A quick look at the life of William Randall. William Randall was transported to new South Wales in 1829, aged 19 years, he was a mason by trade. He had been let off in England early 1829 for stealing a handkerchief and then convicted on 13 July 1829 for stealing a pair of trousers, he was convicted and sentenced to life. William's wife Elizabeth came free, I think? They had 6 daughters and one son, they had always lived around the Binalong area. The only child to cause any trouble was their son. In 1879 the Mr. Gibson who was a witness at the trial was William and Elizabeth Randall's Son-In-Law whom lived close by. The granddaughter age unknown however, was under the age of 10 years. Their son John Randall was a problem, at the age of 16 years: At the Circuit Court, Yass, 1872 charged with horse stealing acquitted,; at the Binalong Court, in 1878, charged with illegally using a horse, six months in Yass gaol; 24 July 1879, at the Yass Sessions, convicted of horse stealing, sentenced to 18 months, Yass gaol; in 1879 escaped from Yass gaol, and upon being re-captured in 1881 sentenced to 15 months Yass; gaol in October 1884 , charged with assault at the Yass Assises, convicted and sentenced to 18 months in Yass gaol. I won't say anymore but he was later charged with attempted Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and many years later was released. Regards Rhonda.

Has anyone heard of a town called Aston apparently near Bombala? Cheers Nardia [email protected]

If you are researching families in the areas around Goulburn, Gunning, Yass, Collector, Bungendore and Gundaroo, it might be worth checking these URLs: http://gundaroo.alphalink.com.au/genealogy/index.htm and http://gundaroo.alphalink.com.au/genealogy/genealog.htm The latter has quite a lot of detail, and contact addresses for people with similar interests in this area. _________________________________ Graeme Challinor http://gundaroo.alphalink.com.au

Hello Jurors: My name is Arleen and I am the judge in the matter regarding William Randall. I will be sending jury instructions soon. These instructions will advise you as to what to consider and what to exclude from your determination of guilty or not guilty. They will also include a definition of the charge brought against William Randall. I will define the meaning of the word "intent." Just let you know I have some legal back ground. I live in North Carolina in the US. My father was from Australia and that is the reason I joined this group. I was searching for relations. I just couldn't resist respond Rhonda's request for 12 jurors. Arleen

Look you lot I'm gunna present some facts and opinions cause I reckn he's guilty. Fact1 My gr gr grandfather, son of two convicts died not too far from Binalong. - a days ride.The doctor said he'd suffered about a fortnight; the illness - a heavy fit of drinking. 2. A son of the above is listed in a book re Aus bushrangers as having some time in Goulburn for his activities. Was he a glorious Aussie bushranger or did he committ an armed holdup of a shop and residence? 3.A nephew of gr gr grandfather was convicted of mistreating his bosses horse near Binalong and also holidayed in gaol. (He killed the said horse I think). 4. Australian born Brother in law of gr gr grandfather and also a son of two convicts was caught for cattle stealing at Berrima and sent to Port Arthur for 14 years. This was normally reserved for 2nd offenders I believe but I haven't located a first offence yet. Never let facts stand in the way of some opinion however as I reckn I've lived around our little town long enough to know the policeman and the jurors, to say nuthin about that drunken irish bum who wz always beltn his missus.If she'd only listened to me 30 years ago we'd ha bean married and shed not hav had to put up wiv im. I tried to give im a job clearin a bit of land but he ws never sober enough to finish it and as soon as he ad a bit ov money he drank the bleedn lot.Is poor kids ad no shoes and offen no tucker. We all new wot e wz like and we ope he'll git wot e deserves in gaol. O course he it er with the gun. E'd git some rum under is belt and belt the livin .... tripe out of man or beast Good riddance to im i say. David in Wyoming on the Central Coast of NSW PS I , in all seriousness came to a guilty verdict on what I read. I didn't have the benefit of any legal argument to help me. My life's experiences colour my judgement. I can't argue legalities. I've taught too many kids from disrupted homes and seen the fear in the eyes, a fear of crying to show weakness or I'll hit you again mentality.If I lived in a small community i.e. Binalong and knew the people in that community and saw a case come to court then my opinion would be coloured by what I knew of the people involved. If the local policeman was someone I knew from sport or whatever and he brought this to trial then I'd be inclined to believe him , that is if I didn't follow in the family footsteps of the time and worship the demon drink and guns and mistreating man and beast. Enough from me, I need a drink before I kick the dog out an git ta bed.

All I can say is that, I'm in Wamberal, New South Wales. Regards Rhonda. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cheryl Goh" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Cheryl Juror No. 4 > Hello Rhonda and fellow Jurors > This is the first time I have been able to respond to the original readings (i.e.the case) and I have resisted reading the other jurors comments until now so I can't be influenced. This I will do as soon as I post my preliminary verdict or should I say comments. > I am inclined to think that Elizabeth was a bit of a boozer also. While the hit on the head could have caused her loss of memory, (that is if she was telling the truth about her memory) she may also have been in a drunken stupor. > I wonder if the description of the wound by one of the witnesses being a small hole with lots of blood on the floor and on the riffle also. > I think they have got into a fight, both throwing hits at each other, he has picked up the gun and hit her around the head. > I will now read the other jurors verdicts and make further comments (as we should). This is quite fun. > I'm in Sydney where is everyone else. > Cheryl > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

Hi I missed something here The gun but was well away from its usual place...to me inferring a deliberate attack...grabbing a weapon..the cut on the head wasnt done by a hand slap nor were the briuses round her body. It wasnt a slap nor push to the ground..the wounds wernt self inflcted nor was anybody else held as a suspect. He was drunk that was the only redeeming factor other than that in her statment she said that she had told him she would strike him etcetc I suppose that could be taken as a threat No mention was made of the husband being injured so Id think that she didnt get a hit in and he certainly didnt react when all the folk were coming and going.He didnt tend to his wife nor try to cover his doings.just a drunken stupour ..not responsible due to alcohol consumption.Somebody bopped her Today he would have be given a good behaviour bond anger management sessions and told to attend AA.

Hello Rhonda and fellow Jurors This is the first time I have been able to respond to the original readings (i.e.the case) and I have resisted reading the other jurors comments until now so I can't be influenced. This I will do as soon as I post my preliminary verdict or should I say comments. I am inclined to think that Elizabeth was a bit of a boozer also. While the hit on the head could have caused her loss of memory, (that is if she was telling the truth about her memory) she may also have been in a drunken stupor. I wonder if the description of the wound by one of the witnesses being a small hole with lots of blood on the floor and on the riffle also. I think they have got into a fight, both throwing hits at each other, he has picked up the gun and hit her around the head. I will now read the other jurors verdicts and make further comments (as we should). This is quite fun. I'm in Sydney where is everyone else. Cheryl

Good work. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Newell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: Juror no 2. Regina v RANDALL 1879 > OVERVIEW OF THE CASE "REGINA versus RANDALL 1879". > > You don't mention which court heard this case or it's location. As the article refers at the end to "His Honour" and "jury" then it was not a magisterial court, but what we call, the Victoria County Court or the Victoria Supreme Court. The name of the Judge is not mentioned either. > > We must first take into account the person who transcribed the proceedings, and as it is a newspaper article, it may have been the journalist who wrote the article. He may have been either a University educated journalist or the "ambulance chaser" type with a lesser education. > He or she may have properly or improperly transcribed the proceedings with an eye to "good copy". > > The transcriber has not differentiated between the evidence which was given by the witnesses without any prompting, the evidence which was given in answer to questions when "being led" by the prosecutor, and the evidence given in answer to cross-examination by any defence counsel or the Judge. > > Without such differentiation, confusion may arise in the reader's mind and cloud any proper objective assessment of the case. > > The case arose from what the police refer to as a "domestic". Such situations tend to be very bad and the outcomes tend to be tragic. Many people have been killed in such situations including police officers. Courts nowadays tread very warily over such ground due to the high emotional content which brings about tragedy, and what is first considered by any court is the weight of evidence and secondly the credibility of the victim(s) and witnesses. Credibility plays the biggest part and this is noticeable at the beginning of any testimony when a witness is sworn in, as the Judges tend to take a lot of notice of the manner in which the oath is given by witnesses. This forms the basis of their credibility. This credibility factor is not mentioned in the newspaper article. > > So we have a Judge and Jury, a Mr Healy as the Crown Prosecutor, apparently no defence counsel, and the defendant did not give evidence. Indeed the law in those days may have prevented him from giving evidence. It was the case in England for a long time that a defendant could not give evidence on his own behalf in a court. > > We have a defendant whose name is not mentioned in the proceedings but referred to variously as "the prisoner", "grandfather" and "my husband". Identity is the first point of proof in any court case. But we assume safely that William Randall on bail, is the defendant and although the witnesses do not refer to him by name, they do not say that the person before the court is NOT William Randall. So identity is established. > > We have a witness Jane RYAN who is the grandchild of the victim and the defendant, and the defendant's son-in-law James Gibson, and a professional witness - the police officer Julian Madden. Mrs Gibson is mentioned as attending the scene of the assault yet she was not called to give evidence. There are no independent witnesses. > > The charge or presentment against Randall was "Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" to which he pleaded "Not Guilty". > > > Witness Elizabeth RANDALL, "the victim". > > She appears to give her evidence in answer to questions, rather than directly from her memory, as there are too many sentences beginning with the personal pronoun "I". > > The defendant has a history of drunkenness and violence, which his wife knows, and yet she sends for rum for them both to drink. It is not given in evidence as to who got the rum. > > She says "my husband was stupid from drink that evening; he was swearing, and I told him to stop, he said he would not; I told him if he did not stop I would hit him with a brick....." > > Now Elizabeth knows what he is like when under the influence of alcohol, but she sends for the rum. > > William became "stupid from drink and he was swearing". She tells him to stop or she will hithim with a brick. So the first mention of violence came from his wife. This is not alluded to again in the proceedings, but apparently overlooked. She threatens her husband with violence with a weapon. He was not being violent, but drunk and swearing. It is not given in evidence as to what he was saying, did he threaten anyone with violence? It is not given in evidence. > > She is not asked if she did in fact have a brick in her possession at the time, or even if there was one quickly available to her. The floor is mentioned as being made of brick. Were they cemented into the floor or just lying loose? It is not given in evidence. > > Why did she say she would hit him with a brick? An unusual response for a woman in such circumstances, unless she has had to resort to such a weapon on previous occasions to defend herself against him, or unless she herself is a woman disposed to becoming violent and using weapons, and maybe if so, she has been the architect of the assaults upon her on previous occasions, and he has had to defend himself against her attacks. None of this is examined in evidence. > > If she has been the architect of assaults upon her by her husband, then why would she do this? Modern Victimology has established that there are people on our planet who have had an unbringing the moral tone of which necessitates that they be punished for "sins", and if the punishment is not forthcoming they will create situations whereby they suffer violence as punishment against themselves. There are women, who will physically mutilate themselves, then allege that a certain man tried to rape her, or did in fact rape her, as a form of vengeance against the man for not showing any interest in them. I have met such women in the course of police work. We have had women enter police stations and dob their husbands in for crimes they have committed merely to get them out of the way so that can have a long affair with the husband's mate(s), and vice versa. Human Beings can be strange and perverted creatures. > > >From her evidence alone, it seems that she set him up so that he could be arrested and got "out of the way". But she does say that she didn't wish to prosecute, no wife does". How sweet of her. Isn't she a wonderful suffering woman? The spirit of Christian forgiveness. A nice touch - for the jury's benefit of course. > > > Witness Jane RYAN, defendant's grand-daughter > > > Although her evidence is fairly pragmatic, she does not say nor is she asked, what the argument between her grandparents was about. She does not give her own age, and does not mention any alcohol being drunk. She does not give evidence of what the grandmother Elizabeth Randall said to provoke the fight. The next witness James Gibson refers to Jane Ryan as a little girl. She states the assault took place when William threw a boot at Elizabeth, then he hit Elizabeth with his hand, a closed fist. Elizabeth in her evidence does not mention anything to do with a boot. > > Witness James GIBSON, defendant's son-in-law > > He gives good evidence, but he is talking about a gun. So we have moved from a brick with an open hand, to a boot with a closed fist, to a gun with a broken stock. Each sudden leap is known as a hiatus. This is not good. These three methods of assault must be brought together in a chain of circumstances showing how the defendant and victim moved from one to the other in a causal chain. Neither the Judge nor the Crown Prosecutor try to establish this. The circumstances of the finding of the gun are gone into fairly well but it is not proven that William assaulted Elizabeth with it. She may have fallen upon it. Elizabeth does not mention the gun, and neither is she asked about it. She had been sitting near the fireplace where the gun was kept at the time of the assault. It is not given in evidence, how she actually fell and where she actually fell. It is too vague, and the Judge allows it to remain so. > > Police Witness - Constable Julian MADDEN > > All the evidence he gives is what he found, said and did AFTER the assault. He makes no attempt whatsoever to investigate the circumstances leading up to it. Sub-Inspector Brauman merely corroborates MADDEN and has no further evidence to offer. In short, MADDEN arrests and charges Randall based on the appearance of things, without full and proper investigation, and it is accepted by the Court? > > > > > OPINION > > Had I been the attending police officer, I would have investigated this properly and I would not > have charged William Randall with any offence, but left the matter for them to take civil action if they so wished. > > >From the evidence given, the assault by Randall could well have been construed by the Court > as self-defence because he had been threatened with violence by his own wife right from the beginning. > > It is at the most, if there had been more evidence, an assault WITHOUT intent. Provoked and "set up" by Elizabeth, brought to fruition by William, in a domestic situation of drunkenness brought about by Elizabeth getting the rum. She knew exactly what she was up to from the beginning. > > With "wounding", there has to be intent. In Victoria, there are two kinds of "assault causing grievous bodily harm", one with intent and one without intent. There is in Victoria the charge of "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" which does not require the proving of intent. Whether such a charge existed in NSW in 1879 I don't know. > > There are leaps and gaps in the evidence. The two coppers should have been disciplined and put back on the beat in Sydney. The Judge does not instruct the Jury properly. He could have said to the Jury, "If you find that the assault when occasioned, was done so without intent, then you must return a verdict of "Not guilty"". But he twists it around and the jury meekly agree with him. Had Randall appealed, the appeals court would have rapped the Judge over the knuckles, upheld the appeal and directed a re-trial. > > William Randall has no previous convictions for violence. He has one prior conviction for a theft 9 years previously. This is a non-violent crime. Why has his reputed violence been allowed to continue until he is 65 years old? Why weren't the witnesses asked about his violent reputation? At 65 years of age, he is sentenced to 2 years hard labour. > > The Judge should have been flogged and sent to Van Diemen's land in chains. (Rhonda, see if you can get a proper transcript of the trial from the NSW Supreme Court website.) > > Not only should William Randall have not been charged with any criminal offence, William Randall should have been found "Not guilty". > > > Mel Grieveson > Mentone > Victoria > > 16th June 2003. [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE "REGINA versus RANDALL 1879". You don't mention which court heard this case or it's location. As the article refers at the end to "His Honour" and "jury" then it was not a magisterial court, but what we call, the Victoria County Court or the Victoria Supreme Court. The name of the Judge is not mentioned either. We must first take into account the person who transcribed the proceedings, and as it is a newspaper article, it may have been the journalist who wrote the article. He may have been either a University educated journalist or the "ambulance chaser" type with a lesser education. He or she may have properly or improperly transcribed the proceedings with an eye to "good copy". The transcriber has not differentiated between the evidence which was given by the witnesses without any prompting, the evidence which was given in answer to questions when "being led" by the prosecutor, and the evidence given in answer to cross-examination by any defence counsel or the Judge. Without such differentiation, confusion may arise in the reader's mind and cloud any proper objective assessment of the case. The case arose from what the police refer to as a "domestic". Such situations tend to be very bad and the outcomes tend to be tragic. Many people have been killed in such situations including police officers. Courts nowadays tread very warily over such ground due to the high emotional content which brings about tragedy, and what is first considered by any court is the weight of evidence and secondly the credibility of the victim(s) and witnesses. Credibility plays the biggest part and this is noticeable at the beginning of any testimony when a witness is sworn in, as the Judges tend to take a lot of notice of the manner in which the oath is given by witnesses. This forms the basis of their credibility. This credibility factor is not mentioned in the newspaper article. So we have a Judge and Jury, a Mr Healy as the Crown Prosecutor, apparently no defence counsel, and the defendant did not give evidence. Indeed the law in those days may have prevented him from giving evidence. It was the case in England for a long time that a defendant could not give evidence on his own behalf in a court. We have a defendant whose name is not mentioned in the proceedings but referred to variously as "the prisoner", "grandfather" and "my husband". Identity is the first point of proof in any court case. But we assume safely that William Randall on bail, is the defendant and although the witnesses do not refer to him by name, they do not say that the person before the court is NOT William Randall. So identity is established. We have a witness Jane RYAN who is the grandchild of the victim and the defendant, and the defendant's son-in-law James Gibson, and a professional witness - the police officer Julian Madden. Mrs Gibson is mentioned as attending the scene of the assault yet she was not called to give evidence. There are no independent witnesses. The charge or presentment against Randall was "Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm" to which he pleaded "Not Guilty". Witness Elizabeth RANDALL, "the victim". She appears to give her evidence in answer to questions, rather than directly from her memory, as there are too many sentences beginning with the personal pronoun "I". The defendant has a history of drunkenness and violence, which his wife knows, and yet she sends for rum for them both to drink. It is not given in evidence as to who got the rum. She says "my husband was stupid from drink that evening; he was swearing, and I told him to stop, he said he would not; I told him if he did not stop I would hit him with a brick....." Now Elizabeth knows what he is like when under the influence of alcohol, but she sends for the rum. William became "stupid from drink and he was swearing". She tells him to stop or she will hithim with a brick. So the first mention of violence came from his wife. This is not alluded to again in the proceedings, but apparently overlooked. She threatens her husband with violence with a weapon. He was not being violent, but drunk and swearing. It is not given in evidence as to what he was saying, did he threaten anyone with violence? It is not given in evidence. She is not asked if she did in fact have a brick in her possession at the time, or even if there was one quickly available to her. The floor is mentioned as being made of brick. Were they cemented into the floor or just lying loose? It is not given in evidence. Why did she say she would hit him with a brick? An unusual response for a woman in such circumstances, unless she has had to resort to such a weapon on previous occasions to defend herself against him, or unless she herself is a woman disposed to becoming violent and using weapons, and maybe if so, she has been the architect of the assaults upon her on previous occasions, and he has had to defend himself against her attacks. None of this is examined in evidence. If she has been the architect of assaults upon her by her husband, then why would she do this? Modern Victimology has established that there are people on our planet who have had an unbringing the moral tone of which necessitates that they be punished for "sins", and if the punishment is not forthcoming they will create situations whereby they suffer violence as punishment against themselves. There are women, who will physically mutilate themselves, then allege that a certain man tried to rape her, or did in fact rape her, as a form of vengeance against the man for not showing any interest in them. I have met such women in the course of police work. We have had women enter police stations and dob their husbands in for crimes they have committed merely to get them out of the way so that can have a long affair with the husband's mate(s), and vice versa. Human Beings can be strange and perverted creatures. From her evidence alone, it seems that she set him up so that he could be arrested and got "out of the way". But she does say that she didn't wish to prosecute, no wife does". How sweet of her. Isn't she a wonderful suffering woman? The spirit of Christian forgiveness. A nice touch - for the jury's benefit of course. Witness Jane RYAN, defendant's grand-daughter Although her evidence is fairly pragmatic, she does not say nor is she asked, what the argument between her grandparents was about. She does not give her own age, and does not mention any alcohol being drunk. She does not give evidence of what the grandmother Elizabeth Randall said to provoke the fight. The next witness James Gibson refers to Jane Ryan as a little girl. She states the assault took place when William threw a boot at Elizabeth, then he hit Elizabeth with his hand, a closed fist. Elizabeth in her evidence does not mention anything to do with a boot. Witness James GIBSON, defendant's son-in-law He gives good evidence, but he is talking about a gun. So we have moved from a brick with an open hand, to a boot with a closed fist, to a gun with a broken stock. Each sudden leap is known as a hiatus. This is not good. These three methods of assault must be brought together in a chain of circumstances showing how the defendant and victim moved from one to the other in a causal chain. Neither the Judge nor the Crown Prosecutor try to establish this. The circumstances of the finding of the gun are gone into fairly well but it is not proven that William assaulted Elizabeth with it. She may have fallen upon it. Elizabeth does not mention the gun, and neither is she asked about it. She had been sitting near the fireplace where the gun was kept at the time of the assault. It is not given in evidence, how she actually fell and where she actually fell. It is too vague, and the Judge allows it to remain so. Police Witness - Constable Julian MADDEN All the evidence he gives is what he found, said and did AFTER the assault. He makes no attempt whatsoever to investigate the circumstances leading up to it. Sub-Inspector Brauman merely corroborates MADDEN and has no further evidence to offer. In short, MADDEN arrests and charges Randall based on the appearance of things, without full and proper investigation, and it is accepted by the Court? OPINION Had I been the attending police officer, I would have investigated this properly and I would not have charged William Randall with any offence, but left the matter for them to take civil action if they so wished. From the evidence given, the assault by Randall could well have been construed by the Court as self-defence because he had been threatened with violence by his own wife right from the beginning. It is at the most, if there had been more evidence, an assault WITHOUT intent. Provoked and "set up" by Elizabeth, brought to fruition by William, in a domestic situation of drunkenness brought about by Elizabeth getting the rum. She knew exactly what she was up to from the beginning. With "wounding", there has to be intent. In Victoria, there are two kinds of "assault causing grievous bodily harm", one with intent and one without intent. There is in Victoria the charge of "Assault occasioning actual bodily harm" which does not require the proving of intent. Whether such a charge existed in NSW in 1879 I don't know. There are leaps and gaps in the evidence. The two coppers should have been disciplined and put back on the beat in Sydney. The Judge does not instruct the Jury properly. He could have said to the Jury, "If you find that the assault when occasioned, was done so without intent, then you must return a verdict of "Not guilty"". But he twists it around and the jury meekly agree with him. Had Randall appealed, the appeals court would have rapped the Judge over the knuckles, upheld the appeal and directed a re-trial. William Randall has no previous convictions for violence. He has one prior conviction for a theft 9 years previously. This is a non-violent crime. Why has his reputed violence been allowed to continue until he is 65 years old? Why weren't the witnesses asked about his violent reputation? At 65 years of age, he is sentenced to 2 years hard labour. The Judge should have been flogged and sent to Van Diemen's land in chains. (Rhonda, see if you can get a proper transcript of the trial from the NSW Supreme Court website.) Not only should William Randall have not been charged with any criminal offence, William Randall should have been found "Not guilty". Mel Grieveson Mentone Victoria 16th June 2003. [email protected]

Carol 1. Mel 2. Kaye 3. Cheryl 4. Christine 5. Rob 6. Judith 7. Tracey 8. David 9. Penny 10. Rose 11. Amanda 12. I hope you are all still willing to go ahead with this, it has taken some time to start the proceedings, but we are ready to go now. Thank you for your patience. Regards Rhonda Newell.

!/ the wife stated that she wouldnt prosecute well she wouldnt dare for fear of reprisal so her statement of the open hand slap and the suggestion of the fire place not having a protective barrier was probably her way of pouring ooil onto the rough seas.So what she said could be discounted. 2/ the husband was so drunk that he asked who the neighbour was b/ didnt try to conceal the incidentby tidying the wife up or hiding the gun or cleaning the blood 3/ the wife said that she had threatened him first (but no brick and previous history says that was a false statement meant to calm the waters 4/ if the boots sole looked at though it had walked thru the blood I would assume that the boot had nothing to do with the injuries or anything really 5/ if he hit her with his right palm open facing her she would have fallen to her right and that is where the wound was 6/ we all know that head wounds bleed like ....um ill be polite and say like billy o and sinse there were no other wounds that were bleeding that would account for the blood 7/ no blood near the fireplace......so she didnt it her head there and nothing on the floor could account for it...and he was too drunk to hide anything 8/ the gun barrell was removed before she was hit as it was stored within in the fire wall and the blood was 7 ft away ...the bruising wasnt caused by a hand nor the cut to her head...........had she reached for it in defence and that was when he took it from her and when he has wrestled it from her hit her with it to the back of her head and then a few times round her body... 9/ the witnesses are very dodgey i feel that they altered their statements for fear of reprisal...ie being hit or thrown out of their lodgings. Im sorry but sinse nothing else was in the room other than the gun barrel to hit her and inflict those wounds and injuries and noone else in the house had cause to inflict them upon her the only person possible is the husband who I have just found guilty. with diminished responsibility due to the alcohol and in todays society he would be given a good behaviour bond and told to seek counselling for his alcolhol abuse and anger management. If there had been no other bruising Id concede that just maybe the blow was accidental...in a struggle though its depth dosnt imply an accident of any kind....the other bruising makes me believe that there was a struggle. Why in heavens name would she call for brandy at 9 if she is accustomed to his abuse... please if I have missed something bring it to my attention Christene

------------5FF31B5168B8F24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello AUS-NSW-SE-L, Here's my assessment of the above case attached. -- Best regards, Mel mailto:[email protected] ------------5FF31B5168B8F24 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Regina v RANDALL 1879.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Regina v RANDALL 1879.txt" UmhvbmRhLA0KDQoNCg0KU2l0dGluZyBpbiBqdWRnZW1lbnQsIG9uIGEgY2FzZSBoZWFyZCBpbiAx ODc5IGluIE5ldyBTb3V0aCBXYWxlcywgQXVzdHJhbGlhIC0gSSBtdXN0IGZpcnN0IHBvaW50IG91 dCBteSBiYWNrZ3JvdW5kIHdoaWNoIG1heSBvciBtYXkgbm90IHF1YWxpZnkgbWUuIEluIFZpY3Rv cmlhLCB3aGVyZSBJIHNlcnZlZCBhcyBhIG1lbWJlciBvZiB0aGUgUG9saWNlIEZvcmNlIGZvciAy MyB5ZWFycywgdGhlIGxhd3MsIGFsbCBvZiB0aGVtIHdlcmUgdXBkYXRlZCBpbiAxOTU4LiAgV2hh dCB0aGUgbGF3IHdhcyBwcmlvciB0byB0aGF0IEkgaGF2ZSBubyBpZGVhLCBhbmQgSSBoYXZlIG5v IGlkZWEgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGxhdyBpbiBOU1cgaW4gMTg3OSBhbmQgbmVpdGhlciBhYm91dCBhbnkg dXBkYXRlcyBzaW5jZS4gIEkgc2VydmVkIGluIE1lbGJvdXJuZSBmcm9tIDE5NjEgdW50aWwgMTk4 NC4gIEkgbmV2ZXIgc2F3IGl0IGFzIGEgY2FyZWVyIGJ1dCBhcyBhIGpvYiwgYW5kIHdoZW4gSSBn b3Qgc2ljayBvZiBpdCBJIGxlZnQuIEkgd2FzIGJvcm4sIHJhaXNlZCBhbmQgZWR1Y2F0ZWQgaW4g RW5nbGFuZCBhdHRhaW5pbmcgbXkgIk8iIGxldmVscyBpbiA1IHN1YmplY3RzIGluIDE5NTUuDQoN CkFzIGEgU2VyZ2VhbnQgSSBkaWQgcXVpdGUgYSBsb3Qgb2YgcHJvc2VjdXRpbmcgaW4gQ291cnQs IGFuZCBJIGhhZCBldmVuIG1vcmUgZXhwZXJpZW5jZSBwdXR0aW5nIGJyaWVmcyB0b2dldGhlciBm b3IgcHJvc2VjdXRpb24uIFRoaXMgdGhlbiBpcyB0aGUgcmVzdWx0IG9mIG15IGVkdWNhdGlvbiBh bmQgZXhwZXJpZW5jZS4NCg0KDQoNCg0KT1ZFUlZJRVcgT0YgVEhFIENBU0UgIlJFR0lOQSB2ZXJz dXMgUkFOREFMTCAxODc5Ii4NCg0KWW91IGRvbid0IG1lbnRpb24gd2hpY2ggY291cnQgaGVhcmQg dGhpcyBjYXNlIG9yIGl0J3MgbG9jYXRpb24uICBBcyB0aGUgYXJ0aWNsZSByZWZlcnMgYXQgdGhl IGVuZCB0byAiSGlzIEhvbm91ciIgYW5kICJqdXJ5IiB0aGVuIGl0IHdhcyBub3QgYSBtYWdpc3Rl cmlhbCBjb3VydCwgYnV0IHdoYXQgd2UgY2FsbCwgdGhlIFZpY3RvcmlhIENvdW50eSBDb3VydCBv ciB0aGUgVmljdG9yaWEgU3VwcmVtZSBDb3VydC4gIFRoZSBuYW1lIG9mIHRoZSBKdWRnZSBpcyBu b3QgbWVudGlvbmVkIGVpdGhlci4NCg0KV2UgbXVzdCBmaXJzdCB0YWtlIGludG8gYWNjb3VudCB0 aGUgcGVyc29uIHdobyB0cmFuc2NyaWJlZCB0aGUgcHJvY2VlZGluZ3MsIGFuZCBhcyBpdCBpcyBh IG5ld3NwYXBlciBhcnRpY2xlLCBpdCBtYXkgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHRoZSBqb3VybmFsaXN0IHdobyB3 cm90ZSB0aGUgYXJ0aWNsZS4gIEhlIG1heSBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZWl0aGVyIGEgVW5pdmVyc2l0eSBl ZHVjYXRlZCBqb3VybmFsaXN0IG9yIHRoZSAiYW1idWxhbmNlIGNoYXNlciIgdHlwZSB3aXRoIGEg bGVzc2VyIGVkdWNhdGlvbi4gSGUgb3Igc2hlIG1heSBoYXZlIHByb3Blcmx5IG9yIGltcHJvcGVy bHkgdHJhbnNjcmliZWQgdGhlIHByb2NlZWRpbmdzIHdpdGggYW4gZXllIHRvICJnb29kIGNvcHki Lg0KDQpUaGUgdHJhbnNjcmliZXIgaGFzIG5vdCBkaWZmZXJlbnRpYXRlZCBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBl dmlkZW5jZSB3aGljaCB3YXMgZ2l2ZW4gYnkgdGhlIHdpdG5lc3NlcyB3aXRob3V0IGFueSBwcm9t cHRpbmcsIHRoZSBldmlkZW5jZSB3aGljaCB3YXMgZ2l2ZW4gaW4gYW5zd2VyIHRvIHF1ZXN0aW9u cyB3aGVuICJiZWluZyBsZWQiIGJ5IHRoZSBwcm9zZWN1dG9yLCBhbmQgdGhlIGV2aWRlbmNlIGdp dmVuIGluIGFuc3dlciB0byBjcm9zcy1leGFtaW5hdGlvbiBieSBhbnkgZGVmZW5jZSBjb3Vuc2Vs IG9yIHRoZSBKdWRnZS4gDQoNCldpdGhvdXQgc3VjaCBkaWZmZXJlbnRpYXRpb24sIGNvbmZ1c2lv biBtYXkgYXJpc2UgaW4gdGhlIHJlYWRlcidzIG1pbmQgYW5kIGNsb3VkIGFueSBwcm9wZXIgb2Jq ZWN0aXZlIGFzc2Vzc21lbnQgb2YgdGhlIGNhc2UuDQoNClRoZSBjYXNlIGFyb3NlIGZyb20gd2hh dCB0aGUgcG9saWNlIHJlZmVyIHRvIGFzIGEgImRvbWVzdGljIi4gIFN1Y2ggc2l0dWF0aW9ucyB0 ZW5kIHRvIGJlIHZlcnkgYmFkIGFuZCB0aGUgb3V0Y29tZXMgdGVuZCB0byBiZSB0cmFnaWMuICBN YW55IHBlb3BsZSBoYXZlIGJlZW4ga2lsbGVkIGluIHN1Y2ggc2l0dWF0aW9ucyBpbmNsdWRpbmcg cG9saWNlIG9mZmljZXJzLiAgQ291cnRzIG5vd2FkYXlzIHRyZWFkIHZlcnkgd2FyaWx5IG92ZXIg c3VjaCBncm91bmQgZHVlIHRvIHRoZSBoaWdoIGVtb3Rpb25hbCBjb250ZW50IHdoaWNoIGJyaW5n cyBhYm91dCB0cmFnZWR5LCBhbmQgd2hhdCBpcyBmaXJzdCBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGJ5IGFueSBjb3Vy dCBpcyB0aGUgd2VpZ2h0IG9mIGV2aWRlbmNlIGFuZCBzZWNvbmRseSB0aGUgY3JlZGliaWxpdHkg b2YgdGhlIHZpY3RpbShzKSBhbmQgd2l0bmVzc2VzLiAgQ3JlZGliaWxpdHkgcGxheXMgdGhlIGJp Z2dlc3QgcGFydCBhbmQgdGhpcyBpcyBub3RpY2VhYmxlIGF0IHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcgb2YgYW55 IHRlc3RpbW9ueSB3aGVuIGEgd2l0bmVzcyBpcyBzd29ybiBpbiwgYXMgdGhlIEp1ZGdlcyB0ZW5k IHRvIHRha2UgYSBsb3Qgb2Ygbm90aWNlIG9mIHRoZSBtYW5uZXIgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhlIG9hdGgg aXMgZ2l2ZW4gYnkgd2l0bmVzc2VzLiAgIFRoaXMgZm9ybXMgdGhlIGJhc2lzIG9mIHRoZWlyIGNy ZWRpYmlsaXR5LiAgVGhpcyBjcmVkaWJpbGl0eSBmYWN0b3IgaXMgbm90IG1lbnRpb25lZCBpbiB0 aGUgbmV3c3BhcGVyIGFydGljbGUuDQoNClNvIHdlIGhhdmUgYSBKdWRnZSBhbmQgSnVyeSwgYSBN ciBIZWFseSBhcyB0aGUgQ3Jvd24gUHJvc2VjdXRvciwgYXBwYXJlbnRseSBubyBkZWZlbmNlIGNv dW5zZWwsIGFuZCB0aGUgZGVmZW5kYW50IGRpZCBub3QgZ2l2ZSBldmlkZW5jZS4gIEluZGVlZCB0 aGUgbGF3IGluIHRob3NlIGRheXMgbWF5IGhhdmUgcHJldmVudGVkIGhpbSBmcm9tIGdpdmluZyBl dmlkZW5jZS4gIEl0IHdhcyB0aGUgY2FzZSBpbiBFbmdsYW5kIGZvciBhIGxvbmcgdGltZSB0aGF0 IGEgZGVmZW5kYW50IGNvdWxkIG5vdCBnaXZlIGV2aWRlbmNlIG9uIGhpcyBvd24gYmVoYWxmIGlu IGEgY291cnQuDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgYSBkZWZlbmRhbnQgd2hvc2UgbmFtZSBpcyBub3QgbWVudGlv bmVkIGluIHRoZSBwcm9jZWVkaW5ncyBidXQgcmVmZXJyZWQgdG8gdmFyaW91c2x5IGFzICJ0aGUg cHJpc29uZXIiLCAiZ3JhbmRmYXRoZXIiIGFuZCAibXkgaHVzYmFuZCIuICBJZGVudGl0eSBpcyB0 aGUgZmlyc3QgcG9pbnQgb2YgcHJvb2YgaW4gYW55IGNvdXJ0IGNhc2UuICBCdXQgd2UgYXNzdW1l IHNhZmVseSB0aGF0IFdpbGxpYW0gUmFuZGFsbCBvbiBiYWlsLCBpcyB0aGUgZGVmZW5kYW50IGFu ZCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGUgd2l0bmVzc2VzIGRvIG5vdCByZWZlciB0byBoaW0gYnkgbmFtZSwgdGhl eSBkbyBub3Qgc2F5IHRoYXQgdGhlIHBlcnNvbiBiZWZvcmUgdGhlIGNvdXJ0IGlzIE5PVCBXaWxs aWFtIFJhbmRhbGwuICBTbyBpZGVudGl0eSBpcyBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZC4NCg0KV2UgaGF2ZSBhIHdp dG5lc3MgSmFuZSBSWUFOIHdobyBpcyB0aGUgZ3JhbmRjaGlsZCBvZiB0aGUgdmljdGltIGFuZCB0 aGUgZGVmZW5kYW50LCBhbmQgdGhlIGRlZmVuZGFudCdzIHNvbi1pbi1sYXcgSmFtZXMgR2lic29u LCBhbmQgYSBwcm9mZXNzaW9uYWwgd2l0bmVzcyAtIHRoZSBwb2xpY2Ugb2ZmaWNlciBKdWxpYW4g TWFkZGVuLiAgTXJzIEdpYnNvbiBpcyBtZW50aW9uZWQgYXMgYXR0ZW5kaW5nIHRoZSBzY2VuZSBv ZiB0aGUgYXNzYXVsdCB5ZXQgc2hlIHdhcyBub3QgY2FsbGVkIHRvIGdpdmUgZXZpZGVuY2UuICBU aGVyZSBhcmUgbm8gaW5kZXBlbmRlbnQgd2l0bmVzc2VzLg0KDQpUaGUgY2hhcmdlIG9yIHByZXNl bnRtZW50IGFnYWluc3QgUmFuZGFsbCB3YXMgIldvdW5kaW5nIHdpdGggaW50ZW50IHRvIGRvIGdy aWV2b3VzIGJvZGlseSBoYXJtIiB0byB3aGljaCBoZSBwbGVhZGVkICJOb3QgR3VpbHR5Ii4gDQoN CiANCldpdG5lc3MgRWxpemFiZXRoIFJBTkRBTEwsICJ0aGUgdmljdGltIi4NCg0KU2hlIGFwcGVh cnMgdG8gZ2l2ZSBoZXIgZXZpZGVuY2UgaW4gYW5zd2VyIHRvIHF1ZXN0aW9ucywgcmF0aGVyIHRo YW4gZGlyZWN0bHkgZnJvbSBoZXIgbWVtb3J5LCBhcyB0aGVyZSBhcmUgdG9vIG1hbnkgc2VudGVu Y2VzIGJlZ2lubmluZyB3aXRoIHRoZSBwZXJzb25hbCBwcm9ub3VuICJJIi4NCg0KVGhlIGRlZmVu ZGFudCBoYXMgYSBoaXN0b3J5IG9mIGRydW5rZW5uZXNzIGFuZCB2aW9sZW5jZSwgd2hpY2ggaGlz IHdpZmUga25vd3MsIGFuZCB5ZXQgc2hlIHNlbmRzIGZvciBydW0gZm9yIHRoZW0gYm90aCB0byBk cmluay4gIEl0IGlzIG5vdCBnaXZlbiBpbiBldmlkZW5jZSBhcyB0byB3aG8gZ290IHRoZSBydW0u DQoNClNoZSBzYXlzICJteSBodXNiYW5kIHdhcyBzdHVwaWQgZnJvbSBkcmluayB0aGF0IGV2ZW5p bmc7IGhlIHdhcyBzd2VhcmluZywgYW5kIEkgdG9sZCBoaW0gdG8gc3RvcCwgaGUgc2FpZCBoZSB3 b3VsZCBub3Q7IEkgdG9sZCBoaW0gaWYgaGUgZGlkIG5vdCBzdG9wIEkgd291bGQgaGl0IGhpbSB3 aXRoIGEgYnJpY2suLi4uLiINCg0KTm93IEVsaXphYmV0aCBrbm93cyB3aGF0IGhlIGlzIGxpa2Ug d2hlbiB1bmRlciB0aGUgaW5mbHVlbmNlIG9mIGFsY29ob2wsIGJ1dCBzaGUgc2VuZHMgZm9yIHRo ZSBydW0uDQoNCldpbGxpYW0gYmVjYW1lICJzdHVwaWQgZnJvbSBkcmluayBhbmQgaGUgd2FzIHN3 ZWFyaW5nIi4gIFNoZSB0ZWxscyBoaW0gdG8gc3RvcCBvciBzaGUgd2lsbCBoaXQgaGltIHdpdGgg YSBicmljay4gIFNvIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBtZW50aW9uIG9mIHZpb2xlbmNlIGNhbWUgZnJvbSBoaXMg d2lmZS4gIFRoaXMgaXMgbm90IGFsbHVkZWQgdG8gYWdhaW4gaW4gdGhlIHByb2NlZWRpbmdzLCBi dXQgYXBwYXJlbnRseSBvdmVybG9va2VkLiAgU2hlIHRocmVhdGVucyBoZXIgaHVzYmFuZCB3aXRo IHZpb2xlbmNlIHdpdGggYSB3ZWFwb24uICBIZSB3YXMgbm90IGJlaW5nIHZpb2xlbnQsIGJ1dCBk cnVuayBhbmQgc3dlYXJpbmcuICBJdCBpcyBub3QgZ2l2ZW4gaW4gZXZpZGVuY2UgYXMgdG8gd2hh dCBoZSB3YXMgc2F5aW5nLCBkaWQgaGUgdGhyZWF0ZW4gYW55b25lIHdpdGggdmlvbGVuY2U/ICBJ dCBpcyBub3QgZ2l2ZW4gaW4gZXZpZGVuY2UuDQoNClNoZSBpcyBub3QgYXNrZWQgaWYgc2hlIGRp ZCBpbiBmYWN0IGhhdmUgYSBicmljayBpbiBoZXIgcG9zc2Vzc2lvbiBhdCB0aGUgdGltZSwgb3Ig ZXZlbiBpZiB0aGVyZSB3YXMgb25lIHF1aWNrbHkgYXZhaWxhYmxlIHRvIGhlci4gIFRoZSBmbG9v ciBpcyBtZW50aW9uZWQgYXMgYmVpbmcgbWFkZSBvZiBicmljay4gIFdlcmUgdGhleSBjZW1lbnRl ZCBpbnRvIHRoZSBmbG9vciBvciBqdXN0IGx5aW5nIGxvb3NlPyAgSXQgaXMgbm90IGdpdmVuIGlu IGV2aWRlbmNlLg0KDQpXaHkgZGlkIHNoZSBzYXkgc2hlIHdvdWxkIGhpdCBoaW0gd2l0aCBhIGJy aWNrPyAgQW4gdW51c3VhbCByZXNwb25zZSBmb3IgYSB3b21hbiBpbiBzdWNoIGNpcmN1bXN0YW5j ZXMsIHVubGVzcyBzaGUgaGFzIGhhZCB0byByZXNvcnQgdG8gc3VjaCBhIHdlYXBvbiBvbiBwcmV2 aW91cyBvY2Nhc2lvbnMgdG8gZGVmZW5kIGhlcnNlbGYgYWdhaW5zdCBoaW0sIG9yIHVubGVzcyBz aGUgaGVyc2VsZiBpcyBhIHdvbWFuIGRpc3Bvc2VkIHRvIGJlY29taW5nIHZpb2xlbnQgYW5kIHVz aW5nIHdlYXBvbnMsIGFuZCBtYXliZSBpZiBzbywgc2hlIGhhcyBiZWVuIHRoZSBhcmNoaXRlY3Qg b2YgdGhlIGFzc2F1bHRzIHVwb24gaGVyIG9uIHByZXZpb3VzIG9jY2FzaW9ucywgYW5kIGhlIGhh cyBoYWQgdG8gZGVmZW5kIGhpbXNlbGYgYWdhaW5zdCBoZXIgYXR0YWNrcy4gIE5vbmUgb2YgdGhp cyBpcyBleGFtaW5lZCBpbiBldmlkZW5jZS4NCg0KSWYgc2hlIGhhcyBiZWVuIHRoZSBhcmNoaXRl Y3Qgb2YgYXNzYXVsdHMgdXBvbiBoZXIgYnkgaGVyIGh1c2JhbmQsIHRoZW4gd2h5IHdvdWxkIHNo ZSBkbyB0aGlzPyAgTW9kZXJuIFZpY3RpbW9sb2d5IGhhcyBlc3RhYmxpc2hlZCB0aGF0IHRoZXJl IGFyZSBwZW9wbGUgb24gb3VyIHBsYW5ldCB3aG8gaGF2ZSBoYWQgYW4gdW5icmluZ2luZyB0aGUg bW9yYWwgdG9uZSBvZiB3aGljaCBuZWNlc3NpdGF0ZXMgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGJlIHB1bmlzaGVkIGZv ciAic2lucyIsIGFuZCBpZiB0aGUgcHVuaXNobWVudCBpcyBub3QgZm9ydGhjb21pbmcgdGhleSB3 aWxsIGNyZWF0ZSBzaXR1YXRpb25zIHdoZXJlYnkgdGhleSBzdWZmZXIgdmlvbGVuY2UgYXMgcHVu aXNobWVudCBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMuICBUaGVyZSBhcmUgd29tZW4sIHdobyB3aWxsIHBo eXNpY2FsbHkgbXV0aWxhdGUgdGhlbXNlbHZlcywgdGhlbiBhbGxlZ2UgdGhhdCBhIGNlcnRhaW4g bWFuIHRyaWVkIHRvIHJhcGUgaGVyLCBvciBkaWQgaW4gZmFjdCByYXBlIGhlciwgYXMgYSBmb3Jt IG9mIHZlbmdlYW5jZSBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZSBtYW4gZm9yIG5vdCBzaG93aW5nIGFueSBpbnRlcmVz dCBpbiB0aGVtLiAgSSBoYXZlIG1ldCBzdWNoIHdvbWVuIGluIHRoZSBjb3Vyc2Ugb2YgcG9saWNl IHdvcmsuIFdlIGhhdmUgaGFkIHdvbWVuIGVudGVyIHBvbGljZSBzdGF0aW9ucyBhbmQgZG9iIHRo ZWlyIGh1c2JhbmRzIGluIGZvciBjcmltZXMgdGhleSBoYXZlIGNvbW1pdHRlZCBtZXJlbHkgdG8g Z2V0IHRoZW0gb3V0IG9mIHRoZSB3YXkgc28gdGhhdCBjYW4gaGF2ZSBhIGxvbmcgYWZmYWlyIHdp dGggdGhlIGh1c2JhbmQncyBtYXRlKHMpLCBhbmQgdmljZSB2ZXJzYS4gIEh1bWFuIEJlaW5ncyBj YW4gYmUgc3RyYW5nZSBhbmQgcGVydmVydGVkIGNyZWF0dXJlcy4NCg0KRnJvbSBoZXIgZXZpZGVu Y2UgYWxvbmUsIGl0IHNlZW1zIHRoYXQgc2hlIHNldCBoaW0gdXAgc28gdGhhdCBoZSBjb3VsZCBi ZSBhcnJlc3RlZCBhbmQgZ290ICJvdXQgb2YgdGhlIHdheSIuICBCdXQgc2hlIGRvZXMgc2F5IHRo YXQgc2hlIGRpZG4ndCB3aXNoIHRvIHByb3NlY3V0ZSwgbm8gd2lmZSBkb2VzIi4gIEhvdyBzd2Vl dCBvZiBoZXIuICBJc24ndCBzaGUgYSB3b25kZXJmdWwgc3VmZmVyaW5nIHdvbWFuPyAgVGhlIHNw aXJpdCBvZiBDaHJpc3RpYW4gZm9yZ2l2ZW5lc3MuICBBIG5pY2UgdG91Y2ggLSBmb3IgdGhlIGp1 cnkncyBiZW5lZml0IG9mIGNvdXJzZS4NCg0KDQpXaXRuZXNzIEphbmUgUllBTiwgZGVmZW5kYW50 J3MgZ3JhbmQtZGF1Z2h0ZXINCg0KDQpBbHRob3VnaCBoZXIgZXZpZGVuY2UgaXMgZmFpcmx5IHBy YWdtYXRpYywgc2hlIGRvZXMgbm90IHNheSBub3IgaXMgc2hlIGFza2VkLCB3aGF0IHRoZSBhcmd1 bWVudCBiZXR3ZWVuIGhlciBncmFuZHBhcmVudHMgd2FzIGFib3V0LiAgU2hlIGRvZXMgbm90IGdp dmUgaGVyIG93biBhZ2UsIGFuZCBkb2VzIG5vdCBtZW50aW9uIGFueSBhbGNvaG9sIGJlaW5nIGRy dW5rLiAgU2hlIGRvZXMgbm90IGdpdmUgZXZpZGVuY2Ugb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGUgZ3JhbmRtb3RoZXIg RWxpemFiZXRoIFJhbmRhbGwgc2FpZCB0byBwcm92b2tlIHRoZSBmaWdodC4gIFRoZSBuZXh0IHdp dG5lc3MgSmFtZXMgR2lic29uIHJlZmVycyB0byBKYW5lIFJ5YW4gYXMgYSBsaXR0bGUgZ2lybC4g IFNoZSBzdGF0ZXMgdGhlIGFzc2F1bHQgdG9vayBwbGFjZSB3aGVuIFdpbGxpYW0gdGhyZXcgYSBi b290IGF0IEVsaXphYmV0aCwgdGhlbiBoZSBoaXQgRWxpemFiZXRoIHdpdGggaGlzIGhhbmQsIGEg Y2xvc2VkIGZpc3QuICBFbGl6YWJldGggaW4gaGVyIGV2aWRlbmNlIGRvZXMgbm90IG1lbnRpb24g YW55dGhpbmcgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCBhIGJvb3QuDQoNCldpdG5lc3MgSmFtZXMgR0lCU09OLCBkZWZl bmRhbnQncyBzb24taW4tbGF3DQoNCkhlIGdpdmVzIGdvb2QgZXZpZGVuY2UsIGJ1dCBoZSBpcyB0 YWxraW5nIGFib3V0IGEgZ3VuLiAgU28gd2UgaGF2ZSBtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIGEgYnJpY2sgd2l0aCBh biBvcGVuIGhhbmQsIHRvIGEgYm9vdCB3aXRoIGEgY2xvc2VkIGZpc3QsIHRvIGEgZ3VuIHdpdGgg YSBicm9rZW4gc3RvY2suICBFYWNoIHN1ZGRlbiBsZWFwIGlzIGtub3duIGFzIGEgaGlhdHVzLiAg VGhpcyBpcyBub3QgZ29vZC4gIFRoZXNlIHRocmVlIG1ldGhvZHMgb2YgYXNzYXVsdCBtdXN0IGJl IGJyb3VnaHQgdG9nZXRoZXIgaW4gYSBjaGFpbiBvZiBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzIHNob3dpbmcgaG93 IHRoZSBkZWZlbmRhbnQgYW5kIHZpY3RpbSBtb3ZlZCBmcm9tIG9uZSB0byB0aGUgb3RoZXIgaW4g YSBjYXVzYWwgY2hhaW4uICBOZWl0aGVyIHRoZSBKdWRnZSBub3IgdGhlIENyb3duIFByb3NlY3V0 b3IgdHJ5IHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCB0aGlzLiAgVGhlIGNpcmN1bXN0YW5jZXMgb2YgdGhlIGZpbmRp bmcgb2YgdGhlIGd1biBhcmUgZ29uZSBpbnRvIGZhaXJseSB3ZWxsIGJ1dCBpdCBpcyBub3QgcHJv dmVuIHRoYXQgV2lsbGlhbSBhc3NhdWx0ZWQgRWxpemFiZXRoIHdpdGggaXQuICBTaGUgbWF5IGhh dmUgZmFsbGVuIHVwb24gaXQuICBFbGl6YWJldGggZG9lcyBub3QgbWVudGlvbiB0aGUgZ3VuLCBh bmQgbmVpdGhlciBpcyBzaGUgYXNrZWQgYWJvdXQgaXQuICBTaGUgaGFkIGJlZW4gc2l0dGluZyBu ZWFyIHRoZSBmaXJlcGxhY2Ugd2hlcmUgdGhlIGd1biB3YXMga2VwdCBhdCB0aGUgdGltZSBvZiB0 aGUgYXNzYXVsdC4gIEl0IGlzIG5vdCBnaXZlbiBpbiBldmlkZW5jZSwgaG93IHNoZSBhY3R1YWxs eSBmZWxsIGFuZCB3aGVyZSBzaGUgYWN0dWFsbHkgZmVsbC4gIEl0IGlzIHRvbyB2YWd1ZSwgYW5k IHRoZSBKdWRnZSBhbGxvd3MgaXQgdG8gcmVtYWluIHNvLg0KDQpQb2xpY2UgV2l0bmVzcyAtIENv bnN0YWJsZSBKdWxpYW4gTUFEREVODQoNCkFsbCB0aGUgZXZpZGVuY2UgaGUgZ2l2ZXMgaXMgd2hh dCBoZSBmb3VuZCwgc2FpZCBhbmQgZGlkIEFGVEVSIHRoZSBhc3NhdWx0LiAgSGUgbWFrZXMgbm8g YXR0ZW1wdCB3aGF0c29ldmVyIHRvIGludmVzdGlnYXRlIHRoZSBjaXJjdW1zdGFuY2VzIGxlYWRp bmcgdXAgdG8gaXQuICBTdWItSW5zcGVjdG9yIEJyYXVtYW4gbWVyZWx5IGNvcnJvYm9yYXRlcyBN QURERU4gYW5kIGhhcyBubyBmdXJ0aGVyIGV2aWRlbmNlIHRvIG9mZmVyLiAgSW4gc2hvcnQsIE1B RERFTiBhcnJlc3RzIGFuZCBjaGFyZ2VzIFJhbmRhbGwgYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIGFwcGVhcmFuY2Ug b2YgdGhpbmdzLCB3aXRob3V0IGZ1bGwgYW5kIHByb3BlciBpbnZlc3RpZ2F0aW9uLCBhbmQgaXQg aXMgYWNjZXB0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIENvdXJ0Pw0KDQoNCg0KDQpPUElOSU9ODQoNCkhhZCBJIGJlZW4g dGhlIGF0dGVuZGluZyBwb2xpY2Ugb2ZmaWNlciwgSSB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIGludmVzdGlnYXRlZCB0 aGlzIHByb3Blcmx5IGFuZCBJIHdvdWxkIG5vdCBoYXZlIGNoYXJnZWQgV2lsbGlhbSBSYW5kYWxs IHdpdGggYW55IG9mZmVuY2UsIGJ1dCBsZWZ0IHRoZSBtYXR0ZXIgZm9yIHRoZW0gdG8gdGFrZSBj aXZpbCBhY3Rpb24gaWYgdGhleSBzbyB3aXNoZWQuDQoNCkZyb20gdGhlIGV2aWRlbmNlIGdpdmVu LCB0aGUgYXNzYXVsdCBieSBSYW5kYWxsIGNvdWxkIHdlbGwgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGNvbnN0cnVlZCBi eSB0aGUgQ291cnQgYXMgc2VsZi1kZWZlbmNlIGJlY2F1c2UgaGUgaGFkIGJlZW4gdGhyZWF0ZW5l ZCB3aXRoIHZpb2xlbmNlIGJ5IGhpcyBvd24gd2lmZSByaWdodCBmcm9tIHRoZSBiZWdpbm5pbmcu DQoNCkl0IGlzIGF0IHRoZSBtb3N0LCBpZiB0aGVyZSBoYWQgYmVlbiBtb3JlIGV2aWRlbmNlLCBh biBhc3NhdWx0IFdJVEhPVVQgaW50ZW50LiAgUHJvdm9rZWQgYW5kICJzZXQgdXAiIGJ5IEVsaXph YmV0aCwgYnJvdWdodCB0byBmcnVpdGlvbiBieSBXaWxsaWFtLCBpbiBhIGRvbWVzdGljIHNpdHVh dGlvbiBvZiBkcnVua2VubmVzcyBicm91Z2h0IGFib3V0IGJ5IEVsaXphYmV0aCBnZXR0aW5nIHRo ZSBydW0uICBTaGUga25ldyBleGFjdGx5IHdoYXQgc2hlIHdhcyB1cCB0byBmcm9tIHRoZSBiZWdp bm5pbmcuDQoNCldpdGggIndvdW5kaW5nIiwgdGhlcmUgaGFzIHRvIGJlIGludGVudC4gIEluIFZp Y3RvcmlhLCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgdHdvIGtpbmRzIG9mICJhc3NhdWx0IGNhdXNpbmcgZ3JpZXZvdXMg Ym9kaWx5IGhhcm0iLCBvbmUgd2l0aCBpbnRlbnQgYW5kIG9uZSB3aXRob3V0IGludGVudC4gIFRo ZXJlIGlzIGluIFZpY3RvcmlhIHRoZSBjaGFyZ2Ugb2YgIkFzc2F1bHQgb2NjYXNpb25pbmcgYWN0 dWFsIGJvZGlseSBoYXJtIiB3aGljaCBkb2VzIG5vdCByZXF1aXJlIHRoZSBwcm92aW5nIG9mIGlu dGVudC4gIFdoZXRoZXIgc3VjaCBhIGNoYXJnZSBleGlzdGVkIGluIE5TVyBpbiAxODc5IEkgZG9u J3Qga25vdy4NCg0KVGhlcmUgYXJlIGxlYXBzIGFuZCBnYXBzIGluIHRoZSBldmlkZW5jZS4gIFRo ZSB0d28gY29wcGVycyBzaG91bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGRpc2NpcGxpbmVkIGFuZCBwdXQgYmFjayBv biB0aGUgYmVhdCBpbiBTeWRuZXkuICBUaGUgSnVkZ2UgZG9lcyBub3QgaW5zdHJ1Y3QgdGhlIEp1 cnkgcHJvcGVybHkuICBIZSBjb3VsZCBoYXZlIHNhaWQgdG8gdGhlIEp1cnksICJJZiB5b3UgZmlu ZCB0aGF0IHRoZSBhc3NhdWx0IHdoZW4gb2NjYXNpb25lZCwgd2FzIGRvbmUgc28gd2l0aG91dCBp bnRlbnQsIHRoZW4geW91IG11c3QgcmV0dXJuIGEgdmVyZGljdCBvZiAiTm90IGd1aWx0eSIiLiAg QnV0IGhlIHR3aXN0cyBpdCBhcm91bmQgYW5kIHRoZSBqdXJ5IG1lZWtseSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIGhp bS4gIEhhZCBSYW5kYWxsIGFwcGVhbGVkLCB0aGUgYXBwZWFscyBjb3VydCB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIHJh cHBlZCB0aGUgSnVkZ2Ugb3ZlciB0aGUga251Y2tsZXMsIHVwaGVsZCB0aGUgYXBwZWFsIGFuZCBk aXJlY3RlZCBhIHJlLXRyaWFsLg0KDQpXaWxsaWFtIFJhbmRhbGwgaGFzIG5vIHByZXZpb3VzIGNv bnZpY3Rpb25zIGZvciB2aW9sZW5jZS4gIEhlIGhhcyBvbmUgcHJpb3IgY29udmljdGlvbiBmb3Ig YSB0aGVmdCA5IHllYXJzIHByZXZpb3VzbHkuICBUaGlzIGlzIGEgbm9uLXZpb2xlbnQgY3JpbWUu ICBXaHkgaGFzIGhpcyByZXB1dGVkIHZpb2xlbmNlIGJlZW4gYWxsb3dlZCB0byBjb250aW51ZSB1 bnRpbCBoZSBpcyA2NSB5ZWFycyBvbGQ/ICBXaHkgd2VyZW4ndCB0aGUgd2l0bmVzc2VzIGFza2Vk IGFib3V0IGhpcyB2aW9sZW50IHJlcHV0YXRpb24/ICBBdCA2NSB5ZWFycyBvZiBhZ2UsIGhlIGlz IHNlbnRlbmNlZCB0byAyIHllYXJzIGhhcmQgbGFib3VyLg0KDQpUaGUgSnVkZ2Ugc2hvdWxkIGhh dmUgYmVlbiBmbG9nZ2VkIGFuZCBzZW50IHRvIFZhbiBEaWVtZW4ncyBsYW5kIGluIGNoYWlucy4g IChSaG9uZGEsIHNlZSBpZiB5b3UgY2FuIGdldCBhIHByb3BlciB0cmFuc2NyaXB0IG9mIHRoZSB0 cmlhbCBmcm9tIHRoZSBOU1cgU3VwcmVtZSBDb3VydCB3ZWJzaXRlLikNCg0KTm90IG9ubHkgc2hv dWxkIFdpbGxpYW0gUmFuZGFsbCBoYXZlIG5vdCBiZWVuIGNoYXJnZWQgd2l0aCBhbnkgY3JpbWlu YWwgb2ZmZW5jZSwgV2lsbGlhbSBSYW5kYWxsIHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gZm91bmQgIk5vdCBn dWlsdHkiLg0KDQoNCk1lbCBHcmlldmVzb24NCk1lbnRvbmUNClZpY3RvcmlhDQoNCjE2dGggSnVu ZSAyMDAzLiAgIHB5dGhvbkBtYWlsLmViYnMuY29tLmF1DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0K ------------5FF31B5168B8F24--

Thanks everyone for your help. I now know that Goonable is the Parish of Gunambil in the County of Urana. Family was living at South Creek in this parish. Regards Simon

Simon, The LPI has converted a lot of the old pastoral and parish maps to digital images and placed them on line. You can view them online or get a CD containing selected images. I had a quick look and found pastoral map for NORTH GOONAMBIL and a map for SOUTH URANA that both refer to the North Goonambil Run. Is it possible that this is what you are after? The website for LPI is http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/maps/pmap/search/pmap_websearch.display Regards, Ron Harrison >-- Original Message -- >From: S & A Liddle <[email protected]> >Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:43:50 +1000 >Subject: Goonable Station, Urana >To: [email protected] > > >I am searching for information on the location and history of Goonable Station, >probably near Urana, NSW. Any information, whatsoever, would be greatly >appreciated. Would anyone have copies of pastoral run maps of that area? > >Kind regards >Simon >[email protected] > > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, >go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 >

To the Judge: Humm, I would imagine if this was today there would be a full inquiry with DNA ect and the truth would be known. To me bringing up the larceny charge had nothing to do with the Court case. Although William was a violent man there is nothing in the inquiry that leds me to believe with out a shodow of doubt that he did hit her with the said gun. Elizabeth may have hit her head or William probably did do it but I can not find him guilty on the evidence given. There are to many holes. Best wishes Juror, Amanda

> Very difficult, She could of hitten her head on the fire place, but as the blood was 7 feet from it, it doesnt seem like it. The floor was smooth,where was she getting the brick from to hit him She could of hit her head on a jagged piece of brick or a small stone that was on the floor, how clean was the floor from rubbish?? The guns the problem. A violent man, How old where the other bruises?? > NOT Guilty > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Newell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 4:50 PM Subject: The 12 Juror's. > I hope you don't mind me listing your names. The twelve Juror's are; Cheryl, Christine, Mel, Rob, Carol, Judith, Kaye, Tracey, David, Penny, Amanda, Rose. > > I will leave the Judge to introduce herself, her qualifications are impressive. > > Would you mind posting your verdict, and the reason why, to the list, it will make it easier for the Judge. > > Also, will you please email your virdicts to me as I revieve mt email from the list through Digest, and I can't wait to hear the verdict. > > This is really interesting from my end, and also a bit of fun. > > Regards > Rhonda Newell. > > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > >

I am searching for information on the location and history of Goonable Station, probably near Urana, NSW. Any information, whatsoever, would be greatly appreciated. Would anyone have copies of pastoral run maps of that area? Kind regards Simon [email protected]

I hope you don't mind me listing your names. The twelve Juror's are; Cheryl, Christine, Mel, Rob, Carol, Judith, Kaye, Tracey, David, Penny, Amanda, Rose. I will leave the Judge to introduce herself, her qualifications are impressive. Would you mind posting your verdict, and the reason why, to the list, it will make it easier for the Judge. Also, will you please email your virdicts to me as I revieve mt email from the list through Digest, and I can't wait to hear the verdict. This is really interesting from my end, and also a bit of fun. Regards Rhonda Newell.

Hi Thought it was about time I list the Surnames I'm interested in for SE NSW. Main Lines are RYAN & POWER with names coming in down the line Agnew Alexander Bateman Beileiter Cotter Dickie Donnelly Doyle Farrell Flanagan Flynn Geraghty Gillett Gorman Greer Jess Johnson Keevers Lindwall O'Farrell Pendergast Peters Rixon Roberts Scullin Strangwidge Thornton Tracey Walker Ward Whelan Whittaker Williams Wilson Wolfe Cheers Nardia [email protected]