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
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.
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