on January 23. We can deal afterwards with the -question whether what the police knew Harding and Matthews also knew, -or probably knew. The police knew that the girl was in the vicinity of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> -the Arcade at about 3 o’clock. They knew that Ross had been talking -to Gladys Wain in the saloon for about an hour after four o’clock in -the afternoon; they knew he was to meet, and did meet, Gladys Wain -at 9 o’clock; that he went home for tea in the meantime; and that he -was with her for over an hour after 9.15; they knew that he went home -late by train to Footscray, and thence by tram to Maidstone. All these -things were in Ross’s statement made on January 5, and the police -had the opportunity of testing them. They interviewed Gladys Wain -and apparently they satisfied themselves as to the truth of Ross’s -statement so far as it concerned her. They knew that the dead girl had -been outraged and had been murdered by strangulation; and they knew -that though at first it was said that the marks around the girl’s neck -pointed to strangulation by a cord or wire, that this was disproved -by the medical examination (see the “Herald” of January 6 and January -10). They knew that the body was not in the alley at 1 o’clock (see the -“Herald” of January 2); and they knew that Ellis had said that he had -seen a man going in and out of the Arcade up to nearly 1 o’clock. They -knew that Ross was suffering from a venereal disease. With these points -settled, there were only five matters to be filled in by conjecture -if Ross was to be saddled with the crime. One was how did the girl -actually get into the saloon, the second was how did Gladys Wain fail -to see anything of the girl when she was there in the afternoon. The -third was the exact manner of the girl’s death. The fourth was how -was Gladys Wain prevented from seeing the body when she came in at 9 -o’clock. The fifth was how did Ross get back from Footscray late at -night to dispose of the body. How these matters of conjecture were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> -filled in in the two alleged confessions can be seen clearly by -the following parallels. (The rooms indicated will be described -in the terms used through the trial, not in the terms used in the -“confessions.”)</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<table class="space-above2" border="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Confessions Comparison" cellpadding="0" > - <tbody><tr> - <td class="tdc">THE MATTHEWS CONFESSION.</td> - <td class="tdc">THE HARDING CONFESSION.</td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_top"><p>(1) The child came up and asked him for a drink. He gave her - a glass of lemonade and took her into the cubicle.</p></td> - <td class="tdl_ws1"><p>When the child got opposite his place he spoke - to her, and she took no notice of him at first. - He said: “You have nothing to be afraid of; I own this - place, and if you are tired you can come in and sit down.” - She went in and he took her into the cubicle and induced - her to take three glasses of sweet wine.</p></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_top"><p>(2) She stayed there until about four. Stanley could see her too. A girl - named Gladys Wain came to see him, and he told the child to go through to - the beaded room, and he “kept her in there” [how?] until Gladys left, and - then brought her back into the cubicle.</p></td> - <td class="tdl_ws1"><p>About this time a woman whom he knew came to the door of the - cafe, and he spoke to her for about three-quarters of an hour, - and when he went back to the cubicle the girl was asleep. A - little later “his own girl” came to the door of the cafe, and - he spoke to her until nearly 6 o’clock. Stanley couldn’t see her - when he was serving, because the screen was down, and when - the screen was down no one dared go into the cubicle. - <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span></p></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_top"><p>(3) After 6 o’clock, when Stanley left, he got “fooling about with her” - (she being quite alert and knowing what was meant), and it was all - over in a minute. “I strangled her in my passion.” After it was all - over, “I could have taken a knife and slashed her up and myself too, - because she led me on to it.”</p></td> - <td class="tdl_ws1"><p>At 6 o’clock the girl was still asleep in the cubicle, and “I could not resist - the temptation.” She moaned a little and seemed to faint. I left - the room, and after a little time she commenced to call out again, and I - went in to stop her, and in endeavouring to stop her I must have choked - her. I got suddenly cool and commenced to think.</p></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_top"><p>(4) He had to meet a girl friend, so he took the body from the cubicle - and put it in the beaded room off the big room, and brought Gladys Wain - into the cubicle, and when Gladys was gone he brought the body back - into the cubicle.</p></td> - <td class="tdl_ws1"><p>“Could Gladys not see the girl when you went into the cafe?” No, - as the body was in the cubicle, we had our drink in the big room.</p></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_top"><p>(5) I asked him how he got back, and he said he came back by motor car.</p></td> - <td class="tdl_ws1"><p>I said: “Did you go back by car?” He said, “No”; he had a bike. - I said: “A motor bike?” He said: “No, a push bike.”</p></td> - </tr><tr> - <td class="tdl_top"><p></p></td> - <td class="tdl_ws1"><p></p></td> - </tr> - </tbody> -</table> -</div> - -<p>It will be seen that on every point about which nothing was known to -the police, the two “confessions” are absolutely at variance. On the -points known to the police, they absolutely agree except that Harding -(rightly) makes Ross speak to another girl at the door before he speaks -to Gladys Wain. This the police knew from Stanley’s statement, though -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> -it is not in Ross’s written statement. Further comment on these -suggestive facts seems unnecessary.</p> - -<h3>WAS THERE “INSIDE” KNOWLEDGE?</h3> - -<p>How, it may be asked, could Ivy Matthews and Harding become possessed -of the information the police had? That question is not difficult to -answer. It will be shown later that Ivy Matthews was driving around -with the police on January 9, assisting them to get evidence in the -case, and that she, on her part, was trying to get it manufactured. -If that is so (and a sworn declaration to that effect has gone -unchallenged) then she was not likely to lack any information that the -police thought it might be useful to them for her to have. It has been -stated in the Press that the police employed Chinese spies to see if -evidence could be got against any of the Chinese in the neighbourhood. -The statement, though it ill accords with Piggott’s evidence that -“we had the case well in hand” on December 31, has not been denied. -If Chinese spies were called in to assist in the unravelling of the -crime—and that course of action may have been quite justifiable—the -detectives are not likely to have cried “non tali auxilio” when -Matthews volunteered her services.</p> - -<p>As to Sydney Harding, the source of his knowledge can be guessed if -not inferred. Harding was a criminal with a record, like one of the -Arbitration Court disputes, extending beyond the limits of one State. -He was “wanted” in Sydney, when he favoured Melbourne with his society -on January 4. At that time, Detective Walsh, of Sydney, was doing duty -in Melbourne as an exchange officer. He was one of the detectives -engaged on the Ross case and was present at the arrest. On Sunday, -January 22, according to statements since made to Ross’s advisers, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> -Harding sent for Walsh, whom he knew, and Walsh visited him at the gaol -and had a long interview with him. On Monday, January 23, Ross made the -“confession” to Harding, and that night Harding again sent for Walsh, -as is admitted, and recounted the confession to the Governor in the -presence of the detective.</p> - -<p>Neither of these facts—that Ivy Matthews was acting as assistant -detective on January 9, and that Detective Walsh had visited Harding -in the gaol by invitation on January 22—was known at the trial. -Had they been so, they would have provided excellent material for -cross-examination, and would have given the jury something to consider -which was never present to their minds.</p> - -<p>It has been suggested that it would be a dreadful thing if the police -had prompted Harding in this matter. It certainly would have been a -dreadful thing if they had prompted him or anybody else to manufacture -a confession, and nobody suggests for a moment that they would do, or -did do, such a thing. But believing Ross guilty, as they no doubt did -believe him guilty, and yet not having sufficient evidence to prove it, -they would have been merely following a commonplace practice if they -had employed Harding to endeavour to get a confession of his guilt. In -one of the daily papers, Mr. Brennan was represented as having said -in argument before the Appeal Court that it would have been a very -dreadful thing for the police so to employ Harding. In fact, he said -the exact opposite. But Harding was a very dangerous agent to employ -on this task. Some at least of the Detective Force knew that he had -volunteered for this kind of duty on a former occasion, and that his -services had been declined. There would have been nothing wrong from the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> -point of view of anyone engaged in unravelling a mysterious crime for a -detective to have said: “We know this, and that, and the other; see if -you can get from him information on the points we know nothing about.” -And whether that is, or is not, what they did, the simple fact remains -that if they had done so, they would have told him the things in which -the Harding and Matthews “confessions” agree, and would have assigned -to him the duty of filling in the gaps which are filled in by Harding -and Matthews in a manner absolutely at variance the one with the other.</p> - -<h3>AN EXPERT ON HAIR.</h3> - -<p>Nothing could point more strongly to the guilt of Ross than -satisfactory proof that hairs from the head of the murdered girl -were found on a blanket in his private room. It becomes necessary, -therefore, to examine Mr. Price’s evidence, to see whether it does -establish this important fact. It will be seen by a reference to that -evidence, that Mr. Price uses very guarded language. He “came to a -conclusion” about certain things and he “formed the conclusion” about -others, but he at no time definitely stated that the hairs taken from -the blankets were from the same head as the hairs in the envelope. None -the less, the fact cannot be blinked that the tendency of Mr. Price’s -evidence was in that direction, or that in that direction lay the bent -of his mind.</p> - -<p>A word of caution as to expert evidence generally may, therefore, -appropriately be given, and if a quotation from “Taylor on Evidence” is -selected, no one who knows anything of the subject, will question the -weight of the authority.</p> - -<p>“Perhaps the testimony which least deserves credit with a jury,” says -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> -the author, “is that of skilled witnesses. These gentlemen are usually -required to speak, not to facts, but to opinions; and when this is the -case it is often quite surprising to see with what facility, and to -what an extent, their views can be made to correspond with the wishes -or the interests of the parties who call them. They do not, indeed, -wilfully misrepresent what they think, but their judgments become so -warped by regarding the subject in one point of view, that even when -conscientiously disposed, they are incapable of forming an independent -opinion. Being zealous partisans, their Belief becomes synonymous with -Faith as defined by the Apostle, and it too often is but ‘the substance -of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.’ To adopt the -language of Lord Campbell, ‘skilled witnesses come with such a bias -on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked, that -hardly any weight should be given to their evidence.’”</p> - -<p>The first criticism of Mr. Price’s evidence is that he is not an -expert on the subject, and indeed he made no pretence of being one. -He knew nothing about the subject beforehand, and his experiments and -reading were principally done after the event. For all he knows to the -contrary, the pith of all hairs may be identical. He made one admission -in the course of his cross-examination which absolutely destroyed the -probative force of his evidence. In his post-factum observations he -had examined hairs from several auburn heads, and he admitted that he -had found some hair as like Alma Tirtschke’s as the hairs from the -blankets. The “proof,” therefore, resulting from Mr. Price’s evidence -may be reduced to an elementary syllogism as follows:— -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span></p> - -<ul class="index"> -<li class="isub2">This hair is like Alma’s.</li> -<li class="isub2">All hair like Alma’s is not Alma’s.</li> -<li class="isub2">Therefore, this hair may (or may not) be Alma’s.</li> -</ul> - -<p>It was said earlier that Mr. Price might, on the facts he deposed to, -have been a powerful witness for the defence. Let us show how this -is so. Suppose, having deposed to the examination of the two sets of -hairs, exactly as given previously, he had been examined by Counsel -for the Defence, and had answered in the following way, would not his -answers have been fully justified by what he had already stated?:—</p> - -<p>Defendant’s Counsel—Having examined the two sets of hair, are you of -opinion they did not come from the same head?—I am.</p> - -<p>Can you give reasons for your opinion?—I can, many.</p> - -<p>What are they?—In the first place, the hair was not of the same -average length, that from the head of the girl being, on the average, -six inches longer than that from the blanket. In the next place, the -hair from the blanket was of a light auburn colour, while the hair -from the head was an auburn colour tending to red or a deep red. What -is more important, the hairs from the two sets were not of the same -diameter, and I cannot imagine why hair from the same head should -differ in diameter. In the next place, in hair I have examined since, -the frontal portion was quite red, and that from the back of the head -quite dark, suggesting that where the hair is exposed, it lightens in -colour, while in this case the hairs, which must have come from the -back of the head, were actually lighter than those which came from -nearer the front. In the next place, I found in my investigations hairs -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> -which were quite as like Alma Tirtschke’s as the hairs on the blanket, -and though this does not prove that they were not Alma’s hairs, it -prevents, by an elementary rule in scientific investigations, any -deduction that they were. Lastly, it appears incredible to me, that if -a girl of 13 were lying on a blanket for three hours she should lose 27 -hairs—or rather that 27 of her hairs should still be remaining on the -blankets at the expiration of a fortnight, during which the blankets -had been removed to a distant suburb, and constantly handled.</p> - -<h3>A MISSING LINK.</h3> - -<p>There are other features about this hair examination which call for -comment. When a man is on trial for his life, he himself, his counsel, -and indeed the public generally, are entitled to demand that every -link in the chain connecting him with the murder shall be found in its -place. It was objected on the appeal that a link was missing in the -case of the blankets, since it was not shown where they were during the -night preceding their handing over to the analyst. One of the learned -judges in the High Court asked whether this “sinister suggestion” had -been put to the detectives. With the greatest respect, it is not, in -the first place, a sinister suggestion, but an elementary requirement -in proof; and in the second place, it is no part of the duty of a -defending counsel either to fill up gaps in the Crown evidence, or to -give the Crown witnesses a lead by which they may do it. But a blow -would be struck at the whole administration of justice, if once the -principle were admitted, that evidence, just because it is police -evidence, is not to be subjected to the ordinary tests. The principle -admitted, it would soon come to be known and traded upon, and the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> -result would be the lowering of the whole morale of the Detective -Force. The logical outcome would be the transfer of the seat of justice -from the Law Courts to the Detective Office. It is the knowledge -that their evidence will have to run the gauntlet of the fiercest -criticism and examination which the skill of the bar can bring to -bear on it which helps to keep the members of the Detective Force up -to their present high standard. On such a question as spiritualistic -manifestations, the sceptics require the exclusion of every opportunity -for fraud, even when the high priest is a man of the reputation of Sir -Conan Doyle; and a prisoner under the shadow of the gallows, who speaks -through his counsel, is entitled to demand the exclusion of every -possibility of fraud, even when a man of the standing of Detective -Piggott is in charge.</p> - -<p>It is almost impossible to believe, apart altogether from the question -of Ross’s guilt, or the question of the supposed identity of the hairs, -as deposed to by Mr. Price, that the hairs on the blankets could have -been Alma Tirtschke’s. As was mentioned during the legal argument, -golden hairs do not shine out conspicuously on a reddish brown blanket -when they are well imbedded in the fabric. Yet when Detective Piggott -picked up this reddish brown blanket in the darkness of a vestibule, -a fortnight after it had left the wine saloon, after it had been used -for packing pictures on the day of the removal, after it had been -put out to air on a line, after it had been in use for a fortnight -at Maidstone—all of which was sworn to—his quick eye immediately -detected “the sheen of golden hairs” on it. They must, therefore, have -been lying loosely on it. It would surely have been fair that he and -his men should have immediately started to pick them off—and in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> -presence and with the knowledge of Ross. It was hardly in accordance -with the fairness with which the case was investigated throughout, -to defer the picking off until the blankets had been placed, on the -following day, over the screen in the Government Analyst’s room. -Nothing was known by Ross of the discovery of the hairs until the -evidence was given, a fortnight later, at the inquest. It is also -remarkable that Piggott, who, according to his own testimony, had the -case against Ross “well in hand” on December 31, never even went into -the cubicle on that day to see if it would reveal anything, although he -knew the place was to be vacated and dismantled on that very evening.</p> - -<p>On the trial, evidence for the defence was given that Mrs. Tom Ross -and her sister, Miss Alice Ballantyne, had gone into the cubicle on -the Wednesday before the murder, and had “done” their hair in it, each -letting her hair down and combing it. Alice Ballantyne’s hair bore -the strongest resemblance to Alma Tirtschke’s, and leaving out the -improbability of the hairs remaining on the blanket for a fortnight, it -was far more likely that 27 hairs would come out under the operation of -combing than that they would come out from a girl simply lying on the -blanket. Something might have been said on this point by Ross had he -been apprised at the time of “the sheen of golden hairs.”</p> - -<p>It was not mere thoughtlessness that allowed the examination of the -blankets to be delayed for a fortnight, for, if Ross’s supplementary -statement of January 5 is looked at, it will be seen that he said -on that day, in answer to a question, “I did have two blankets in -the saloon. They were used as a rug or cover to lie down in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span> -afternoons.” Thus put on his guard, one would have thought that, if -Ross were a guilty man, he would have seen that the blankets did not -rise up a week later to confront him. And one certainly would have -thought that the detectives, if they had the case against Ross “well -in hand” on the 31st, would have seen the desirability, at least on -January 5, of sending out, while they had Ross temporarily in custody, -and getting possession of the blankets.</p> - -<p>There was still another fatal weakness in the “reddish brown blanket” -as a link in the chain connecting Ross with the murder. When Ivy -Matthews was shown this blanket, she decisively tossed it aside as not -having been in the saloon in her time. Either it was, or it was not, -in the saloon on December 30. If it was not, the hairs on it could not -have come from Alma Tirtschke’s head. If it was, then how comes it that -not one spot of blood was found on it, when, according to the Harding -“confession,” the place was like a shambles, and, according to the -medical evidence, there would be much bleeding? It may be suggested -that this blanket was under the girl’s head, and another blanket was -under her body, and received the blood stains. If so, it would, if -discovered, have been the most damaging piece of evidence against Ross, -and its disposal must have been a matter of the gravest concern to him. -Yet although he is supposed to have given to Harding the most minute -details of unimportant matters, together with a complete account of -how he disposed of the girl’s dress, he never said one word about this -blanket, or its disposition!</p> - -<h3>THE GIRL’S ATTIRE.</h3> - -<p>Another of the facts urged as showing that Ross murdered the girl was -the exact description he gave of her clothing on the morning following -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> -the girl’s disappearance. On being asked by Piggott how the girl was -dressed, he described her dress and her hat with the college band on -it, said in answer to a question that she had on a white blouse, and, -on being asked “what else?” said: “Well, she had black stockings, -and boots or shoes—I think boots.” (In the signed statement the -corresponding passage is “she wore dark stockings and boots, or she may -have had shoes on.”) Again, on being asked about her hair, he said it -was golden coloured and hung down her back.</p> - -<p>The answer to the suggestion that that was a minute description for a -man to give of a girl’s dress is that, in the first place, it was given -mainly in answer to questions, and it ought not to be difficult for a -man to visualise the girl’s dress after a lapse of 18 hours, especially -as she was dressed in conventional school-girl style. (Her dress was -quite as accurately described by a hotel porter who saw her walking -up Little Collins Street.) Harding’s “confession” credits Ross with -saying that he told the police she wore boots, and with suggesting that -this was an erroneous description designed to mislead. The evidence -does not bear Harding out, and the idea that in any case the trifling -discrepancy was designed to deceive is ridiculous. And while Harding -suggests that Ross was purposely inaccurate in order to deceive, the -Crown Prosecutor used Ross’s accurate description to show that he -was accurate not merely because he had seen the girl in the Arcade, -but because he had taken her clothing off. Since the question of the -disposal of the clothing was supposed to have been raised by Harding -and dealt with by Ross, it is curious, by the way, that nothing was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> -said to Harding of the underclothing, or of the distinguishing hat, or -of the parcel of meat, for these, too, had to be disposed of. But this -is only another proof that Harding put nothing into Ross’s mouth which -was likely to be falsified by independent testimony.</p> - -<p>Here, again, this very matter of hesitation about the boots or shoes -tells entirely in Ross’s favour. Either he gave a description to the -best of his ability, or he gave a description purposely designed to -deceive. The latter alternative may be dismissed at once, because -the description was so nearly accurate that it is absurd to suppose -it was meant to mislead. There remains, then, the alternative that -he described the dress to the best of his ability. A man describing -the appearance of a conventionally-dressed school-girl has not room -to go far astray. The one thing he would not be likely to remember, -or to carry in the mind’s eye, was whether she had on boots or -shoes—especially if her stockings were black. But if Ross had stripped -the body, that is the one thing that he would have been clear about, -for by the hypothesis he took the boots off, and he could hardly have -forgotten the gruesome task of unlacing them.</p> - -<h3>THE LIGHT IN THE SALOON.</h3> - -<p>There is one piece of evidence which causes some difficulty in that it -suggests that someone was in Ross’s saloon after midnight. It is the -evidence of the two Italians who swore that there was a light in the -saloon at 10 minutes to 1. There does not appear to be much room for -mistake in this evidence, for the Italians said they talked with one -another about the unwonted circumstance of the light. There does not -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> -appear to be any reason to doubt their honesty, even though they have -since shared in the reward. During argument before the Appeal Courts, -it was suggested as a possibility that other persons might have gained -access to the saloon. It was proved in evidence by Mr. Clarke, the -Manager of the Arcade, that the door of the saloon nearer Bourke Street -could be opened by inserting a knife or piece of tin between the bolts -of the Yale lock and the part into which it fits, the lock being -loose and the door ill-fitting. Apart from Mr. Clarke’s unchallenged -testimony on this point, the fact may be accepted as being beyond -controversy, for Mr. Clarke, on the eve of the trial, opened the door -in the way mentioned without the slightest difficulty, in the presence -of the counsel and solicitors for Ross.</p> - -<p>This being the fact about the door, it was not altogether improbable -that it would be known to some patrons of the wine saloon who were -tenants of the Arcade. The suggestion made in the Appeal Courts was -that other persons with a dead body on their hands, which it was urgent -they should dispose of, might have bethought themselves of the disused -cellars in the wine cafe as a possible hiding place. This would be -the more probable by reason of the fact that it was known that the -following day would be the last on which the wine saloon would be open, -the license expiring with the year. It was known in fact that the -police questioned, and detained for a time, at least one occupier of a -room in the Arcade whose reputation was far from good. In any event, -there is strong evidence that Ross knew nothing about the light in the -saloon if it was, in fact, there. On the day of his arrest, he was -interrogated for the third time by Piggott. Piggott said: “It will be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span> -proved that a light was burning in your wine shop on the early morning -of the 31st.” Ross replied promptly: “That is a lie—a deliberate lie.” -Piggott said: “It will be proved that a little girl was seen in your -wine shop on the afternoon of the 30th.” Ross said: “That’s a lie.” “It -will be proved that she had a glass in front of her and was sitting in -the room,” continued Piggott, and again Ross answered: “That’s a lie.” -And being asked if he had any explanation to give, he added: “You have -got nothing over me.”</p> - -<p>If that light had been in the wine saloon at 1 o’clock with Ross’s -knowledge, he must have known, or at least have thought, that the fact -might be proved by a dozen independent and reputable witnesses. If it -had been a fact he would have been ready with an explanation, such as -that they were dismantling the premises. But his emphatic, if not very -polite, answer was: “That’s a lie.” The same remark applies to the -answers in regard to the little girl being seen in the saloon with the -glass in front of her. If she had been there she would, as has already -been said, have been seen probably by a hundred people. But Ross’s -answer to the suggestion that she was there was to brand it as a lie. -And Matthews and Maddox were the only persons called to prove it was -not a lie. That, however, is not the present point. We are dealing with -the light in the saloon.</p> - -<p>Since the trial a further fact has been disclosed in connection with -this question which lends a great deal of support to the theory put -forward by counsel on the appeals. A Sydney paper, still in its youth -and advertising stage, has degraded journalism in connection with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> -Ross case in a way that is happily rare in the annals of the newspaper -world. As Ross lay in the condemned cell, it gloated over his -impending doom in a manner that showed that it did not appreciate the -cowardice of kicking a man, even a criminal, when he is down. But it -apparently had plenty of money to spend for the work of pushing its -circulation among those who like that kind of literature. Its Melbourne -representative did undoubtedly get well into the secrets connected -with the working up of the case against Ross. In its issue of March -25, it had an article dealing with the preparation of the case which -was clearly inspired. One paragraph referred to “another piece of -unrecorded history,” as follows:</p> - -<p>“There is a card school that assembles frequently at the Arcade, -or did prior to the trial. On the night of December 30, the players -dispersed shortly before midnight. They went out of the Arcade by way -of Little Collins Street. Passing the wine shop, they noticed that -it was lit up. But this they also noticed—that Room 33 also showed a -light. The tenant was not in the room. He had lent it to a friend who -was entertaining there a young woman, the daughter of a former officer -of police. Ross, too, had seen the light. He must have noticed it at -intervals during the evening, and watched it with despairing hope -that its users would go away instead of staying on, hour after hour, -spoiling his plans. At last it appeared as though the room was going to -be occupied all night. Some new way had to be found. It was then that -he thought of Gun Alley....”</p> - -<p>Ross’s thoughts, it will be seen, are here set down as though the -writer were recording some plain matter of fact. The suggestion is that -Ross had intended putting the body in this room, but was thwarted by -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> -the unfortunate circumstance that someone, not the tenant, had got -the use of it for the night. The allegation about the intention of -Ross to put the body in Room 33 is taken bodily out of the supposed -Matthews confession. It has no other foundation, in fact. How closely -the correspondent was in touch with Ivy Matthews is shown by the fact -that another number of the same paper gave the story of her life. But -again we are face to face with the fact that Harding, to whom Ross is -supposed to have given such minute details of the disposition of the -body, has not a word to say about this unexpected obstacle. A murderer -and a ravisher who was confessing his double crime was hardly likely to -have boggled at admitting, if such were the fact, that he contemplated -disposing of the body by putting it in another man’s room. But at -least, since he gave such details of his plan for disposing of the -body, and his execution of them, it is curious that he said nothing -about the difficulty which the light in Room 33 created.</p> - -<p>Again there is the remarkable circumstance that not one of the card -school was produced on the trial to say that in fact there was a light -in the saloon at midnight. But whatever may be the facts about a light -at 10 minutes to 1, it is certain that if there was a light in the -saloon at midnight, Ross was not responsible for it. If the guilt or -innocence of Ross depends upon the question of whether he was, or was -not, in the saloon at midnight, it may be taken to be established, as -clearly and definitely as human testimony can establish any fact, that -Ross is innocent. Those who heard the evidence of Patterson, Studd, and -Bradley, (to be mentioned later) as to Ross going home on the last tram -to Maidstone, the suburb out from Footscray where Ross lived, and had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> -the advantage of private consultations with these witnesses, cannot -entertain the slightest doubt that Ross was on the tram. Conceivably, -his brother and mother, as deeply interested witnesses, were lying as -to what took place after he got home, though they never wavered, and -were never shaken in the slightest degree in their testimony, but as -to the honesty and accuracy of the three disinterested witnesses named -there can be no doubt whatever. But, even if the confessions are relied -on, it should be noted that both negative the suggestion that Ross was -in the saloon at midnight.</p> - -<p>Not a word about the light in room 33 or of the observations of the -card school came out on the trial. Of course, there may be no truth in -the story. But, true or not, no questions concerning either were put -to Ross by the detectives which would have allowed these matters to -get out on the trial. This is not meant as adverse criticism of the -conduct of the case. It merely illustrates what has been said earlier -how events so shaped themselves as to cast all the light on Ross, and -leave others, who at one time or another were suspected, entirely in -the shadow.</p> - -<p>The detectives explain the light in the one room by the theory that a -stranger to the room had been given the use of it for the night for -an immoral purpose; they explain the light in Ross’s room, if the -newspaper account is true, by the theory that he is engaged disposing -of a dead body. But if the jury had known that all night a light was -burning, not only in the saloon, but in a room opposite to it, they -might not have been so easily satisfied about either theory, as it is -suggested the detectives were. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span></p> - -<p>No insinuation is made against the fairness with which the detectives -presented the case against Ross. In particular, Piggott’s account -of the conversations with Ross give, with great frankness, Ross’s -answers, when it would have been perfectly easy for the detective, had -he desired to be unfair, to minimise the emphasis Ross put upon his -denials. There are two passages in Taylor’s great work on “Evidence,” -however, which are peculiarly applicable to this case. One deals with -the caution necessary in considering all police evidence.</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“With respect to policemen, constables, and -others employed in the detection of crime,” says the learned author, -“their testimony against a prisoner should usually be watched with -care, not because they intentionally pervert the truth, but because -their professional zeal, fed as it is by an habitual intercourse with -the vicious, and by the frequent contemplation of human nature in its -most revolting form, almost necessarily leads them to ascribe actions -to the worst motives, and to give a colouring of guilt to facts and -conversations which are, perhaps, in themselves, consistent with -perfect rectitude. ‘That all men are guilty till they are proved to be -innocent’ is naturally the creed of the police, but it is a creed which -finds no sanction in a court or justice.” </p> - -<p>The other passage deals with the dangers which have necessarily to be -guarded against in any case depending on circumstantial evidence. Says -the learned author:—</p> - -<p class="blockquot">“It must be remembered that, in a case of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> -circumstantial evidence, the facts are collected by degrees. -Something occurs to raise a suspicion against a particular party. -Constables and police officers are immediately on the alert, and, with -professional zeal, ransack every place and paper, and examine into -every circumstance which can tend to establish, not his innocence, -but his guilt. Presuming him guilty from the first, they are apt to -consider his acquittal as a tacit reflection on their discrimination or -skill, and, with something like the feeling of a keen sportsman, they -determine, if possible, to bag their game. Innocent actions may thus -be misinterpreted, innocent words misunderstood, and as men readily -believe what they anxiously desire, facts the most harmless may be -construed into strong confirmation of preconceived opinions. It is not -here asserted that this is frequently the case, nor is it intended -to disparage the police. The feelings by which they are actuated are -common to all persons who first assume that a fact or system is true, -and then seek for arguments to support and prove its truth.” </p> - -<p>Piggott himself admitted that the press were giving them “a pretty -rough time” about their failure to effect an arrest. How “rough” it -was may be gauged from one editorial in “The Argus” about three days -before Ross’s arrest, which said: “As each day passes the grievous -disappointment of the public at the failure of the police to track down -the murderer of the child, Alma Tirtschke, grows more profound.... Even -among citizens less given to displays of anger the sense of disgust is -acute. The detectives and police force of Melbourne are on their trial, -and no matter how exacting they may find the ordeal they must realise -that the public will not tolerate failure on their part.” Being thus on -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> -their trial, with their reputation at stake, they had a tremendous -incentive to try and sheet the crime home.</p> - -<h3>POINTS THE JURY MISSED.</h3> - -<p>But even with what they had before them, the mystery still remains -how any jury of reasonable men, appreciating the evidence properly, -could say that there was no doubt as to Ross’s guilt. Reviewing it -as dispassionately as one may, and without comparing it with the -evidence for the defence, to be adverted to in a moment, the balance of -probability, to say the very least, dips on the side of his innocence. -The inherent weakness of the Crown case would remain though not one -witness were called for the defence. The unfortunate thing for Ross -was that the jury never was told that there was any weakness or -inconsistency in the Crown evidence. On the contrary, the evidence -was left to them, and, indeed, put to them, as though there was a -cumulative force about it. At one stage they were told by the learned -Judge that “the accused in his evidence denies what is attributed to -him by Brophy, denies the statements of Ivy Matthews incriminating -him, denies the statements of Olive Maddox incriminating him, denies -Harding’s and Dunstan’s evidence, and denies also the evidence of -Upton.” The inherent improbability of the supposed admission to -Brophy, or the inherent probability of Ross’s account of it, was -never suggested; the conflict between the Matthews and the Harding -confessions was never hinted at; the fact that Dunstan had read -Harding’s evidence, as given at the Morgue, and had not reported what -he is supposed to have heard until after he had read it, was never -adverted to; and the fact that Olive Maddox’s evidence could not be true -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> -that the girl was awake in the beaded room at 5 o’clock if Harding’s -“confession” was true that she was asleep in the cubicle at that time -was never referred to.</p> - -<p>It was never pointed out to the jury that Harding and Matthews were -deposing only to confessions, and that, while it is possible for a man -to say things that are verbally inconsistent, it is not possible for -him to do things that are actually inconsistent, and that what the jury -had to determine was not what Ross said, but what he did.</p> - -<p>They were never asked to consider why he should have made two different -confessions to two different people, or why he should have made a -confession at all. They were never told that, in dealing with an -alleged confession, they must approach the consideration of it in -a manner entirely different from that in which they would approach -evidence purporting to deal with substantive facts. Indeed, in the -passage above quoted, Upton’s evidence of supposed facts is put in -exactly the same category as Matthews’s and Harding’s evidence of -supposed confessions. The learned lawyer, Sir Michael Foster, author of -an historic legal work, may have realised that confessional evidence -“is not, in the ordinary course of things, to be disproved by the sort -of negative evidence by which the proof of plain facts may be, and -often is, confronted,” but a Melbourne common jury was hardly likely -to realise that truth by the light of nature. Mr. Justice Cave, in -delivering the judgment of a very full Bench in a trumpery case of -embezzlement not so very long ago, said: “I would add that, for my -part, I always suspect these confessions which are supposed to be -the offspring of penitence and remorse, and which, nevertheless, are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> -repudiated by the prisoner at the trial. It is remarkable that it is -of very rare occurrence for evidence of a confession to be given when -the proof of the prisoner’s guilt is otherwise clear and satisfactory, -but, when it is not, the prisoner is not infrequently alleged to -have been seized with the desire, born of penitence and remorse, to -supplement it with a confession—a desire which vanishes as soon as he -appears in a court of justice.” How aptly those words applied to this case!</p> - -<p>They were never warned that they could take the confessions, if they -were satisfied that they were made, and accept as much of them, or -either of them, as they chose, but that, if they rejected any portion -of them, they could not fill in the gap by conjecture if there was no -other evidence on the point.</p> - -<p>They were never reminded of the difficulties of cross-examining -two persons who purport to depose to a confession, for, whatever -inconsistency with the facts is pointed out, the witness merely -replies, “That may be so; I know nothing but what he told me.”</p> - -<p>They were told that Ellis’s evidence was important “because it was -so contradictory of the evidence of some of the witnesses for the -defence,” but they were never reminded that, if Ellis’s evidence -was true, they would have to reject a great portion of the supposed -confessions to Matthews and Harding.</p> - -<p>It is extremely likely that, in dealing with Matthews’s and Harding’s -evidence, they would reason that “Harding says this” and “Matthews says -this,” and then draw inferences unfavourable to Ross from the supposed -cumulative effects of the two sets of evidence; and extremely unlikely -that they would reason that “Harding says that Ross said this,” and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> -“Matthews says that Ross said that,” and then go on to draw -inferences favourable to Ross from the fact that they make him say -totally inconsistent things. Yet this is what they should have -done. They probably have not yet realised that they were dealing -with a case absolutely without parallel in the annals of British -criminal jurisprudence, in which they were invited to hang a man -on contradictory confessions, which he is alleged, by thoroughly -disreputable witnesses, to have made, which on his oath he denied -having made, for the making of which no reason could be assigned, and -which were so seriously in conflict as to suggest that they were never -made.</p> - -<p>In the nature of things they were likely to put Harding, Matthews, -Maddox, Dunstan, Ellis, and the Italians on one side, and Ross and his -witnesses on the other, and were not likely to recall that the one set -was a contradictory jumble, and the other set a solid mass of unshaken -testimony, much of it disinterested, directed to establishing certain -definite things.</p> - -<p>To the writer, these all seem matters that it was of the first -importance the jury should have had in mind. True it is, that many -of them were touched upon in Mr. Maxwell’s eloquent address for the -defence; but the last words, and the weightiest words, must always -come from the presiding judge. It is also true that before two appeal -courts it was urged that these omissions constituted a ground for -saying that the summing-up fell short of what was required, and that -both courts rejected the contention. But that does not preclude the -respectful comment that the jury, overlooking them, may have approached -the evidence from the wrong standpoint. That they did, for some reason, -approach it from the wrong standpoint seems established by their -verdict.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span></p> -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak">PART IV.<br />⸻<br />FRESH FACTS.</h2> -</div> - -<p>There is, perhaps, more truth than poetry in the lines that, “of all -the sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are those, ‘it might have -been.’” If everything which is known now had been known on the trial -the result might have been different. And, as we can all be wiser after -the event, it may even be conceded that, if different use had been -made of things that were known, or were at least within the grasp of -knowledge, another conclusion might have been arrived at by the jury. -Facts not brought out on the trial were placed before the Court of -Criminal Appeal, and when all legal remedies had been exhausted were -put before the Cabinet. The one tribunal declined, on legal principles -(which are not here criticised), to act upon them; the other, in the -exercise of its discretion, declined to give weight to them. None the -less, they may be of interest to the public, and they may be here -appropriately recalled to the public mind with some observations which -were not before either court or Cabinet.</p> - -<h3>HALLIWELL’S STRANGE STORY.</h3> - -<p>Reference has been made more than once to an extraordinary story told -by a young man named Percy Halliwell, and as it has gone unchallenged, -in circumstances which seemed to call for challenge if it were untrue, -it may be given first place in the recital of the fresh facts. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> -Detective Piggott was strong throughout the case in his assertion -that Ivy Matthews had never made any statement to the police as to -what she could or would say. Literally that was, no doubt, true, but -it remains to be seen whether, in view of what follows, it was not an -assertion which, while literally true, was well calculated to create -a totally false impression. When representations were being made to -the Government with a view of securing a reprieve of Ross, pending an -appeal to the Privy Council, a statutory declaration by Halliwell was -(inter alia) laid before the Attorney-General. This declaration, in -addition to being laid before the Government, has been published in the -press, and it has never been contradicted. In it Halliwell said that he -was in the saloon during the Friday afternoon; that at 6 o’clock he was -in the cubicle with the two Rosses and another man named Evans (who, -in the meantime, had left the country), and that they drank a bottle -of beer in it; that they all left together, and that it would have -been impossible for the little girl to have been in the saloon without -him seeing her. His evidence about the bottle of beer is all the more -valuable because neither Stanley nor Colin Ross were asked anything -about it on the trial, and, consequently, said nothing of it.</p> - -<p>Halliwell’s declaration then goes on to say that on Monday, January -9, Ivy Matthews called at his house in Gore Street, Fitzroy, and told -him that she had told the detectives that he had made a key for Ross. -Halliwell said: “That is untrue.” It is important to remember that, at -this time, the problem of how Ross, if he were the murderer, got back -to the Arcade, was troubling the detectives, and Matthews appears to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> -have come forward with a suggestion, for she knew that Halliwell was -a locksmith. Matthews then said: “I want you to tell the detectives -you made a key,” and she said that she also wanted him to tell the -detectives that he was in the saloon on the Saturday, and asked Ross if -he knew anything of the murder, and that Ross replied: “I have never -been a ‘shelf’”—a “shelf” being, in criminal language, an informer. -Matthews then said to him: “I’ve got a friend down at the corner in -a motor, who is very much interested in this case, and I want you to -tell him what I have said to you.” He accompanied her to the corner of -Westgarth Street, where he found Detective Piggott in a car. Piggott -directed him to sit in the front seat with the driver, and Matthews -got up beside Piggott on the back seat. Piggott after a time said to -him: “What about those keys?” and he replied that he knew nothing about -them. Piggott said: “I want you to come to the Detective Office with -me,” but Matthews said: “I want to see him this afternoon.” Piggott -and Matthews had a conversation, and then Matthews said to Halliwell: -“I want you to meet me at the corner of the Queen’s Mansions at 3 -o’clock this afternoon,” and when Halliwell said he did not know where -they were, she explained that they were at the corner of Rathdown and -Victoria streets. He then got out of the car, and later he met Matthews -at the time and place appointed. She took him to her house, supplied -him with some drink, and then said: “I don’t want you to slip in -anything I told you this morning; why did you tell Piggott you never -made the keys?” Halliwell said: “I was only telling the truth when -I said it.” She then sent him to the Detective Office, where he was -questioned by Piggott and Brophy. When he said he was at the saloon on -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> -the Friday Piggott said: “No, it was on the Thursday,” and told him he -was also there on the Saturday, and that the conversation, as indicated -above, took place between him and Ross. Halliwell signed a statement -and left. There is little doubt that statement contains the assertion -that Halliwell was at the saloon on the Thursday.</p> - -<p>The simple fact that Halliwell was in the saloon on the Friday, and -could not have failed to see the murdered girl had she been there, -was put before the Court of Criminal Appeal on affidavit. In reply, -Detective Brophy filed an affidavit that Halliwell, before the trial, -called at the Detective Office and informed Detective Piggott and -himself that Stanley and Ronald Ross wanted him to swear that he was -in the saloon with Colin Ross when they closed the place on the night -of Friday, December 30. Brophy said to him: “Were you there?” and -Halliwell replied: “No, but they wanted me to say so, and I am not -going to commit perjury.” Nothing was said in the affidavit as to -whether or not he gave a signed statement to the police, but if he -did it is not clear why he should have been got to sign a statement -that he was in the saloon on the Thursday (which could have been of -no affirmative use to the police), unless he had said something about -being there on the Friday. The fact remains that he was never called -as a witness by the Crown, which proves that he was not prepared to -assist the Crown case. He was not called for the defence for two -reasons—firstly, because the statement he had signed effectually -prevented him being called; and, secondly, because, when seen at the -court, he told Ross’s solicitor that “what he had to say he would say -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> -in the box.” When it was too late, Halliwell was willing to make -amends, and was firm in his assertion that he was in the saloon on the -Friday afternoon, as stated above.</p> - -<p>The important part of Halliwell’s declaration, however, is not his -backing and filling as to whether or not he was in the saloon on the -Friday, but whether, on January 9, Ivy Matthews was taking an active -part, in co-operation with the detectives, in getting evidence against -Ross. This was not mentioned in Halliwell’s declaration as laid before -the court, but was in the declaration put before the Cabinet. If she -was not, then Halliwell should have been prosecuted for perjury; if she -was, then Piggott’s evidence may remain literally true, that Matthews -never gave a statement to the police; but its effect was to convey a -wrong impression as to the part which Matthews took in making a case -against Ross. It will be noted that there is a curious resemblance -between the account which Maddox gives of the conversation she had with -Ross on Thursday, Jan. 5, and the conversation which Halliwell swears -he was asked to say took place on Saturday, December 31, between him -and Ross. In neither case was there a direct admission, but in each -there was the suggestion that Ross knew all about the tragedy if he -would only speak.</p> - -<p>There is another fact which shows that Ivy Matthews gave more -information to the detectives than the evidence given in court would -suggest. In her evidence at the inquest Matthews said that, when she -was conversing with Stanley, she said: “Where is Colin?”—an unlikely -thing, since she was not on speaking terms with Colin. Stanley said -(according to her): “He is not well; he has gone home.” Immediately -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> -after, she said, she heard Colin laugh, and she said to Stanley: “I -thought Colin was not in?” Stanley said (according to her): “He must -have come in by the other door.” In his supplementary statement, made -on January 5, which was taken down in answer to questions, Colin Ross -said: “I was home all day Thursday—I was not well. I did not leave the -shop on Friday and say that I was ill. I was not away from the saloon -on the afternoon of Friday. I can give no reason why my brother should -say I was ill.” From this it is clear that on or prior to January 5 Ivy -Matthews had told the detectives, whatever else she told them, that -Stanley had said that Colin was away ill on the Friday.</p> - -<h3>MADDOX IN THE SALOON.</h3> - -<p>Another very important thing is now known which was not known on the -trial. It concerns Olive Maddox’s visit to the saloon on the afternoon -of Friday, December 30, when she is supposed to have seen Alma -Tirtschke in the beaded room with a glass before her. (At this time, -according to the Harding confession, the little girl was asleep in the -cubicle.) Maddox, it will be remembered, said that, when she went into -the saloon on that afternoon, at five minutes past 5, there were two -girls whom she knew in the parlour, and one whom she did not know. She -left, she said, at a quarter past 5, and returned to the saloon at five -minutes to 6, but did not see either Colin or the little girl on that -visit. The girl whom Maddox did not know came forward voluntarily after -Ross had been condemned. She went out on the Saturday night of his -conviction to Ross’s house at Maidstone and told what she knew. She was -brought to Ross’s solicitor on the Monday, and made a statement as to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> -what took place in the saloon on the fatal Friday afternoon. Her name -need not now be mentioned. Suffice it to say she is a respectable girl, -a tailoress by occupation, who has never been out of employment a day -during the three years she has been in Melbourne. She has no relatives -in Melbourne, and she used occasionally to go to the wine shop because -it was in a quiet spot, and as she was on holidays at the time she -remained on this occasion for over an hour, arriving before 5 and -stopping until after 6. She was there when Maddox came in at about 5 -o’clock, and she is positive that Alma Tirtschke was not in the saloon -at the time. Maddox was under the influence of drink, and was talking -excitedly to her two friends. The tailoress sat listening to her, but -taking no part in the conversation, and, indeed, refusing to be drawn -into it.</p> - -<p>Maddox’s story that she left soon after coming in, and returned shortly -before 6, is not true, the tailoress says—her stay was unbroken. -This girl was cross-examined by Ross’s advisers before she made her -declaration, and she remained unshaken in her story. If Maddox’s -evidence is fabricated, her reason for saying that she left the place -for three-quarters of an hour is obvious. It saves her having to -explain how the murdered girl got out of the room and where she went -to. This evidence of the tailoress was rejected by the Full Court on -the ground that it was not shown that it could not have been procured -on the trial. It was dismissed by the Attorney-General as evidence that -“would not, and ought not,” to have affected the jury. It is hard to -follow this observation, since if the declaration were true it proved -that the main part of the case against Ross was false. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span></p> - -<h3>OTHER NEW WITNESSES.</h3> - -<p>There were other persons about the saloon on the Friday afternoon -who are equally confident that the little girl was not there. When -interrogated by the detectives on the 5th, Ross was asked who was in -his wine bar when he came there on December 30, and he mentioned the -name of a man named Allen, and a woman whom he did not know, but who, -he said, was ordered out of the saloon by Detective Lee. Allen was one -of those whom the defence was anxious to call as a new witness. Every -effort to locate him before the trial failed. After the trial he was -found. He says that he went into the saloon first about a quarter to 2, -and saw there a man named Edwards and two other men. He remained for -some time, then left, and returned again about 5 o’clock, remaining -until 6. He spoke frequently to Colin Ross, heard him talking to -Gladys Wain in the cubicle, but saw nothing of any girl answering the -description of Alma Tirtschke. As many as fifteen and twenty people, -he says, were in the bar at the one time during his stay. One of the -men he saw was Thomas William Jordon. Jordon says that he came in about -a quarter past 3, and remained until 4 o’clock. He, too, saw Victor -McLoughlin, Allen, and Edwards. He talked with Ross frequently, saw him -talking to others, and is confident that there was no little girl in -the saloon during the time he was there. On January 5, the day after -Ross was first interrogated at the Detective Office, he went to the -Detective Office and told Piggott and Brophy what he knew. This was not -denied in Detective Brophy’s affidavit. When Piggott was in the witness -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> -box he was asked as to this interview, but the question was disallowed, -and Jordon was not called as a witness for the defence. Herbert Victor -Edwards and Victor McLoughlin were both prepared to bear out this -evidence. These four young men, though acquainted, were not of the one -party. They came at different times. Some were there for an unbroken -period, and some left and returned, but between them they covered the -whole afternoon. They all knew Ivy Matthews, and none of them saw her, -or saw Ross leave the saloon, as Matthews said he did. Two of them sat -on the form, with their backs to the flimsy cubicle for some time, and -they are confident that, even if the little girl had been asleep in -that room, they would have heard her breathing or moving.</p> - -<p>The line of the Crown case indicated that the detective’s view was -that those witnesses were talking of the Thursday, and not the Friday. -Detective Piggott, in perfect honesty, no doubt, tried to establish -that fact early in the investigations. On the day that Ross was -arrested he said to him (inter alia), according to his evidence: “You -told me (on January 5) that Detectives Saker and Lee had put a woman -out of your bar on the Friday.” Ross replied: “So they did.” Brophy, -Lee, and Saker were present, and Piggott said to Lee: “Did you put a -woman out of the bar on Friday?” Lee said: “No,” and Piggott said: “How -do you know?” Lee replied: “Because Saker was with me, and Saker was -on leave on the Friday.” Piggott then said to Ross: “Do you recognise -those as the two men who put the woman out?” and he said: “Yes.” -Piggott said: “But Lee says that Saker was on leave on the Friday,” and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> -Ross replied: “Well, I must have been making a mistake; it must have -been the Thursday.”</p> - -<p>Now, it must be borne in mind that this was a conversation recalling -the incidents of a fortnight previously. Piggott was not necessarily -verbally accurate, and Ross, being under arrest, may have allowed -himself to be “led” into his answers. The first thing to notice is that -Piggott was wrong when he said: “You told me that Detectives Saker and -Lee had put a woman out.” What Ross said, according to Piggott’s own -account of what took place on the 5th, was that “Detective Lee” ordered -her out. Saker’s name was not mentioned. But if Ross had been a guilty -man, his answers would have been all ready prepared, and his candid -admission, “I must have been making a mistake; it must have been the -Thursday,” points to his candour rather than to his cunning.</p> - -<p>There was no opportunity of cross-examining either Lee or Saker as to -the date on which they were there, for neither was called as a witness, -but there is every reason to believe that the mistake was made by them, -and not by Ross. One of the four men mentioned above, who saw the -incident, was questioned later on as to the possibility of a mistake. -He had come from the wharf, where he had been on board a ship sailing -that day, and had come thence to the saloon, and he maintains (and -he maintains it in circumstances which can leave no room to impugn -his honesty) that there is not the slightest doubt as to the day that -he was at the saloon. One of the others had come from his factory at -Fitzroy, after it had closed for the week, and though he did not see -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> -the incident, he saw the other men, and he is equally confident that it -was the Friday, and not the Thursday.</p> - -<h3>THE CROWN’S NEW EVIDENCE.</h3> - -<p>When the agitation was on foot for Ross’s reprieve the Attorney-General -was reported to have said that he was in possession of evidence which -would convict Ross in five minutes. That statement was officially -denied, but it was always maintained that the Crown were, after the -trial, put in possession of facts which were most damaging against -Ross. All that the present writer can say as to that is this, that he -was made acquainted with the facts in the possession of the Government, -and that those facts were not such as would have the slightest weight -with him in confirming the guilt of Ross.</p> - -<p>It has further been publicly said that Ross wrote to Ivy Matthews a -letter which incriminated him, and that Mrs. Ross called on her and -begged her not to use the letter. Matthews is said to have given the -promise not to use it, and in consequence of the visit to have torn it -up. This has appeared in print, but whether Matthews herself ever said -it the present writer does not profess to know. Matthews’s character -was bitterly assailed, both at the inquest and on the trial, and she -never even hinted at such a letter. That she should have destroyed -it, if she received it, is incredible, and Mrs. Ross’s answer to the -allegation that she ever waited on Matthews has already been given in -her own words.</p> - -<p class="space-below2">Harding, too, is said to have received from -Ross, while Ross was awaiting execution, a letter which impliedly -admitted his guilt, and he, too, is supposed to have torn it up. In -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> -the witness box Harding was attacked for what he is—the most oily -and odious scoundrel that ever polluted a court of justice. If he had, -or had ever received, a letter from Ross which would have done anything -to rehabilitate his tattered reputation, he would have used it. But, -in fact, there is in Melbourne one man at least whose lightest word -would carry more weight than Harding’s most solemn oath, who knows that -Ross did write a letter to Harding, knows its contents, and knows that, -so far from it containing an implied admission of guilt, it contained -exactly the opposite.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/illo_01.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="104" /> -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span></p> -<div class="chapter"> - <h2 class="nobreak">PART V.<br />⸻<br />THE DEFENCE.</h2> -</div> - -<p>As has already been said, the purpose of this review is not to set out -the evidence on either side and ask the public to weigh it. That was -the function of the jury, and if they did their work unskilfully there -is no redress in this world. The main purpose has been to set out the -Crown case, and to show, by an analysis of it, that Ross’s guilt could -not, as a matter of logic, be deduced from it with the certainty which -the law requires in criminal cases. How far that has been done the -reader must judge.</p> - -<p>None the less it is right to show that Ross, from first to last, did -what was humanly possible to establish his innocence.</p> - -<p>As far as his evidence is concerned, it simply followed the lines -of his written statement made on January 5, and his answers to -questions given on that and other dates. His cross-examination left -him absolutely unshaken as to his story, though it has to be admitted -that his demeanour in the box, his unveiled hostility to the police, -his direct allegations against them, his blunt affirmation that what -Harding knew he had been told by “the coppers,” and his assertion that -the hairs on the blanket had been put there by the detectives, were not -calculated to make a favourable impression on the jury. He admitted -that he had spoken to Harding about the case, had told Harding that he -was in prison to keep the public’s mouth closed, and had mentioned to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span> -him that he was with “his girl” that afternoon and evening, but he -denied strongly that he had ever confessed to Harding. He said, also, -that he knew Harding’s reputation as a “shelf,” and defined a “shelf” -as a man who not merely tells tales on prisoners, but makes them up -as well—a man “who hears one thing and builds on it.” It is well, -however, that Ross’s outline of his movements, both on the fatal day -and on January 5, when he is supposed to have made damaging admissions -to Olive Maddox during a chance meeting at Jolimont, should be -recapitulated in order to see how it was borne out by the long string -of witnesses who were called to support him.</p> - -<h3>ROSS IN THE BOX.</h3> - -<p>Ross said that when he got into the saloon at about 2 o’clock on the -Friday, he saw there, besides his brother Stanley and others, two -men named Albert Allen and Lewis. He did not see Ivy Matthews that -afternoon, and had not seen her since a couple of days before his trial -for robbery under arms in the November previous. He did see a little -girl “answering the description” of Alma Tirtschke. It should be borne -in mind, in view of Ross’s dying speech, that that was the furthest -he ever went, viz., that he saw a girl, between 14 and 15 years of -age, whose dress answered the description of Alma, but he never spoke -to her, and she had never been in his saloon. She was, when he saw -her first, walking towards Bourke Street, and at his next glance was -looking in the window of a fancy goods shop next to Madame Ghurka’s. -He remained about the saloon all the afternoon, talked to Gladys Wain -for a long time, made an appointment with her to meet him again at 9 -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> -o’clock, and left the saloon about ten minutes past 6. He then went -home. When he got home about 7 he met his eldest brother, Ronald, -coming out of the gate. At home he met his mother and his brother Tom, -with whom he had tea. He cleaned himself up, and left home again with -his brother Tom about 8. They went by the tram to Footscray, and saw -and spoke to Mrs. Kee and George Dawsey on the tram. The brothers took -the train together at Footscray, and Tom left him at North Melbourne, -to go to his (Tom’s) wife’s people, the Ballantynes, at West Melbourne. -He got to the Eastern Arcade about a quarter to 9, and waited about -the Little Collins Street entrance until a little after 9, when he -was joined by Gladys Wain. They went into the saloon, and remained -there until half-past 10 or a quarter to 11. They came out into -Little Collins Street, went along Russell Street to Lonsdale Street, -along Lonsdale Street to King Street, where they remained talking for -about ten minutes, close to the girl’s home. He left her at about ten -minutes past 11, and went to Spencer Street, where he took train to -Footscray. He got to Footscray about fourteen minutes to 12. He there -took the tram, and on the tram he met a friend named Herbert Studd, -who introduced him to a man named James Patterson. He got off the -tram at the terminus, and walked from the terminus to his home with -a young fellow named Frederick George Bradley, who was a very casual -acquaintance living further along in Ross’s street. He reached home -about 12, his mother being still up. He went almost straight into the -room, where his brother Ronald was in bed, but awake, and went to bed. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> -He never left his room that night. His brother, Tom, who was working in -the neighbourhood, and had come back for breakfast, came into the room -about twenty minutes to 7 next morning. He himself had breakfast later -on with his mother and Ronald. He then went in to the Arcade, where he -was told by Stanley of the murder, and was later on interviewed by the -detectives. To them he gave offhand this account of his movements, not -with all these details as to meetings with persons, but exactly the -same account of his main doings on the previous day and night. Stanley, -in the meantime, had given to the detectives his own account of his -own and Colin’s movements, and it exactly corresponded with Colin’s -account, so far as the movements of the two impinged on one another. -In addition to that, the detectives later saw Gladys Wain and got her -independent account, and it, too, exactly coincided with Ross’s account.</p> - -<p>Turning to his movements on January 5, Ross said that he was seen by -the detectives at 11 a.m., and detained until 7 p.m. About that there -is no doubt. From the Detective Office he went to Mrs. Linderman’s -(Gladys Wain’s mother), in King Street, saw there the Linderman family, -Mrs. Kennedy, his own mother, and Mrs. Tom Ross, his sister-in-law, -Mrs. Kennedy and his mother arriving soon after him. His mother and -Mrs. Kennedy left before him to go down to the “Age” Office. Mrs. Tom -Ross also left to go to the house of her mother (Mrs. Ballantyne), -some twenty minutes’ walk away, and about 9 he left and went to -Ballantyne’s, where he remained, with several others, until about -half-past 10, when he left, with his brother Stanley and others, to -catch the train at North Melbourne. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p> - -<h3>STRONG CORROBORATION.</h3> - -<p>Stanley Gordon Ross said that Colin arrived at the saloon about 2 -o’clock on Friday, December 30. He remembered Allen being there at the -time, sitting in the corner, and Lewis coming in a little after. Ivy -Matthews he had not seen that afternoon, and had not spoken to since -about eight or ten days before Christmas. No girl answering to the -description of Alma Tirtschke was in the saloon that afternoon, or -could possibly have been there without him seeing her. His brother was -talking at the door for a good while that afternoon, the first person -he noticed him talking to being a lady in an Assam coat, whose name he -gave. Shortly after 4 o’clock he noticed Colin talking to Gladys Wain, -and about 5 Gladys came into the “cubicle” (though he had never heard -it called by that name before), and remained for about ten minutes or -a quarter of an hour. He remained in the bar until about 6 o’clock, -or a little after, and Colin left before him. Stanley then locked up, -went and had tea at the Commercial Cafe, in Elizabeth Street, had a -shave, and came back into the Arcade at about half-past 7, and got the -lavatory key. He went to the lavatory and returned the key soon after. -There was no person in the saloon at this time. He returned to the -saloon on the following morning, and opened it up according to custom, -swept and scrubbed it out, and saw no signs of it having been scrubbed -on the previous night. Early in the forenoon he was seen by Piggott and -Brophy, who gave him, so he says (though this is denied by Piggott) a -description of the dress worn by the murdered girl, a description which -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> -he, in turn, gave to Colin when Colin arrived soon after. Stanley and -Colin were not, at the time, living in the same house, and between 6 -o’clock on the Friday night and Colin’s arrival at the saloon on the -Saturday morning they had not seen one another.</p> - -<p>It is noteworthy that Stanley gave a full account of his movements to -the detectives before they had seen Colin. The evidence he gave exactly -agreed with the statement, except that he told the detectives that he -got back to the saloon on the Friday evening at about 7, whereas in -his evidence he said it was about half-past 7. He explained this very -slight discrepancy by saying that he spoke offhand to the police, but -that, on reckoning up afterwards the time he had spent having tea and -the time he was in the barber’s saloon, he thought it would be about -half-past 7 when he returned to the saloon. The cross-examination of -Stanley on this point was directed to show that he had made the time -half-past 7 because he had heard in the meantime that the witness -Alberts had sworn that he saw Colin Ross in the Arcade at half-past 7. -This was another of the incidents that pointed to the honesty of the -evidence for Ross. Counsel for the defence were under the impression, -owing to some misapprehension, that the answer to Alberts’s evidence -was that he had spoken to Stanley, and had mistaken him for Colin, the -two brothers being very much alike. Alberts, therefore, was not very -strongly cross-examined on the point. He was given permission, after -his evidence had been taken, to leave the court, as he had to go to New -South Wales. In his evidence-in-chief Stanley was asked: “Did you talk -to any person in the Arcade?” (when he returned at half-past 7). The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> -unexpected answer was “No.” Alberts could not then be got for further -cross-examination. But if the Rosses had desired to make a case on this -point, they could have easily done so by getting Stanley to say that it -was he who had asked Alberts for the lead pencil.</p> - -<p>Turning to the events of January 5, Stanley said that, pursuant to a -message left for him where he was boarding, he went to the Detective -Office about a quarter to 7, and found that Colin was still there. He -went by train to Footscray, and he came back to Ballantyne’s, in West -Melbourne (the family of Mrs. Tom Ross), at about half-past 9. There -he met Colin and several other persons, and about half-past 10 he and -Colin and two others left the house for Footscray.</p> - -<p>Mrs. Elizabeth Campbell Ross, the mother, said she remembered her son -leaving home on Friday, December 30, after lunch. At about 7 that night -he came home for tea. Her eldest son, Ronald, her married son, Tom, and -herself had had tea when he arrived. She got him his tea, and he left -the house afterwards with Tom. She herself left home, and went down -to Footscray to do some shopping, it being the late shopping night. -She returned at about 10, Ronald arrived soon after, and Colin came in -at midnight and went to bed. She locked up the house and went to bed, -Colin then being in his own and his brother’s room. She got up at 6, to -get Tom’s breakfast at 7, and she closed the door of her son’s room, -as Ronald was a sufferer from malaria, and a light sleeper. Colin and -Ronald were then both in bed. She got them their breakfast later on, -and Colin left to go to the cafe.</p> - -<p>On Thursday, January 5, the detectives called and took Colin away at -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> -about 11 a.m. At about 7 o’clock, Mrs. Ross said, accompanied by her -son Tom, she went to the Detective Office, calling at Mrs. Linderman’s -on the way. At the Detective Office they were told that Colin had just -been released. They returned to Mrs. Linderman’s, and saw there the -people mentioned in Colin’s evidence. She and Mrs. Kennedy, in about an -hour’s time, went to the “Age” Office, and from there she went home.</p> - -<h3>AN UNBROKEN PHALANX.</h3> - -<p>It is needless to set out in detail the evidence called to support -the story told by the three foregoing witnesses. Suffice it to say -that Tom Ross, Ronald Ross, Gladys Wain, Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Kee, Oscar -Dawsey, Herbert Studd, James Patterson, F. G. Bradley, Mrs. Tom Ross, -Mrs. Linderman, and Miss Alice Ballantyne were all called, and each -testified to his or her own portion of the story. There were some -persons at Ballantyne’s house on Thursday, January 5, who were not -called, for the reason that the evidence seemed overwhelming that -Colin Ross was at Ballantyne’s soon after 9 on that date. They would -have been called had it been known that Olive Maddox was going to say -that it was about half-past 9 that she saw Colin at Jolimont. But that -was not said until after the case for the defence was closed. The -Crown Prosecutor then asked leave to recall Olive Maddox to get from -her the time that she said she met Ross at Jolimont. She had been in -court while the evidence for the defence was being given, and knew its -effect. Being recalled, she was questioned as follows:—</p> - -<p>Mr. Macindoe: Do you remember the 5th January last—you told us you saw -the accused that night?—Yes.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> -What time was it?—It may have been—it was—any time after 10 to -half-past 10, when I first seen him.</p> - -<p>From 10 to half-past 10!—From 9 to half-past 9—any time until then.</p> - -<p>Assuming, however, that Maddox got into the box intending to say that -the time was from 9 to half-past 9, and merely made a slip, it will -be noticed that the time she fixes is significant. It only conflicts -with the witnesses who deposed to seeing Ross at Ballantyne’s, and -is consistent with the testimony of those who swore to seeing him at -Linderman’s, for it was possible, apart from the evidence, that Ross, -after leaving Linderman’s, went to Jolimont. The inherent improbability -that, after having been detained for eight hours by the police, and -questioned about the tragedy, he should have gone to Jolimont, and -should have happened, when there, to meet quite accidentally, one of -the only two people in the world who say they saw the child in the -saloon, would still stand out, even if the poor street-stroller’s -testimony were not confuted by a host of unbroken and unshaken -witnesses.</p> - -<p>It is not going too far to describe the whole of the evidence for -the defence as unbroken and unshaken. The test to which it was -subjected was remarkable. The other witnesses were all out of court -while a particular witness was being examined. Some deposed to all -the time covered by Ross, some to part only. Their evidence locked -and interlocked in a remarkable way. All were ably and severely -cross-examined, but with the exception of one slight disagreement as -to which two of three blankets were in the saloon—a natural mistake, -seeing that all the blankets were of the same type, though differing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span> -slightly in colour—not the smallest flaw was revealed in the story -told by any of them. It is true that Ross swore that, when he and -Gladys Wain were in the saloon on the Friday night, the lights were out -some of the time, whereas Gladys Wain swore they were alight “every -minute of the time,” but Gladys Wain knew what Ross had sworn on the -point, and she went into the box insisting on her right to put her own -account of the matter. It was not a case of revealing a conflict by -cross-examination.</p> - -<p>The different pieces of evidence were like a mosaic which, when put -together, form a complete and harmonious pattern. From its nature it -was full of pitfalls if concocted. The Crown Prosecutor skilfully -searched the witnesses to find some break in the completed pattern, but -failed signally to do so, and the whole story stood, as every one of -the witnesses stood, absolutely unimpeached before the jury. But the -weakness seems to have been in the jury rather than in the story.</p> - -<p>The criticism usually levelled against an alibi is that the witnesses -are either honestly mistaken about the day or have deliberately taken -the movements of another day and applied them to the vital day. The -alibi, if it can be properly called an alibi, in this case was not -open to either criticism. The Friday was the late shopping night, -just before the New Year. It was a day that could be easily recalled -after the lapse of a week or two. The Thursday following was the day -that Ross had been detained by the detectives for eight hours, and was -not likely to be soon forgotten by the members or friends of the Ross -family. Mrs. Ross could be making no mistake about the day, because it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> -was in regard to her son’s detention that she went to the “Age” Office. -The theory that the wrong day was deliberately chosen by the witnesses -involves the inference that independent witnesses, like Mrs. Kee, Mr. -Dawsey, Mr. Studd, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Bradley, and Mrs. Kennedy, all -took part in a conspiracy with the object of saving a man who, if -guilty, did not deserve to be saved. Anyone who had the advantage of -conferring with them, or of hearing their testimony in the box, could -not fail to be impressed by the story they told.</p> - -<h3>ROSS’S FIRMNESS.</h3> - -<p>As far as Ross himself is concerned, he not merely stoutly maintained -his innocence from the day he was arrested to the day he was hanged, -but his conduct and bearing throughout was that of an innocent man. It -was not tactful or amiable. It was blustering and bad-tempered, and -at times aggressive. But it was, throughout, that of a sullen man, -suffering under a sense of wrong.</p> - -<p>He made a free statement to the police on the day that the body -was recovered, admitting that he had seen a girl answering to the -description of the murdered girl. On January 5, after, or in the course -of, a detention of eight hours, he made a full statement to the police -which was committed to writing. Not one word of that statement is -shown to have been false, by evidence that is worth a moment’s serious -consideration. A great deal of it the police did not dispute. A solid -phalanx of witnesses, as has been shown, was called on the trial to -bear out the statement, and not the smallest flaw was revealed by a -skilful cross-examination in that long chain of evidence. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span></p> - -<p>But more than that, on Thursday, January 6, the day following his eight -hours’ detention and interrogation, like a man suffering from a sense -of wrong and indignity at the questions put to him and the suggestions -made against him, Ross went boldly back to the Detective Office and -said to Piggott: “Who has been saying these things to you about me?” -Piggott said: “I won’t tell you.” “Well, I want to know,” said Ross. -Piggott replied: “Well, you won’t know. I never divulge where I get my -information. Why are you so anxious to know?” “Because,” said Ross, “I -will warm them up,” and he went so far as to tell Piggott that he did -not believe anyone had told him. Piggott himself gave this in evidence. -It was all very foolish and impudent on Ross’s part, no doubt. It was -characteristic of his quite fearless and “cheeky” attitude throughout. -But a guilty man, who had just escaped from an eight-hour ordeal with -the detectives, might surely be expected to keep as far away from -Russell Street as possible.</p> - -<p>Again, on the 12th, the day he was arrested, Ross answered: “That’s -a lie,” “That’s a lie,” to each new allegation made against him. On -the following day he was brought before the Police Court. He was -undefended, and was asked if he had any objection to a remand. “Yes,” -he said, “I don’t require a remand. There is no reason why I should be -here. I can prove my whereabouts on that night. I strongly object to a -remand. I have all my witnesses here.” As he left the dock, remanded, -he called out: “That’s the country’s law,” and then he added, in his -characteristic, blustering tone: “This is a great country, there’s no -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> -doubt about it.” It may have been all simulated, but it did not sound -like simulated indignation.</p> - -<p>It is worth recording, too, that his mother, unable to restrain -herself, rose in court that day and said: “I can prove where my son was -that night.”</p> - -<p>On the morning of February 25th he was found guilty of murder. Asked if -he had anything to say why the death sentence should not be pronounced, -he stood forward, and, without a quiver on his lip or in his voice, -he answered: “Yes, sir; I still maintain that I am an innocent man, -and that my evidence is correct. If I am hanged, I will be hanged an -innocent man. My life has been sworn away by desperate people.” He -listened calmly to the death sentence, and repeated: “I am an innocent man.”</p> - -<p>Hanged he duly was, or, rather, he was hanged with more than usual -expedition. Within less than a week of his doom being sealed by the -High Court, a special meeting of the Cabinet was called, and his -execution was fixed to take place in a fortnight. The Government, -notwithstanding strong representations, supported by affidavits of new -facts, declined to allow time for an appeal to the Privy Council. Ross -went to the gallows. He was attended by his minister throughout, and -he accepted the ministrations in the most worthy spirit. But he never -wavered for a moment in his profession of innocence, either to his -minister or to his solicitor. Standing on the scaffold, with the rope -around his neck, he delivered a final protestation of his innocence in -words which have rung through Australia. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span></p> - -<p class="blockquot2">“<b>I am now face to face with my Maker</b>,” he -said, “<b>and I swear by Almighty God that I am an innocent man. I -never saw the child. I never committed the crime, and I don’t know who -did it. I never confessed to anyone. I ask God to forgive those who -swore my life away, and I pray God to have mercy on my poor, darling -mother and my family.</b>”</p> - -<p>Some sticklers for accuracy, who have never made a public speech, and -who, it may be hoped, will not have to make a start with a hangman’s -rope around their neck, and the gallows for a platform, have fastened -on to the words, “I never saw the girl,” as being the assertion of -an untruth. Ross signed a statement that he saw a girl answering the -description of Alma Tirtschke; he went into the witness box and swore -that he had seen such a girl. The words, therefore, at the worst, could -only mean, and could only be read by an intelligent man as meaning, -that he had never spoken to the girl or seen her otherwise than as he -had already said. He was not given much time for correction, or for -second thoughts, because within a moment or two of uttering the words -he had passed to eternity.</p> - -<p>But it is now known that Ross’s words were deliberately chosen, and -that he meant to tell the world with his dying breath that he never, as -far as he knew, set eyes on Alma Tirtschke. That being his intention, -his actual words, it must be admitted, went too far, or not far enough, -for from the description he gave of the girl, combined with the other -facts, it appears certain that the girl he saw and described was Alma -Tirtschke. But that he did not mean to recede from the position he had -all along taken up seems so clear as to be beyond the realm of argument -or the reach of adverse comment. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span></p> - -<h3>ROSS AND HIS FAMILY.</h3> - -<p>Cowards, who have sought to steel their consciences against the effects -of Ross’s dying speech, have circulated the story that Ross’s brother -begged him, whatever he did, not to make a confession on the scaffold. -It is part of the same policy of easing the public conscience as the -base and baseless statements about the letters written to Harding -before his execution and to Matthews before his trial. The story of the -farewell injunction to the brother can be most fittingly described as a -dastardly lie. Whether Ross be guilty or innocent, the brothers never -wavered in their belief in his innocence. The idea of a confession -would never be present to the minds of any of them.</p> - -<p class="space-below1">There was another thing Ross did on the last -night of his life which has affected many people even more than his -dying speech. His family, including his mother, took farewell of him on -the Sunday afternoon. When they had left him, when all hope of mercy -was gone, he sat down in his cell and wrote to his mother a letter -which was not delivered to her, and was not intended to be delivered -to her, until after his death. It is well worth giving, because it -is so strongly in accord with the attitude he maintained throughout. -It is almost impossible to believe that it is a tremendous piece of -hypocrisy. The letter was as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> -<p>“Good-bye, my darling mother and brothers. On this, the last night -of my life, I want to tell you that I love you all more than ever. Do -not fear for to-morrow, for I know God will be with me. Try to forgive -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> -my enemies—let God deal with them. I want you, dear mother, and Ronald, -to thank all the friends who have been so kind to you and me during -our trouble. I have received nothing but kindness since I have been -in gaol. Say good-bye to Gladdie for me, and I wish for her a happy -life. Dear ones, do not fret too much for me. The day is coming when my -innocence will be proved. Good-bye, all my dear ones. Some day you will -meet again your loving son and brother.</p> - -<p class="author">“COLIN, x x x x x x x x x x”</p> -</div> - -<p>Ross has been described as inscrutable, and his conduct as puzzling. -His firmness or obstinacy—it has been called indifferently either—has -been criticised as suggesting a curious nature. But Ross and his -conduct are only inscrutable if one starts with the assumption that he -was a guilty man. Concede that he was innocent, and everything that he -did, or said, or failed to say, not merely ceases to be inscrutable, -but becomes quite natural. It is that, amongst other things, which has -caused the widespread feeling that his life has been “sworn away by -desperate people.”</p> - -<h3>IS THE MYSTERY SOLVED?</h3> - -<p>If Ross is innocent, the mystery of the death of Alma Tirtschke -remains. It was, however, no part of Ross’s duty to solve it. In -this connection it is doubtful whether sufficient attention has been -ever paid to the evidence tendered by Joseph Thomas Graham. He is a -cab driver by occupation, middle-aged, respectable, intelligent, and -thoroughly level-headed. On Friday afternoon, December 30, at about -half-past 3, he was in Little Collins Street, nearly opposite the Adam -and Eve lodging-house, when his attention was arrested by a series of -heartrending screams coming apparently from a young girl. They became -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> -higher in pitch as they succeeded one another, to the number of five or -six, and then they died away. They were so noticeable that Graham and a -man on the opposite side of the street both stopped and listened, but -as the screams faded out each man went about his business. On or about -Saturday, January 7, Graham saw a notice in the paper saying that, as -the girl had been throttled, she was probably throttled to stop her -screams, and asking anyone who had heard screams to communicate with -the Detective Office. He went on the Monday to the Detective Office -and reported what he had heard, but his reception does not appear to -have been sympathetic. Graham was never called at the inquest. The -police explanation is that he was not sure whether it was Thursday or -Friday that he heard the screams, and that, in any case, he placed them -as coming from higher up Little Collins Street. Neither explanation -can be accepted, for Graham was absolutely definite as to his every -movement on the Friday, and absolutely definite as to time and place. -An absurd story was told by Detective Brophy about making inquiries in -the neighbourhood, and learning of some child that had a reputation for -screaming, as though an intelligent man could not tell the difference -between the bad-tempered screaming of a naughty child and the agonised -death screams of an adolescent girl. When Ross was condemned Graham -went to his solicitor and repeated his story. That was the first the -defence knew of it. The Full Court heard his evidence, but it declined -to allow a jury to hear it.</p> - -<p class="space-below3">Whether it would have had any effect on the jury can now -be only a matter of conjecture. There is this to be said of it, however, that it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> -fits in with the medical evidence, for it suggests a struggle, and -the medical evidence of the abrasions suggests a struggle. It fits -in, also, with all we know of Alma Tirtschke’s nature. The fact must -be faced that, if the Matthews confession is true, the girl was not -what her relatives believed her. She boldly went to Ross, and boldly -remained in Ross’s saloon for three hours, like a pert and forward -youngster, not to put it any further. If it comes to a choice, most -people will prefer to think of the child as good and innocent and -retiring, rather than to accept anything to the contrary which comes -unsupported from the lips of Ivy Matthews. If the Harding confession is -accepted the matter is very little better, for you then have the girl -walking deliberately back into the Arcade after she was seen in Little -Collins Street by the Youngs, accepting the invitation of a stranger -to come into his wine saloon, and taking wine at his hands—wine of -which no trace could be found when the stomach was opened less than -eighteen hours afterwards. The attractive feature of Graham’s evidence, -if the screams he heard were connected with Alma Tirtschke, is that it -allows us to think of the little girl as we would all like to think of -her—pure, innocent, and modest. That little girl met her death, in all -human probability, within a few minutes of the time she was last seen -alive by the Youngs, she met it in some place which was much handier to -Gun Alley than Ross’s wine saloon, and she met it in a house provided -with a fireplace or other conveniences for disposing of incriminating -evidence. If anyone would like to see one other improbability in -connection with the Crown case against Ross, he should visit the Little -Collins Street entrance of the Arcade by night, and ask himself whether -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> -it is likely that any man would carry the dead body of a murdered child -such a long distance up a brilliantly lighted thoroughfare even at 1 -o’clock in the morning.</p> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/illo_02.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="215" /> -</div> - -<hr class="chap" /> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span></p> -<div class="chapter"><h2 class="nobreak">APPENDIX.</h2></div> - -<p>During the progress of the trial numberless letters, anonymous and -bearing signatures, were received by Ross’s legal advisers. They were -of all classes—helpful criticism, incoherent comment, threatening, -laudatory, and censorious. One received on the eve of Ross’s execution, -with a covering note asking that it should be handed to him, and saying -that it would have been sent direct only the writer had doubts whether -the prison regulations would allow Ross to get it, bore on its face -some suggestion of genuineness. No one, of course, can say definitely, -but the letter may perhaps be given as possessing some public interest. -The envelope bore the postmark of a small country town, but there was -nothing otherwise to indicate whence or from whom it came. With the -elision of a sentence or two, rather Zola-esque for publication, it was -as follows:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot space-below3"> -<p class="no-indent">“Colin C. Ross,<br />  “Melbourne Gaol.</p> - -<p>“You have been condemned for a crime which you have never committed, -and are to suffer for another’s fault. Since your conviction you have, -no doubt, wondered what manner of man the real murderer is who could -not only encompass the girl’s death, but allow you to suffer in his stead.</p> - -<p>“My dear Ross, if it is any satisfaction for you to know it, believe -me that you die but once, but he will continue to die for the rest of -his life. Honoured and fawned upon by those who know him, the smile -upon his lips but hides the canker eating into his soul. Day and night -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> -his life is a hell without the hope of reprieve. Gladly would he take -your place on Monday next if he had himself alone to consider. His -reason, then, briefly stated, is this: A devoted and loving mother -is ill—a shock would be fatal. Three loving married sisters, whose -whole life would be wrecked, to say nothing of brothers who have been -accustomed to take him as a pattern. He cannot sacrifice these. Himself -he will sacrifice when his mother passes away. He will do it by his own -hand. He will board the ferry across the Styx with a lie on his lips, -with the only hope that religion is a myth and death annihilation.</p> - -<p>“It is too painful for him to go into the details of the crime. It -is simply a Jekyll and Hyde existence. By a freak of nature, he was not -made as other men.... This girl was not the first.... With a procuress -all things are possible.... In this case there was no intention of -murder—the victim unexpectedly collapsed. The hands of the woman, in -her frenzy, did the rest.</p> - -<p>“May it be some satisfaction to yourself, your devoted mother, and -the members of your family to know that at least one of the legion of -the damned, who is the cause of your death, is suffering the pangs of -hell. He may not ask your forgiveness or sympathy, but he asks your -understanding.”</p> -</div> - -<div class="figcenter"> - <img src="images/illo_03.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="193" /> -</div> -<hr class="chap" /> - -<div class="footnotes space-below2"> - <p class="f150 u"><b>Footnotes:</b></p> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> -The Government reward of £1000 was distributed as follows:—Ivy -Matthews, £350; Sydney John Harding, £200; Olive Maddox, £170; George -Arthur Ellis, £50; Joseph Dunstan, £50; David Alberts, £30; Madame -Ghurka, £25; Maisie Russell, £25; Blanche Edmonds, £20; Muriel Edmonds, -£20; Violet Sullivan, £20; Michaluscki Nicoli, £20; Francisco Anselmi, -£20. A reward of £250 offered by the “Herald” was distributed pro rata. -It was never disclosed, either on the trial or in the press, what the -services rendered by Madame Ghurka or Maisie Russell were.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> -By comparing this question and answer with the statement, it will be -seen that Piggott was slightly in error here. What Ross said was that -it was 4.45 when he and Gladys left the saloon.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> -Ivy Matthews, in June, 1922, reported that a box of clothing, -containing some money which she had ready packed to take to Sydney, had -been stolen. It had been called for by a cabman in her absence, and -taken away. Some weeks afterwards the box was discovered at the railway -station; but about £20 worth of the clothes were missing. That was the -last ever heard—publicly—of the matter. In September, 1922, Harding was -arrested on a charge of indecent language. When his case was called on -next morning at the police court, the prosecuting sergeant said, “The -accused has apologised to the constable; the constable is satisfied, -and wishes to withdraw the charge.” It was withdrawn accordingly. -All offenders do not get so easily out of their troubles, and plain -constables are not, as a rule, allowed to withdraw charges for public -offences. But no doubt Harding was able to say, “I have done the State -some service, and they know it”—with the accent on the “they.”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"><p class="no-indent"> -<a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> -This plan is only approximately to scale. The sloping -wall going in to the doorway is actually not at as sharp an angle as -the plan shows. Each of the big rooms is, over all, 15ft. 10in. x -11ft. 4in. The cubicle occupies 6ft. x 5ft. 5in. of the one room, and -the beaded room occupies 7ft. 6in. x 6ft. 7in. of the other room. The -walls of the beaded room went almost up to the ceiling. There was no -door where the “arch door” is shown, but only a doorway with curtains -hanging in it.</p> -</div></div> - -<div class="transnote bbox"> -<p class="f120 space-above1">Transcriber’s Notes:</p> -<hr class="r5" /> - -<p class="indent">The cover image has been created by the transcriber using elements from - the original publication and placed in the public domain.</p> -<p class="indent">The illustrations have been moved so that they do not break up - paragraphs and so that they are next to the text they illustrate.</p> -<p class="indent">Typographical errors have been silently corrected.</p> -</div> - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Gun Alley Tragedy, by T. C. Brennan - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE GUN ALLEY TRAGEDY *** - -***** This file should be named 62861-h.htm or 62861-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/8/6/62861/ - -Produced by Paul Marshall and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from scans of public domain works at The National -Library of Australia.) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c592534..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/i011.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/i011.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index bddf8be..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/i011.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/i016.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/i016.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f41e246..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/i016.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/i072.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/i072.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d390365..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/i072.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/illo_01.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/illo_01.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b2f384b..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/illo_01.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/illo_02.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/illo_02.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b1426da..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/illo_02.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/62861-h/images/illo_03.jpg b/old/62861-h/images/illo_03.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8170cc8..0000000 --- a/old/62861-h/images/illo_03.jpg +++ /dev/null |
