After the airing of the 60 minutes program, I received many messages of support and opinion about this case and the petitions seeking pardons. I also received a number of messages that were not supportive and that displayed an ignorance of legal process. An example came from an gentleman from South Africa. He stated:
‘He got what he deserved. He was part of a gang of murdering scum. He killed and raped woman and children’
This response is typical of those who resort to generalisations and unsubstantiated claims. For the record, Morant was never accsued of, charged with or tried on counts of rape and murder of women and children.
The difficulty I have had with this case, is the inability of so many people, historians, commentators, the public, those who have been seduced by the 60 minutes program on 4 July 2010, to understand that this case is not about the Boer war. For many, in South Africa, England and Australia, it is about the Boer war, the brutality from both sides in a conflict that is typical of many wars, conflict, suffering and appalling losses, only to end in a peace deal that should have been negotiated in the first place.
In my pursuit of justice and the truth of assertions that Morant, Handcock and Witton were ‘scapegoats’ of a brutal conspiracy of Lord Kitchener, (to avoid his own culpabilty in his war against the innocents, (the Boers, the old men, women and children) imprisoned in concentration camps), Morant has been accused of offences that he was never convicted of.
I have received many assertions of Morant’s crimes far in excess of was charged with, rapes, pillage and brutal killing of children and women.
I reject these assertions, either produce evidence of such crimes or desist from false accusations.
For the record, Morant, was chared and tried on 4 counts of murder, convicted of three and acquitted of killing the missionary Hesse. As far as I am concerned, the speculation of other crimes must rest there. I reject all assertions that Morant deserved the death penalty because he committed so many crimes in addition to what he was charged with.
Some working couples resort to alcohol and https://pdxcommercial.com/property/17645-e-burnside-street-portland-oregon/ order cheap levitra smoking. The process of regular ovulation is essential for people that need a sexual enhancer yet don’t have a considerable effect on premature cheapest cialis pdxcommercial.com ejaculation. No matter whether you find it difficult to get it up or keep it up when his woman needs it badly in bed, it is not a big problem if it happens occasionally. viagra without prescription Vacuum therapy system is available without prescription and are known to work wonders for people suffering from this condition are often confused by this issue, and seek fast treatment for Erectile Dysfunction from various doctors, sexual medicine spe generic vs viagrats, and men’s health have become truly inseparable.
The case for pardons for Morant, Handcock and Witton is focused on the charges they faced and the sentences imposed. I am focused on allegations that they were not tried in accordance with the law of 1902. I am not interetsed in speculation of crimes for which they were not charged. I reject all innuendo, rumour and unproven assertions that they were gulity of other unproven allegations and accordingly deserved the penalty they received.
At the end of the day, the merits of the case for pardons will be judged on the evidence of what offences they were charged with and convicted of.
If the detractors want to make a point about the merits of the case for pardons, I suggest they focus their energy in convincing the British government to convene an inquiry, open and transparent to evaluate the evidence of alleged injustices against assertions that the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt and the penalties were applied in accordance with the law.
Some will find this analysis frustrating and legalistic. However, it remains, these men were not afforded fair trials in accordance with the law of 1902.
Appreciate your comments.
Jim Unkles
Copyright © James Unkles 2010
Andries, I agree with you, the manner in which the British waged war in Sth Africa was deporable. Charles Leach showed me the concentration camps, an experience I will never forget and I have encouraged many to google the issue and read about how Lords Kitchener and Roberts inflicted so much pain on non combatants. Indeed, one could make many paralells with modern day wars and the pain inflicted on innocents.
Kitchener misled the Australian government and made false or misleading statements in the cable he sent to the Aust Governor General. For example, Morant was never charged with 20 murders! The whole investigation and trials of these men had a callous and deceptive motive, to shift blame for flawed and criminal action by senior officers to hold expendanble colonial volunteers responsible. After 108 years of speculation, its time to put the controversy to rest with a detailed and competent Judicial Inquiry. In addition to the case for pardons, I want the Inquiry to explore issues such as the veil of secrecy that was ordered by Kitchener to keep the case from the Australian government and the accused’s relatives. I also want to know why Major Thomas, Morant and Handcock were denied the opportunity of pleading a case of appeal to the King!
As I have said many times, if Morant was guilty of anything, (and I don’t say he was), the penalty of death was excessive and not justified. There were so many errors in the trial and sentencing process, the actions of Kitchener simply ‘mirrored’ his actions towards the Boers, a disregard for their rights, innocent civilians treated in an uncivilised manner!
Andries, join me in pushing the British government for a Judicial Inquiry, I would welcome your participation!
Regards
Jim
Andries, in response to both of your comments, I have read a lot of material, including newspaper reports. This has convinced me that an Inquiry is needed to sort through all the material, primary and secondary evidence. We were not there and we don’t know what the circumstances were. Unfortunatley, we don ‘t have the transcripts and this makes the job of determining exactly what happended very difficult.
As stated in other writings I have done, the case for pardons does not solely rely on the issue of a defence to following orders. I am confident that a thorough Inquiry will find that there was so much wrong with the arrest, investigation, trial and sentencing of the accused that the convictions ought not stand. In addition, there is also a compelling case of condonation, an immediate pardons for service to the Crown during hostilities while under arrest and condonation of the offences, including the three Boers by superiors such as, LTCOL Hall.
We will have to wait and see what the British government decides.
Regards
Jim
Hi Andries, Richard has already made comment about the shooting of the three Boers, (see comment below). The newspaper article you attached is hardly persuasive.
It starts with the claim of ‘with over 20 such murders’ and that the motive for the murders ‘apparently being plunder’. Let’s get the facts right from an erroneous report that was written in the primitive environment of the NT in 1902. Morant was never charged with 20 murders, no evidence of being investigated with over 20 murders. The prosecution did not allege plunder as the motive for the 12 shootings with which he was charged. Did plunder occur during the Boer? Certainly, was Morant charged with this offence under the Military law of the time? No!
I would prefer to rely on the wtitings of Witton and Maj Thomas than rely on the second hand writings of a country newspaper, thousands of miles away from the South Africa.
Andries, you may be interested in what Thomas had to say about this matter when he wrote to the Premier for WA on 2 May 1902. In part, Thomas stated:
‘It would now appear that the first intimitation the Australian government received was from a returned soldier, and at the time of my writing, some of the Australian newspapers seem to have got hold of some very incorrect news, apparently from English sources. All that I desire to say at present is that I sincerely hope that the Australian press and people will not give credence to the infamously false allegations made by a certain section of the English press detailing horrors and enormities which never took place. I can assure the Austrlain public that these reprisal were not made a cover for gain and it was never insuniated the same by the prosecution. Neither is it true these officers accumulated large sums of money.’
Andries, Thomas wrote a number of letters to Australia and hoped that the facts of the case would eventually be revealed and inflammatory press reports would be shown to be false. I counsel you on accepting verbatim second hand reports in Australian newspapers that relied on what was told by the British press, apologists for British Military leaders!
The press report you have quoted is a simple ‘re hash’ of reports that filtered into the British press from a trial that was conducted in secret. The report you have highlighted is at odds to the Reuter report that appeared in the Times in April 1902. It was this report that created such outrage in Australia and led to a vigorous campaign to get Witton released.
The report you rely on is from the NT, surely you can’t be serious in relying on a re print of a report on the trial without reference to the transcript and submissions made by Maj Thomas and statements made by Morant himself. The Times report is far more balanced as it detailed the defence submissions.
We all know that the Kitchener cable to the Aust GG was inaccurate and deliberately exaggerated facts to the Aust government, a ploy to deceive and deflect criticism of Kitchener’s decision to keep the arrest, trial and execution a secret from the Aust people. Historians agree that the cable (as discussed in the newspaper report you have relied on ) was deceptive and a ruse by Kitchener in defence of his decision to execute Handcock and Morant.
Finally, despite your protest, the case for pardons and review of this case does not involve rumours of more than 12 killings. The fact they occured is conceded, was Morant the instigator and culprit, we don’t know, there is simply no evidence that would stand up in a trial. The issue I have with passionate Sth Africa historians is that in their zeal to implicate the British in the terror that was inflicted on the Boers, is their insistence that Morant was responsible for all manner of atrocities, rape, murder of children and so the list goes on. I am sure many soldiers and officers were responsible for atrocities, but I refute the ‘blanket’ approach to implicating Morant in all such atrocities. Did he admit to shooting Boer prisoners, yes and was convicted of 12 such shootings. As far as I am concerned, the matter rests there. Any Inquiry should contain itself to the grounds of the petitions and the investigation of the charges that Morant was convicted of.
Regards
Jim
Richard,
Thanks for making that clear. I absolutely agree that Morant was not involved, nor should be implicated in all the shootings.
I am saying that he was involved in some of the killings and was court martialled for those. My personal belief is that he is partially or wholly responsible for Rev Hesse’s killing, but that remains open. He was tried and acquitted.
From the rest of the history, it appears that the killings had started well before he arrived, under the leadership of Taylor and Hunt. There were children killed at that time as well, but I never laid this at Morant’s door. It is true that the 34 killings were those of the BVC, of which only some were the doings of Morant and Handcock. My apologies.
My opinion is that Jim is correct, and Morant and Handcock were made scapegoats, whilst the other guitly parties such as Taylor, Hunt, Botha and others were never tried. The correct end result should have been that all above mentioned should have been shot with Morant and Handcock.
I think the main differences here is that you are looking at this as an Australian, whose fellow countryman was killed in an unfair way by the British authorities. I, by comparison, am looking at this as a South African, whose fellow countrymen were killed by a bunch of foreigners who should not have been here in the first place. From this perspective, you want a pardon, and I will oppose it.
We can continue this debate into infinity, and still not agree, so I will exit and watch the progress with interest. I have registered my opposition, and shall do so again if called upon.
All I am asking is that you argue the case on the facts without innuendos and misleading statements (not an accusation, just a plea), and spare a thought for those who were the real victims of the war.
Best regards
Pieter
Hi Pieter,
The comments re Botha were mine, not Jim’s.
And no, I am not denying Morant’s involvement, merely trying to provide some balance and also offer some extenuation for his actions.
According to the Times report of the trials the court was informed that the
youngest of the “3 Boers” was 17 so there is no reason to think that Morant
believed otherwise – I’m not suggesting that this excuses the shooting but
neither do I believe that it justifies the claims that Morant et al were
responsible for the widespread murder of women and children. I raised Botha’s name because it is often conveniently overlooked that he was the person translating for Morant – so any information that Morant had about the nature of his captives must have been provided by Botha, a willing volunteer as executioner who later turned informant to avoid prosecution.
As you suggest, Morant did have the opportunity to consult more than one source of information – that would be his commanding officer Capt. Taylor and his gang of intelligence operatives. We’ll never know how much misinformation was contained in the orders Morant received from Taylor or in the “intel” from people like Leonard Ledeboer, but here’s a couple of clues:
Trooper Albert van der Westhuizen in his deposition to the Court of Inquiry regarding the “8 Boers” case wrote:
“…I reckon that Mr Ledeboer was in the plot. Karl Smith, one of the murdered
prisoners, showed me a letter the day before he was killed to the effect that Mr. Hash [sic] (Ledeboer’s father-in-law) owed him (Karl Smith) £130.” (Arthur Davey P105)
What did Ledeboer tell Morant about the 8 prisoners when he handed them over? Morant certainly believed that they were members of the commando that mutilated his friend Hunt so that information must have come from Ledeboer. George Witton, describing the circumstances of his own involvement, wrote:
“…One of them, a big, powerful Dutchman, made a rush at me and seized the end of my rifle, with the intention of taking it and shooting me, but I simplified matters by pulling the trigger and shooting him. I never had any qualms of conscience for having done so, as he was recognised by Ledeboer, the intelligence agent, as a most notorious scoundrel who had previously threatened to shoot him, and was the head of a band of marauders.”
In an earlier post regarding Morant you said “He may have been tried for four murders, but the actual figures are closer to 34.” The names and circumstances of the 34 people who were killed are listed on the South African Anglo-Boer War Museum website. While Taylor is often implicated, the details and dates confirm that Morant was NOT involved in these other incidents and it is very unfair and misleading to suggest that he was. The list includes the Rev. Heese and his servant but Morant and Handcock were tried for the shooting of Heese and acquitted.
Regards
Richard Williams
Pieter, you misunderstand my belief in this case for justice for being one sided. I am and I have always been open to all views etc.
Kitchener’s original orders may have been elaborted to say, ‘take no priosnres at all’. In any case, what Col St Clair concluded on his review on the investigation transcript, was an indictment of how orders were given by Taylor and Hunt. Morant only obeyed after Hunt’s death and the courts martial found extenuating circumstances. These circumstances should be credited in the case for pardons.
My case for pardons of cousre does not just rest on obedience to orders and extenuating circumstances. The prinicple of condonation alone is deserving of pardons. Then there are the many errors in the trial process that denied the men fair trials. Addede up, the arrests, investigation, trials and sentences were condiucted in a flawed and unfair manner. The most aggravating fact was the denial of appeal rights. A case for padons exists and should be determined by a judicial inquiry at which you and Andries could make whatever submissions you like.
Pieter, I agree Morant admitted to shootings, claimed his obedience to orders, and desparately wanted to lodge a plea of appeal with the King, a right denied to him by Kitchener.
When I addressed the group at Lalapanzi hotel, Bandelierkop in May this year, I made it very clear that I thought Kitchener and his officers were responsible for this tragedy and other policies designed to inflict maximum suffering on Boers, including innocent women and children. An Inquiry may set the record straight on what happened and who was responsible . I respectfully suggest you and Andries support my call for an Inquiry.
fawell en met betrekking tot!
Jim Unkles
Jim, your reply to Andries seems one sided. Are you actually denying Morant had anything to do with the murders? He gave permission to shoot. How is he then blameless? Come on! None of the accusations made is unproven. All proof is on record and is general knowledge in the cases he was charged with. The ones where proof was not readily available, he was either not charged with or acquitted.
The instruction from Kitchener was to execute any boer found to be wearing British uniform. This meant it would have been easy to determine who was to be shot or not, and this meant the only one to maybe qualify would have been Visser. None of the others murdered was wearing uniform of any sort.
Morant also had the opportunity to consult more than just one source of information, and did not have to rely only on traitors such as Botha, unless of course it suited his own vision.
Botha himself asked for permission from a superior officer (Morant) and was granted permission to shoot the boy in cold blood.
Does that mean we should pardon Botha for simply following orders? No, he was a murderer, just like his officer. Morant does not have to be “fitted up” for these murders. He’s just as guilty as Botha, or even more so considering he could have prevented it since he was the officer in charge of the unit. You mention that Botha was in both parties. Yes. So was Morant and Handcock. Ask yourself the question: Who was the senior officer and who had control?
regarding my previous post about Kitchener: Interesting to note that he was continuing the “scorched earth” policy originally devised by Lord Roberts, his predecessor. No way I am going to grant him any leniency because he was following orders or continuing the legacy of Roberts. In Afrikaans we have a saying “Die deler is so goed soos die steler”, or translated means the person sharing in the spoils of the crime is just as guilty as the thief.
No pardon.
Hi Jim,
Morant and his fellow officers had only been at Fort Edward for a very short time so they couldn’t possibly have known who among the locals were combatants and who were not. They must have relied heavily on Capt.Taylor and his intelligence staff, as well as turncoats like Trooper Theunis Botha, for this information as those Boers who were combatants did not wear a uniform.
It is widely acknowledged, including sources in South Africa such as the Anglo Boer War Museum, that it was Tpr. Theunis Botha who requested permission to shoot Chris van Staden and in fact did so. It is worth noting that Botha was also a member of Visser’s shooting party.
We will never know just how much misinformation Morant et al were fed by locals in support of Taylor’s orders to shoot certain prisoners.
Regards
Richard
yes Andies I have stood next to the grave you mentioned, yes it was a tragedy, a greater tragedy is to imply guilt to Morant. This another example of ‘fitting’ up Morant with a murder he didn’t committ nor was he charged with.
We could go on and on, let’s agree that in the interests of justice have the matter reviewed by an inquiry, but I won’t tolerate unproven accusations.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Hi Peter, a re trial of sorts is something I am working on through the making of a documentary, (more news about that later). An inquiry by the British may also provide an opportunity to create a re trial of sorts, (we will see what happens).
On charges against Morant, 3 charges a total of 12 persons shot, (not 34 as you have asserted, 34 may have died, but Morant only impilicated in 12, the shooting of 3 Boers (2 men and a youth), 8 Boers (all men) and Visser, acquitted of thr Hesse shooting. Accordingly,, I can’t agree with you about the killing of the child. Morant was not involved in the shooting of 6 Boers, including the boy, that was the doing of Capt Taylor.
Morant was blamed for many killings, (all un proven) including an allegation made by Kithchenre when he cabled the Aust Governor General in April 1902. In part his cable stated, ‘In reply to your telegram, Morant, Handcock and Witton were charged with twenty separate murders, including one of a German missionary who had witnessed other murders.’
You see I simply cannot accept mucvh of the rumour surrounding the alleged exploits of Morant hwen even Kitchenere misled the Australian government by stating as fact 20 murders. His cable says noting about the allegations aginst Capt Taylor! From beginning to end Morant and his two mates were set up as sacpegots for the actions of British officers, including Kitchener.
We do agree that ‘gravaman’ in this sordid affair was Kitchener, and I am well aware of what he did and how he did it, but more on this subject later. I am also concerned about the actions of Captain Taylor who escaped charges of murder despite being implicated by the invetsigation in all the shootings. As stated by Colonel St Clair the Judge Advoctae General who reviewed the investigation, ‘• ‘The idea that no prisoners were to be taken in the Spelonken appears to have been started by the late Captain Hunt and after his death continued by orders given personally by Captain Taylor’
• ‘The verbal orders given by Captain Taylor to the officers and men of the BVC at various times not to take prisoners rendered him personally responsible for these massacres and I think he is liable as an accessory before the fact.’
I am pleased you agree that the men did not get fair trials and my detailed submissions have set out each and every serious error in the administration of justice. I have also rasied the issue of condocnation as a reason for a pardon.
My case is not about excusing the tactics of Kitchener in how he waged war agaisnt civilians. To the contrary, I am condemned the tactics of concentration camps and the desrtuction of farms. What I am focused on is the manner in which these men were used and denied the rights to a fair trial according to the laws of 1901.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Jim, Thank you for your reply. I understand that the laws of 1902 were different then, and I absolutely agree with
you that both Morant and Handcock did not receive a fair trial. It would be interesting to have been able to re-run
the trial, with all relevant and correct information, but that is not possible.
Your comment about woman being raped is irrelevant. Neither person was accused of such an act, but you can not
dispute that Morant was responsible for killing a 12 year old malaria-ill boy . This is therefore not a false accusation,
but fact. I don’t think the orders from anyone included this.
As to that Morant was simply following orders, I can not accept that. Keep in mind that he was a volunteer, and if he
had enough moral fibre, he could have resigned or requested a transfer. Not allways that easy, but easier than killing unarmed innocent persons. He may have been tried for four murders, but the actual figures are closer to 34.
Placing all cards on the table: I am a South African, and it was my people that Morant and his kind came here to kill.
From this perspective, I will never agree that he should be pardoned because of a flawed process. If those he killed
were active military personel, that’s a different argument, but unarmed civilians or surrendered unarmed
(defenceless) people remains murder.
Leaving the argument behind wether Morant was guilty or not, and agree to disagree on that point, lets at least agree
that the real culprit was Kitchener. It is now proven that he was an absolutey unscrupulous person, who would do
anything to advance his cause, from killing woman and children to killing volunteers and even his own soldiers, and
covering up his crimes through lying and twisting facts. I class him in the same leagues as Hitler, Pol Pot and Idi Amin
, to name a few.
It would be a miracle if the British government one day agrees that he was a mistake, they should never have been in
South Africa and accepted responsibility for the concentration camps and fatalities caused by them. But then he was
a murderer who became a hero.
Exactly what you are trying to do for Breaker and Handcock. My opinion.
Hi Peter, thanks for the comment. A couple of matters for your review:
1. this case for pardons is not about nor based on the laws of war in 2010, nor is it about the Nurembreg principles raised in the trials of Germans for war crimes. It is about the laws of 1902;
2. Morant was not charged nor investigated for killing and or raping women and children. Please stay focused on the charges he faced;
3. Morant, Hancock and Witton were sworn to obey the orders of their superiors (all permanent British Army officers, in particular Captains Hunt and Taylor). After being reprimanded by Hunt for bringing in prisoners and Hunt’s eventual death, Morant finally followed the orders he had been given.
4. Morant, Handcock and Witton, colonial volunteers were held responsible for following the orders and not the officers who gave them including Kitchener;
5. Finally, your views and those of others who condemn Morant fail to apperciate that the Courtts Martial officers recognised that Morant, Handock and Witton were not culpable and their action had to be judged against a number of factors. These factors were expressed in recommendations for mercy after a review of all the evidence. The recommendations for mercy were based on, loyal servce to the King, good character, ignorance of military ;law and customs and a blief that they were doing the correct thing in following orders. The courts believed that mercy was warranted and expected the sentences to be communted to imprisonment. What the courts did not expect was an agenda by Kitchener to deflect responsibility from him and his officers for issuing orders to shoot prisoners and lay blame on expendable colonial volunteers.
Finally, you coment about the process minimises the serious defects in the trial processes and by the laws and procedures of 1902, the convictions and sentences were flawed and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Pardons are warranted afetr 108 years of inaction and denial.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Whilst I agree that the process may have been flawed in 1902, the actual acts of killing unarmed prisoners of which some were children, can not be excused. By today’s standards, a soldier will be court martialled for this. I agree that the British should admit that the process may have been flawed, but the outcome was still correct. At the same time, I would love the British to admit and apologise for the atrocities ordered by Kitchener, but I won’t be holding my breath.
By pardoning Morant and the others, the crimes commited by them will be swept clean, which is the wrong message to document in history.
The argument that he was simply following orders, doesn’t hold water. So did Hitler’s troops 70 years ago. Didn’t make the genocide legal or pardonable, and never will.
Admit to a flawed process, yes. Pardon, no.
Andries, thanks for your comments, Morant followed orders, his superiors, Captain Hunt and Taylor and ultimately Lord Kitchener were responsible for the implementation of strategies to fight an elusive enemy very skilled at guerilla (insurgency) tactics. Lord Kitchener’s infamous tactics at burning farms, crops and setting up concentration camps was equally capable of introuducing severe orders to take ‘no prisonres. as a means of deterring other Boers from fighting the British.
I am sympathetic to the cause of the Boers when they claim they were treated appallingly by the British, but Morant, Handcock and Witton were the scapegoats of cruel policies of Birtish Command.
Regards
Jim Unkles
Thanks for your input Steve, please spread the word and encourage others to log onto the site, make comment and sign the poll and petition.
Regards
Jim
Thanks Steve for your comment, please spread the word about this site and invite others to contribute.
Regards
Jim
They should be pardoned.