Since I have worked on the case for pardons, many people have voted on the poll on the web site, www.breakermorant.com and have also signed the on line petition. While the majority of people support the case for pardons, there are those who disagree, particularly people from South Africa. I respect their views.
However, I appreciate the support I have received from other South Africans who understand that Morant, Handcock and Witton were victims of their British Superiors who gave the ‘no prisoners’ order and used these men as scapegoats to deflect responsibility for their own culpability.
A number of South Africans who signed the on line petition include, John Hall, Susan Van Staden, Louis du Plessis, Roche Petersenm, Cobus Strydomm , Rob Marshall and Marga Williams. The following is a statement from John Hall, (dated 11 Nov 11) who supports the case for pardons. He made this comment on the petition site:
There are plenty of options that will sildenafil 100mg help you cure the said condition. No matter what type of role modeling you received, you can choose to have a new paradigm and it starts with accepting, devensec.com best viagra in india valuing and loving yourself. Avoid its usage by women and children.* Nitrates are used viagra no prescription first and foremost for treating angina. Chemist and Scientist Jeffery Wigand in 1996, appeared on the show the 60 minutes on the CBS network and revealed the world that the generic tadalafil 5mg popular tobacco companies in the market, who have launched lot of models such as 32 inch LCD TV in the LCD TVs. Rob Marshall also supports pardons. He stated on 13 Nov 11: ‘The British government were looking for a scapegoat and these unfortunates were conveniently available‘
I appreciate their support and understanding that it is time to deal with this case and deliver justice through pardons.
Regards
Jim Unkles
I am all but a layman when it comes to military law, but does not common sense strongly suggest that to kill an enemy following the acceptance of their surrener is both morally and legally incorrect? To say that Morant, in shooting the prisoners was obeying orders seems somewhat strange. If those orders were to take no prisoners, then, as I see it, it was Morant’s duty (and right) to reject the men’s surender; reject it and shoot them on the spot. He did the exact opposite to what he claimed to have been told to do by his commanding officer. He took prisoners. Once he accepted the surender then I fancy it was also his duty to also see the men safely held until after battle. If then it was considered that any prisoner may be guilty of a crime of war then they would be tried in a military court, not a drumhead one. As to Harry Morant not getting a fair go, then all I can say on the matter is, what about the Boers? If Kitchener did pass it down the line to take no prisoners, and that order was adhered to, them none of this would be going on after all these long years.
Andries,
I think I explained my reasons for not wanting to read Charles Leach’s book in my previous post. In addition, I don’t read books with titles that SHOUT at me, nor do I have much regard for ill-mannered people like you who feel the need to shout so often in blog and forum posts.
If you listen to the Sydney Institute podcast near the end you will hear that “respected” historian, Craig Wilcox, cleverly avoid being caught out in another blatant lie by attributing it to Charles Leach. When asked to provide numbers for his claim that Morant engaged in “limitless killing” he replied that “Charles Leach in South Africa counts 34 at the moment”. At least Charles doesn’t try to blame all the 34 killings on Morant. If Wilcox is so sure of his ground why does he have to resort to such dishonest distortions of fact.
To clear up any doubt here is the list of victims and alleged victims published by Charles Leach last September on
http://kruger2canyon.linmedia.co.za/details/30-09-2011/victims_of_the__bushveldt_carbineers/10351:
10 May 1901 – C.J. van den Berg. (shot by Capt Taylor)
2 July 1901 – J.J. Vercuil, J.J. Geyser (65 years old), F.G.J. Potgieter (18 years old), P.J. Geyser (12 years old), J.C. Greyling, (?) van Heerden. Two black men identified as Njoba and Mattungen. possibly connected to the names above.
4 July 1901 – B.J. van Buuren.
All of the above killings occurred before Morant arrived at Fort Edward
10 August 1901 – Josef (Floris) Visser.
23 August 1901 – G.K. Westerhof, Baaukens (or Beaukamp?), W.A. Vahrmeijer, B. Wouters, C.P.J. Smit, Logenaar (or Lochner), J.J. du Plessis, Pauskie (or Pasche) and three unnamed black men. – Rev. C.A.D. Heese and his unnamed black driver.
Morant was acquitted of the shooting of Rev. Heese . Trooper Albert van der Westhuizen, a prosecution witness, made a sworn statement that, in the afternoon of the shooting, Morant sent out a patrol to search for the “three Kaffir boys” who accompanied the 8 Boers but the patrol reported that they were unable to find them.
5 September 1901 – Jan Derk Grobler (14 years old), Jacobus Daniel Grobler (6 years old).
Shot by Lieut. Hannam – Morant had nothing to do with this shooting
7 September 1901 – Roelf van Staden (father), Roelf van Staden (jnr), Chris van Staden (12).
Two Boer men and their unnamed black attendant, who were apparently digging for gold just inside what is today the Kruger National Park, were shot dead by Capt Taylor in front of their wives and children, on the banks of the Phugwana River. Chief Madumetsa was also shot by Taylor, as well as many other victims not known by name.
Once again, nothing to do with Morant.
So the only killings that can be attributed to Morant are those for which he was charged and which he admitted to.
I would like to clarify one misunderstanding – perhaps my fault – at no stage did Charles Leach claim to be a global expert. That is my personal opinion and certainly a few others share that view after including the Leach work in their knowledge of this case.
No justice will be served if all available evidence are not contemplated. It is therefore important for anyone who is interested in this case to take the Leach work into account before drawing any conclusions.
Thanks Andries, again you don’t understand legal processes. There are 2 options,
1. the British government will respond favourably (or not ) to an approach from the Attorney General. Dr Fox’s rejection of my submissions and pardon concerned me as an individual. Responding to the Australian government is another matter. Will wait and see what Ms Roxon decides.
2. I have the option of proceeding with judicial
I am still waiting for your response, will you lobby for a judicial inquiry noting your earlier commment that the case should be settled. So again, I ask will you support a review?
Finally, I do have other evidence of orders aside from St Clair’s legal finding.
Thanks Andries, I agree a court of law (or at least a judicial inquiry) is the best option to decide this matter.
So, when are you going to write to the British Defence Secretary and Australian Attorney General, Nicola Roxon and put such a recommendation?
I have persistently pushed this 2009 as a solution to end the bickering and controversy and serve the interests of all descendants on both sides.
I have sufficient proof that orders did exsist (as early as 1900, before Morant served in the BVC) and British soldiers carried out these orders
Jan de klerk’s portrayal of Charles Leach as ‘global’ expert on Morant is at best speculation and worst, an embarassment. Leach has not published any credible work on perhaps the most controversial aspect of Morant’s life, his treatment at the hands of the British military from the time of arrest to his trial and execution. Leach and others, including craig Wilocox lack an understanding of military law of 1902, trial procedures and british law. Leach et al have focused mostly on folk law and legend, leading to generalisations unsupported by credible evidence. The case for review of the convictions and pardons is complex and requires sustained study of jurisprudence and military law. If Leach et al wish to stay ahead of the game and understand the legal aspects of this intriguing case, (that is about to be tested), then I recommend they pay attention to military law and appeal procedures in the present. Let’s not compete for the title of ‘global’ expert and instead focus on settling the controversy for all descendants on both sides so this chapter of military history can be concluded. I would be content to assist klerk, pretorious et al with discussion and understanding of military law and review, appeal processes. As we will all soon discover, this is what is our great about democratic institutions and civilised legal systems, the right of appeal and to test the very institutions that have been created to protect the innocent from exploitation and excesses.
Regards
Jim unkles
Jan,
What a lurid title! It suggests that the book is in the same rambling, histrionic format as his recent open letter to Australia’s former Attorney-General so no thanks, I won’t be wasting my money.
As far as I know he hasn’t released, for public scrutiny, any of the alleged new evidence he claims to have uncovered. You say that he interviewed descendants of Morant’s victims (and alleged victims) and I’m sure that legends and old-wives tales abound and grow as they do as a consequence of all wars but they are not fact.
I notice that this “global expert” is still unable to provide the full or correct names of some of the 8 victims on 23 August 1901 yet somehow knows that they were innocent non-combatants; despite the fact that they were 100 miles from home in an area under martial law.
I hope he hasn’t repeated his claim that the BVC were parading, with Morant taking the salute, under an Australian flag at Fort Edward given that the Australian flag didn’t even exist at the time. The flag competition didn’t finish until September! In any case, no British military unit would have dared to parade (and be photographed) in wartime under any other flag than a British one.
I’m afraid Charles Leach lost me with the following comment in his open letter, a copy of which he sent to a couple of Australian newspapers – to the best of my knowledge it wasn’t published:
“We, too, had many ‘hands-uppers’ and ‘joiners’ but of a slightly different ilk, (some even served with the Bushveldt Carbineers). Many of ours were summarily shot dead by the Burghers of the very South African nation they had betrayed. The stigma of their treachery lives on.”
Double standards???
I am always concerned when anyone claims to be a world expert on any matter. Charles, as others may profess exclusive understanding, but as far as i am concerned, they remain blind by nationalistic fervour and an unwillingness to listen and learn, about military law, the case for pardons and denial of due process.
As I discovered when I took up the breaker case for inquiry and pardons, many so called experts, craig wilcox, charles leach and others with various agendas, knew nothing about evidence based research let alone british military law and procedures of 1902. Nothing has changed, and the ignorance of such matters is perpetuated by blind and self serving rhetoric, but little or no understanding of jurisprudence and rule of law. The breaker dead and buried? I can assure all that the case for pardons is about to take a major development that will see breaker’s resurrection and the truth of kitchener’s war tactics, including ‘take no prisoners’ revealed at last
I have just read the excellent book “The Legend of Breaker Morant is DEAD and BURIED” written after extensive research by Charles Leach. It is imperative to read this definitive work on this case before coming to any conclusion or signing any petitions. Charles is currently the global expert on this case having devoted seven years, visited the all the locations where acts were committed and interviewing descendants of Morant’s victims.
He can be contacted at: charles@leachprinters.co.za for more info on this intriguing topic.