I just came across something and I thought I'd share it for the general interest of List members. It is also an example of some of the surprising things you can find out with a bit of cross-referencing. It's a pity one or two people couldn't do it 180 years ago or some innocent lives might have been saved. I have been looking into the robbery of Hamilton's store at Ross in November 1834. One of the robbers, Michael Rice, turned King's Evidence, and his evidence led to the conviction and execution of four of his accomplices (Thomas Kirkham, John Ashton, John Bourke and William Weston). A fifth accomplice, Charles Nosworthy, received a Life sentence. It all seemed fairly straightforward. However, all of the convicted felons maintained their innocence right up until the moment they were hanged. They even claimed that the whole business was a set-up organised by Convict Constable John Lamph, one of the arresting constables, and the snitch Rice. They said that while in gaol, Lamph often came to see Rice, and that the two of them planned the whole testimony in order that Lamph could get a Conditional Pardon out of the affair. Rice denied this of course. Moreover, all six of the robbers who were charged -- Rice, Kirkham, Ashton, Bourke, Weston and Nosworthy -- were free men at the time of the robbery. Nosworthy had even arrived free and had no prior convict record. (All the others were previously convicts who were now free by servitude.) The only current convict among the lot of them was the arresting constable, John Lamph. In the end John Lamph did receive a Conditional Pardon for bringing the felons to justice, and Michael Rice -- although confessing to the robbery -- received immunity for turning Kings Evidence. Around the same time, the "Colonial Times" newspaper ran a series of editorials on the injustice of employing convicts as police constables, and on rewarding these constables with pardons, tickets-of-leave or a share in the rewards or fines on offer. The CT editor made a particular example of Convict Constable Lamph and the Ross robbery. The Editor lamented how the system invariably led to corruption, and how free people were at risk of losing their property and even their lives at the whims of convicts seeking pardons or rewards. The CT Editor went on to point out that later on in July 1835, Constable Lamph brought capital charges of assault against four free men in Hobart Town -- "capital" meaning that if found guilty, the men would be sentenced to death. However, the four men were acquitted and Constable Lamph was subsequently charged with perjury for lying under oath about the assault. (Apparently the courtroom audience erupted with cheers at this, and the Judge had a hard time calming them down.) I was looking at the various convict records for these people, and I came across a rather interesting "coincidence", although I don't believe much in coincidences: John Lamph and Michael Rice both came to VDL as convicts aboard the same transport, the "Castle Forbes". In fact they were both from County Armagh and had been tried at the same Lent Assizes in 1819, and they were 3 years apart in age. This was never mentioned in the trial of Kirkham et al or even by the "Colonial Times" Editor. But think about it: if you were an unscrupulous convict constable with a Life sentence who was prepared to lie and cheat your way to freedom, and you'd just arrested one of your old comrades and brother-in-arms who was looking at a death sentence if you turned him in ... and you had a chance to make the whole thing turn out more than well for both of you ... than what would *you* do??? Hmmmmmmmm .......... Douglas