I won’t be writing on this blog for awhile, too busy with my real purpose to get this case reviewed to an objective standard, something that should have been done decades ago. An article clerk could have seen the trial process was a set up!

You may wish to encourage Nicola Roxon to act in this regard and while you are at it, encourage Craig and Charles to do likewise. If we all work together, truth will be of benefit to all.

I will give you a call for a chat a more efficient use of my time, but write as much as you like on this blog.

Regards

Jim unkles

Regards

Could you kindly restore my post that you deleted from this blog?

Regards,
Andries

Regards

Jim

Andries claim that I selectively quoted from Davey’s book regarding the list of witnesses at the Courts-Martial is incorrect. Following on from what I quoted Davey only went on to say that he corrected the spellings of the names of some of the people mentioned in the two sources.

I’m not sure who “Van Heerden” is. If Andries means van Rooyen then I stand by what I wrote previously:

Andries, contrary to what you claim van Rooyen testified that he saw Heese at 2pm and then “trekked on with his wagon until sundown” when he saw Handcock, who was on foot. By my reckoning that would place Handcock somewhere between 15 and 20 miles from the scene of the murder.

I have no idea where van Rooyen met Handcock – he didn’t say and I certainly wasn’t there. A Google enquiry reveals that sunset in that region at that time of the year is just before 6 p.m. so assuming that he was travelling at about 4-5 mph in his wagon then I calculate that he probably travelled between 15 and 20 miles from Bandolierkop where he met Heese. I would also remind Andries that, according to van Rooyen, Handcock was on foot when he met him so the accessibility of the area on horseback is irrelevant.

Andries, thanks for confirming that it was Rev. Krause who sent Silas’s statement to Colonel Hall.

Keep an eye on the media, for a major announcemnet about the resolution of this case is expected very shortly. Andries et al, including so called historian, Craig Wilcox may also like to reflect on the material they submitted to Robert McClelland and Nicola Rioxon. Here is a suggestion, when one ventures into the realm of law and legal processes, one needs to stick to the law, evidence and facts that can be reasonably inferred from such evidence. That’s what I have done in the work I have done to get this case reviewed. Emotive and partiotic letters may have their place in week end magazines and in books, but they count for nothing in legal submuissions and processes of review. I will be interetsed in testing Charle’s claim about Andries’experiese in the law when the case is reviewed.

I did not “participate in producing” Charles Leach’s book, as a matter of fact I saw the book for the first time after it was completed. You are correctvthat my submission to McClelland is in the book simply as an annexure.

You have again only very selectively qouted Davey re the names of the witnesses at the Courts-Martial.

Talking about wildely inaccurate assertions, where is it that you claim Van Heerden saw Handcock? Please provide farm name or a distance from a landmark if you could. Having been there, and having grown up about 75 km from there, I know how very accessible the area is for someone on horseback.

The Berlin Mission Society documents show that the last sentence in Silas’ statement was: “…I could think of nothing else, than to run home and report the matter to Mr Endeman in Kreuzberg.”

Endeman sent the document to Krause, who sent it to Hall.

It is one of few mistakes that Davey made…

I suppose that like Jim you dispute that Morant was found guilty of the murder of Chris Van Staden (12), and his family?

In his open letter to the Australian Attorney-General, copies of which he emailed to The Australian newspaper and the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 October 2011, Charles Leach wrote:

”Andries Pretorius wrote an outstanding and undoubtedly the best researched assessment ever done on the Courts Martial and submitted it to your office. (This document will appear as an Appendix in my forthcoming book.)”

so I think it is important that readers realise that each time you cite Charles’ book as a reference you are actually citing a source that you participated in producing. I haven’t read Charles Leach’s book so I can only wonder about his glowing recommendation.

I am reluctant to engage further with you on this matter because I’m worried that it will only provoke another round of even more wildly inaccurate assertions that will only serve to prevent the casual reader from gaining a true insight into this affair. However, it is for that reason that I feel compelled to comment on your latest offering with apologies to Jim Unkles for once again hijacking his blog.

In your previous post you directed readers to page 138 of Arthur Davey’s book as proof that van Rooyen placed Handcock near the scene of the murder. This is how The Times reported van Rooyen’s testimony (as reproduced by Davey on page 138 after he corrected misspelled names):

”H. van Rooyen gave evidence as to having spoken to the Rev Mr. Heese on the road about 2 p.m. The witness trekked on with his wagon till sundown, when he saw a man on horseback coming from the direction of Pietersburg. The man turned off the road. Afterwards a man came on foot to the witness. He could not say if it was the same man that he had seen on horseback. The man on foot was Handcock, who advised the witness to push on, as Boers were about.”

As I stated in my previous post this places Handcock a long way from the scene of the murder.

Corporal E.G. Browne’s sworn deposition appears on pages 91-93 of Arthur Davey’s book. In it he makes statements concerning the “6 Boers” case and provides hearsay testimony regarding the “8 Boers”, “3 Boers” and Lt. Hannam shootings. He makes no mention whatsoever about van Rooyen or the shooting of Rev. Heese.

The other comments you attribute to him were actually contained in an unsworn memorandum composed by Trooper R.M. Cochrane who was not stationed at Fort Edward and who does not mention Browne as his source. (Arthur Davey p85) Various writers have described Cochrane’s document as “largely a conglomeration of baseless rumour and trooper scuttlebutt” (Bill Woolmore, “The Bushveldt Carbineers and the Pietersburg Light Horse”, (2002), p112) and “a blend of fact, hearsay and surmise, bears the stamp of hastiness” (Arthur Davey p74)

van Rooyen’s own sworn testimony in the courtroom (as recorded above) is the only believable evidence. Why would he commit perjury?

If you doubt that Silas gave evidence in court then you are saying that The Times correspondent and the Berlin Missionary, Rev. Wedepohl, also lied. By the way, Silas’ statement was sent to Colonel Hall by Rev. Krause, not Rev. Endemann as you claimed. Krause’s covering letter is reproduced in Kit Denton’s “Closed File” (p110).

Following on from the list of witnesses he published on p125-126 without providing a source, Arthur Davey goes on to write: “The names of many of the witnesses were given in the Reuter’s Agency report published in The Times, 17 April 1902 (See No. 78) and in Witton’s Scapegoats.” He couldn’t have made it any clearer how he constructed his list.

If you read my previous post carefully you will see that I didn’t claim that Heese’s body was found by Rev. Endemann. The party that Endemann either accompanied or sent found Heese’s buggy and they collected up most of his belongings which were later handed in to the military. Handcock reported finding a few remaining items near the buggy and he also listed Heese’s possessions, mostly the clothes he was wearing, found with his body about 300 yards away. Interestingly, he also reported that there were “three rugs thrown on the body”. Handcock’s report indicates that he initiated a wide search to locate Heese’s remains. I still fail to see how this report implicates him in the shooting. The report simply proves that he was sent to investigate and that he did a thorough and conscientious job.

The bold in my previous post is not what I intended, apologies for that too.