The Gun Alley Tragedy: Record of the Trial of Colin Campbell RossBrennan, T. C. (Thomas Cornelius)
History
The Gun Alley Tragedy: Record of the Trial of Colin Campbell Ross
Brennan, T. C. (Thomas Cornelius)
Ross, Colin Campbell, 1892-1922 -- Trials, litigation, etc.; Trials (Murder) -- Australia -- Victoria -- Melbourne
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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account