Yikes It s Due Tomorrow Carmella Van Vleet - PDF

Download (2025)

https://ebookultra.com/download/yikes-it-s-due-tomorrow-carmella-
van-vleet/

Visit ebookultra.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at ebookultra.com

Janice VanCleave s Help My Science Project Is Due Tomorrow

Easy Experiments You Can Do Overnight Janice Vancleave

https://ebookultra.com/download/janice-vancleave-s-help-my-science-
project-is-due-tomorrow-easy-experiments-you-can-do-overnight-janice-
vancleave/

Performing Kinship Narrative Gender and the Intimacies of

Power in the Andes First Edition Krista E. Van Vleet

https://ebookultra.com/download/performing-kinship-narrative-gender-
and-the-intimacies-of-power-in-the-andes-first-edition-krista-e-van-
vleet/

Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration 2nd

Edition Matti S. Kurkela

https://ebookultra.com/download/due-process-in-international-
commercial-arbitration-2nd-edition-matti-s-kurkela/

Chua s circuit implementations yesterday today and

tomorrow Luigi Fortuna

https://ebookultra.com/download/chua-s-circuit-implementations-
yesterday-today-and-tomorrow-luigi-fortuna/
Nursing Now Today s Issues Tomorrow s Trends 4th Edition
Joseph T. Catalano

https://ebookultra.com/download/nursing-now-today-s-issues-tomorrow-s-
trends-4th-edition-joseph-t-catalano/

Today and Tomorrow Commemorative Edition of Ford s 1926

Classic Ford

https://ebookultra.com/download/today-and-tomorrow-commemorative-
edition-of-ford-s-1926-classic-ford/

Management Challenges for Tomorrow s Leaders Fifth Edition

with InfoTrac 1 Semester Pamela S. Lewis

https://ebookultra.com/download/management-challenges-for-tomorrow-s-
leaders-fifth-edition-with-infotrac-1-semester-pamela-s-lewis/

Hedge Fund Due Diligence 1st Edition Randy Shain

https://ebookultra.com/download/hedge-fund-due-diligence-1st-edition-
randy-shain/

Developing tomorrow s leaders today insights from

corporate India 1st Edition Meena Surie Wilson

https://ebookultra.com/download/developing-tomorrow-s-leaders-today-
insights-from-corporate-india-1st-edition-meena-surie-wilson/
Yikes It s Due Tomorrow Carmella Van Vleet Digital
Instant Download
Author(s): Carmella Van Vleet
ISBN(s): 9780972202688, 0972202684
Edition: Kindle
File Details: PDF, 6.68 MB
Year: 2004
Language: english
a Go Parents! guide ™

Carmella Van Vleet

i
 Nomad Press
A division of Nomad Communications
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Copyright © 2004 Carmella Van Vleet
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from
the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review.
The trademark “Nomad Press” and the Nomad Press logo are trademarks of
Nomad Communications, Inc. “a Go Parents! guide™” is a trademark of
Nomad Communications, Inc. Printed in the United States.
ISBN 0-9722026-8-4

Questions regarding the ordering of this book should be addressed to

The Independent Publishers Group
814 N. Franklin St.
Chicago, IL 60610
www.ipgbook.com

Nomad Press, 2456 Christian Street, White River Junction, VT 05001

www.nomadpress.net

ii
 Contents

Introduction How to Use This Book 1

1 School’s Back in Session! 3

Handling Snafus Before The First Bell

2 “Hurry Up. You’ll Be Late!” 17

The Trouble Getting There

3 Teacher From the Black Lagoon 41

Snafus in the Classroom

4 Making the Grade 67

Academic Issues

5 It’s a Jungle Gym Out There 95

Playground Problems

6 “Mom, My Project’s Due Tomorrow!” 125

Handling Homework

7 Extra Credit 139

A Few More Snafus

iii
 Dedication
This one is for Jim because with him by my side,
I can handle anything.
 Acknowledgments
At the risk of sounding like someone who wins an Oscar and then
thanks everyone she’s ever met in her acceptance speech, I’d like
to acknowledge some people who made this book possible.
First of all, I’d like to thank my editor, Lauri Berkenkamp, for
believing in me and my idea, and for writing such great parent-
ing guides. Coming into an existing series is like being a
substitute teacher; I’m honored you trusted me to take over your
classroom for a while.
Second, many thanks to all those teachers, parents, and other
experts who told me when I got it right or wrong: Jeremy
Arend, Carol Condon, Barbara Kanninen, Carolyn Markowsky,
Christine Naylor, Kim Newlon, Marian Van Vleet. And to Leslie
Davison, whose school snafu inspired this book—how’s this for a
silver lining?
To my friends who shared advice and ideas and didn’t complain
when I called to say, “Listen to this paragraph and tell me what
you think.” Beth Comer, Tess Ellis, Kim Juttner, and Jen Richards—
a big thank you.
I’d also like to thank my family, the one scattered about the coun-
try and especially the one I live with: Jim, Matt, Sam, and Abbey.
Without you, there is no me. (Sorry for all the times I forgot to
start dinner because I was writing!)
And finally, I have an armful of gratitude for my father, Darrell W.
Condon. Dad, you are the only reason I was able to finish this
book. Thank you for being my bridge over troubled water.
—C.V.V.
vi
Nobody Said There’d Be a Test!
Ah . . . fall. That time of year when parents finally get to hear the
three little words they’ve been longing for: back to school.
But sending your child off to school can really test your patience
and imagination. For example, what do you do if your child is
afraid to use the bathroom at school? Or if your daughter is con-
vinced her teacher is out to get her? How about when your son
waits until bedtime to tell you he has a big project due the next
day? And, for Pete’s sake, what do you do with all that art that
comes home?!
Don’t panic—help is at hand. How to Handle School Snafus is a
humorous and practical guide to handling common grade-school
problems. Whether your child is afraid of the school’s automatic
flushing toilets, nervous about having a male teacher for the first
time, or is suffering from test anxiety or a nasty case of spring fever,
How to Handle School Snafus has the answers. Just think of it as
Cliff Notes for those “parenting pop quizzes” kids like to give.

How to Use This Book

This book should be used as a guide; when it comes to handling a
school snafu, there is no one right answer. The snafus listed in this
book are some common problems and exasperating I-haven’t-the-
foggiest-idea-what-to-do-about-that-one roadblocks many families

1
will encounter during the grade-school years. The kid-tested sug-
gestions come from parents, teachers, and other experts and
combine good, old-fashioned common sense with a dose of humor.
Let’s face it, with some school-related challenges—like when you
don’t know how to do your first grader’s homework—all you can
do is cry, bribe someone, or have a good laugh.
How to Handle School Snafus can be read straight through or used
to look up a particular situation as needed. Each chapter begins
with a brief introduction and then addresses a variety of snafus,
including numerous sidebars, insider tips, and interesting facts.
Are you getting ready for the new school year? Read Chapter
One: School’s Back in Session! for some ideas to start the year
off right. Is your child dawdling in the mornings or having prob-
lems on the bus? Try Chapter Two: “Hurry Up. You’ll Be Late!”
Chapter Three: Teacher From the Black Lagoon offers advice
on handling all those snafus that come up during the school day,
including personality clashes with teachers, acting up in class,
and lunchroom problems. It’s time to hit the books in Chapter
Four: Making the Grade, where challenges such as test anxiety,
cheating, and dealing with underachievers are addressed.
Is your child having trouble with friends? Chapter Five: It’s a
Jungle Gym Out There is devoted to problems with friends,
bullies, teasing, and peer pressure. If homework hassles are making
your head ache, take a peek in Chapter Six: “Mom, My Project Is
Due Tomorrow!” for some ideas on creating healthy homework
habits as well as some solutions for dealing with your young per-
fectionist or procrastinator. And finally, if you’re up for a little boost
in your grade as a parent, read Chapter Seven: Extra Credit for
creative solutions to a few other snafus such as an avalanche of art,
spring fever, volunteering at school, and teacher gift ideas.
Not to worry. For many parents, the first day of school is the
beginning of not only their child’s education but their own edu-
cation in handling school snafus, as well.
And you thought your days of lessons, tests, and homework were
over.

2
 Chapter 1

ou’ve endured shopping trips for the latest fashions with your

Y picky son, taken out a small loan to buy him shoes, picked
through hundreds of lunchboxes for just the right one, gone
on a scavenger hunt for school supplies, and filled out so many
forms that you can recite the pediatrician’s address by heart.
Getting your child ready for school may be a test of your shopping
(and budgeting) skills, but it’s only half the battle. There are so
many new things to experience that sending your child off to
school can be a test of courage—yours and your child’s.
Unfortunately, the Parent Handbook the school sent home doesn’t
really have the answers. (It does, however, say your son’s new
shoes won’t be allowed because they have dark soles that could
scuff the gym floor.)

3
“I’ve Got Who?!”
It’s the week before school starts and there’s a crowd by the front
doors of the school. Everyone is chatting nervously. Finally, what
everyone has been waiting for is posted: the class lists.
Your son scans the lists. “Oh, man! I’ve got Mrs.
Walters!” he says, obviously unhappy.
While moving up a grade or starting school
for the first time is exciting, a new
teacher can also be a little frightening.
Parents and kids alike hear stories
about the teachers in their school and
sometimes a teacher’s reputation can
precede her or him. Students and par-
ents may even have previous
experience with a teacher that causes
anxiety when class lists are posted.
Or, sometimes, it’s a specific charac-
teristic causing your child to worry.
As a general rule, once class lists are posted,
they are set in stone. Most schools, afraid of setting precedents,
will not make changes. This is why lists are frequently posted a
day or two before class starts. The theory is parents are less
likely to argue a placement if there’s not much time to pursue the
issue. That is not to say all is lost if you or your child are unhappy
about whose class he or she will be in. Here are a few tips to
ease the anxiety:
Give the teacher a chance. If you’re feeling uneasy, meet the
teacher and talk to her. See what she’s like. Ask about her
approach with the kids or why she went into teaching. Put aside
any preconceived notions you have and appreciate the teacher for
who she is and the gifts she can bring to your child.
Talk to other parents or students who have had the teacher.
You may have heard horror stories from some people but remem-
ber, you’re probably not getting the whole story. Ask other

4
students and parents about their experiences. Chances
are you’ll hear things like: “He gives a lot of home-
work but his space unit is a ton of fun!” or “He’s
tough but the kids really seemed to love him.”
Give your child time to adjust. Getting used to a
new teacher and her classroom style can take some
time. Encourage your child to give her teacher a
few weeks and to keep an open mind.
Often times, the teacher your child
hates at the beginning of the year is
the same teacher she tearfully hugs good-bye in June!

Meeting the Teacher for the First Time

If you’re meeting your child’s teacher for the first time at an Open
House, it’s best to keep things fairly brief. After you’ve introduced
yourself, introduce your child. (You can also encourage your child
to introduce herself.) Make sure you let the teacher know if your
child has a nickname she prefers to go by. Save any long

HAVING A MALE TEACHER

FOR THE FIRST TIME
Male teachers are a rare sight in many elementary school districts.
This is too bad—men can have a wonderful impact on young stu-
dents, connecting with kids and bringing experiences to them in
unique ways. For example, it’s great having a male teacher around
when it comes time for older students to divide up for sex education
in health class. Male teachers can also be great role models for
children who don’t have a positive male figure in their lives.

Because male teachers at the elementary level are such a novelty,

plenty of children—and parents—have a hard time adjusting. There
are many myths about male teachers: they’re tougher than women,
they’re mean, they’re less affectionate, they’re not as creative. But,
like their female counterparts, male teachers come in a variety of
sizes, shapes, and personalities. Fortunately, many children and
parents quickly adjust and their worries can be put to rest.

5
 INSIDER TIP
Teachers and principals don’t want personality clashes any more
than parents and kids do. This is why many schools take personali-
ties and student needs into careful consideration when placing
children in a class. Some even ask parents to fill out a form about
their child’s likes, dislikes, strengths, interests, and temperaments. If
you believe your child would do better with one teacher over another
or if you’ve had such a negative experience with one teacher that
you don’t think you can be objective, contact your school’s counselor
or principal before class placements are made, usually before the
end of the school year.

conversations or concerns for another time when the teacher isn’t

trying to meet and greet thirty other sets of parents and kids.
Before saying good-bye, be sure to let the teacher know you and
your child are looking forward to a great year.

When Friends Are in Different

Classes
You’re standing by, chatting with other parents, as your
daughter checks the class list. All of a sudden, she comes
running over. “There must be a mistake!” she says. “My
best friend and I aren’t in the same class! How can I go to
school without her? The whole, entire year is ruined!”
Though you suspect the whole year isn’t
ruined, it’s clear the first few days of school
are going to be rough. Being separated
from friends can be quite upsetting. This is
especially true for girls, who tend to have
close attachments to one or two friends
whereas boys tend to run with a larger
group of friends and have looser ties.
Because you can’t change things, all you can
do is help your child accept the situation

6
 INSIDER TIP
Touching base with the teacher before the school year is especially
important if you have a child with special needs, regardless if those
needs have been addressed in an I.E.P. Consider meeting the
teacher without your child present at first. This will give a teacher
who has little or no experience with your child’s needs to ask
questions. It will also give you a chance to give the teacher infor-
mation that your child might be uncomfortable sharing.

and make the best of it. (It probably won’t make your child feel
any better, but you might find solace in knowing that often times
splitting up friends turns out to be a good thing in the long run. It
gives children a chance to interact with different people and can
cut down on the socializing that sometimes interferes with learn-
ing.) Here’s how you can help your child deal with being in a
different class than her friend:
Let your child express her disappointment. Validate the
friendship and your child’s feelings by saying something like,
“It’s hard to be apart from our friends, isn’t it?”
Arrange for her to spend time with the friend. Let your child
know that you will do whatever you can to support her spending
time with her friend. Remind her that she can still see her friend
at recess, lunch, on the bus, and after school.
Encourage your child to seek out new friends in her class-
room or cultivate other friendships. Share the old saying, “Make
new friends but keep the old. One is silver and the other gold.”

7
Help her realize her goal should be to add a friend or two, not
replace the other friend. Do this by telling her things like, “You and
so-and-so always had a great time. You’ll always be friends, but
it’s okay to have fun and be friends with other kids, too.”

It’s Tough Being the New Kid

As Kermit the Frog told us, “It’s not easy being green.” And as any
kid who’s moved or changed schools can tell you, “It’s not easy
being new.”
Moving can bring a mix of emotions and challenges to children.
They may be excited or nervous or, quite often, both! When it
comes to moving to a new school, children ages five to twelve are
most concerned with how their routines will change. Knowing
this can make your job as a parent a bit easier. If your child is
taking his turn at being “the new kid at school” there are a few
things you can do to make the transition go more smoothly.
First, take your child to visit his or her new school before the first
day. If you’re making the change in the fall, visit the school a
week before it opens. (Teachers and other school staff are usually
around, preparing for the year.) If you’re coming in mid-year, visit
a week or so before your child’s first day. Calling ahead of time is
a good idea so you don’t show up on an atypical day such as
Career Day or a Proficiency Test day. When you call, ask if there’s
another student, preferably in your child’s class or grade, who

INSIDER TIP
Being new is stressful. Adjusting can take a lot of time and
energy—time and energy that used to be devoted to schoolwork!
Occasionally, a child’s grades may temporarily slip. Grades may
also suffer as your child either tries to catch up with his class or get
into sync with them if he’s ahead. Try not to worry about these
slips and respect that your child’s most important job, for the time
being, is finding his place in the new school.

8
can show you and your child around. When you arrive, let your
child check out the layout of the building. Help him or her find all
the important areas or rooms—his or her classroom, locker, the
bathrooms, water fountains, office, library, gym, art room, com-
puter lab, cafeteria, playground, and bus drop-off area.
Second, be sure to ask about routines and rules. This is where
another student would be most helpful. How does the lunchroom
work, or is there a special “quiet” signal the teachers in the build-
ing use? Ask if there’s a rule about needing hall passes (or, if
you’re a parent, a visitor’s pass). Do students have IDs? Do they
have to wear special shoes for gym? Are students required to work
silently in the mornings or are they allowed to visit quietly in their
classrooms before the bell rings? Try to get as much detail as you
can about your child’s day. The more your child knows about
what’s expected, the more comfortable he or she will be.
Finally, during the first few weeks of school, encourage your child
to smile, talk, ask questions, and join in. Let him know that by
opening up and being friendly and participating in activities, he
will come across as approachable.
You should also encourage your child to be himself; don’t agree
to a drastic new hairstyle or wild wardrobe change or anything
that will attract attention. Encourage your child to get the “lay of
the land” first.

Fear of Getting Lost at

School
Even a child who is not new to a school building
may worry about getting lost. After all, your child
will likely be in a new room or even in a new
hall or section of the building. There are a few
things you can do to ease a worried mind.
One. Take advantage of any Open House the school
offers. Help your son find his classroom and see

9
who his teacher and classmates are. Encourage him to find his desk
or table and then explore the room. Afterward walk your child
around the entire school. Point out any landmarks he can use to find
his classroom. (“My room is by the office.”) You might even discover
the school itself has made efforts to help students by putting up
signs, arrows, or colored tiles in hallways.
Two. Help your child draw a map. Creating a map of the school
not only gives children a sense of control over their fears
but provides a reference they can use when they get
disoriented.
Three. Ask if there will be parent volunteers helping to
direct new students the first few days of school. If there
isn’t one already, organize a welcoming committee!
Four. Use a variety of games to help your child get ori-
ented to the school building.

Grades K through 2
Bingo. Make visiting school fun by putting together Bingo cards
with squares for things like cafeteria, flag, office, water fountain,
kid-sized chair, your child’s room number, teacher, chalk, and so
forth. Give your child a marker or stickers to cover each square as
the two of you come across each item. Make several cards and
play along with your child or let siblings (or friends) join in.
How Many Steps? After locating your child’s classroom, help
your child count off how many steps it takes to get to
other places in the building. For example, “It takes
one-hundred steps to get to the office.” Or “It takes fif-
teen steps to get to the bathroom.” Not only will your
younger child get great counting practice, but he or she
will also begin to get a sense of distance. (“The office is far
away. The bathroom is close.”)
“School” Book. Many teachers, especially those in the
younger grades, have students put together class books about
their tours around school. Help your child put together his or
her own book by bringing along a camera and snapping

10
 INSIDER TIP
Each night, for the first few weeks, ask your child to tell you one good
thing that happened or one good thing he or she discovered about the
new school. This will help your child focus on the positive.

pictures when you visit. Once you’re home,

put the pictures in order. (What do you see
first when you walk in the school
building?) Add a description such as
“The gym. Location: Right across from
my classroom.” You can also
include pictures of school staff in
the book so your child can learn
the names and faces of those he or
she will see each day.

Grades 3 through 6
Scavenger Hunt. Before you and your child visit school, prepare
a list of things for your child to find and check off. Older kids love
scavenger hunts and will benefit from a review of the building.
Make the scavenger hunt even more challenging by writing rid-
dles. For example, “This is the place where you’d find / teachers
who are the hushing kind.” (The library.)
Where in the School is Stu Dent? This activity is a fun varia-
tion of the game Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?
Either you or your child describe various rooms or places in the
school and see if the other one can figure out where Stu
Dent is hiding. If you have a map of the school (or
have made your own), add to the game by having
your child use his fingers to “walk” around the
school and search for Stu.
Imagination Maze. This game will test your child’s
sense of direction and knowledge of the school lay-
out—and yours. Have your child close her eyes
and take her on an imaginary “trip” out of her

11
Other documents randomly have
different content
‘What do you think about this case, Ol.?’ I said: ‘I don’t know; if I
knew anything I wouldn’t tell the police.’ He said: ‘You don’t want to
tell them if you know anything. The papers all say that she was a
goody-goody, but that is only for the sake of the public. She was a
cheeky little devil, and’”—and he added a disgusting comment. He
said also, the witness added: “I tried to pool the b⸺ b⸺ of a
Madame Ghurka. The police came to me and asked me if I saw
anything about the little girl, and I told them I saw her looking in
Madame Ghurka’s window, and I tried to pool the b⸺ b⸺
because she decoys little girls when they are missing away from
home.”
In her cross-examination Maddox admitted that she knew from
the papers the description of the little girl’s dress, and that it was
after she had had a conversation with Ivy Matthews on the subject
that she informed the police. That conversation took place on the
Tuesday, January 10. She told Matthews she was afraid to go to the
police on account of her convictions, and Matthews asked her
whether she really had any doubt it was the little girl, and she said
she was positive. Matthews said: “The police cannot touch you,” and
she replied: “Well, I will chance it, and go and do it.” She also
admitted that on Saturday afternoon, December 31, she was
arrested for absconding from her bail, and she remained in the
watchhouse until the Sunday afternoon. It is worthy of note that no
proceedings have been taken against Olive Maddox on that charge.
She admitted also that the meeting on the Thursday evening was
purely by chance, as far as she was concerned. Asked how many
people were in the saloon when she was there at 5 o’clock, she said
she did not know how many were in the bar, but in the parlour there
were two girls she knew, and one she didn’t know, and two or three
men, and there were two other men in the beaded room with the
little girl.
Therefore, there were seven or eight persons who were in as
good a position as Maddox to see the little girl, if, in fact, she had
been in the saloon.
 THE MATTHEWS CONFESSION.
Ivy Matthews was the next witness. She “didn’t quite know” what
to say her occupation was, as just at present she was out of
employment, but she had been a barmaid. She had been employed
by the accused from the 23rd of December, 1920, up to some time
in November, 1921. She left the day following Ross’s acquittal on the
shooting charge. She described minutely the interior of the wine
saloon as it was in her time, and on being shown two blankets, said
that one of them—a greeny-blue military blanket—was on the couch
in the cubicle in her time, but not the other, a reddish brown
blanket. On the afternoon of Friday, December 30, she was at the
bar door, she said, talking to Stanley Ross, who had beckoned her
up while she was talking to a friend in the Arcade. Whilst she was
talking to Stanley, Colin Ross came out of the little room at the end
of the bar, and as he opened the curtains to come out she saw a
child sitting on a chair. Colin came along the bar and poured out a
drink. She saw the glass, but did not see what was poured into it.
Colin returned to the little room, and as, he did so he must have said
something to the girl, because she parted the curtains “and looked
straight out at me.” She gave a very minute description of the child’s
hair and clothing, considering the very cursory glance she admitted
having had. Colin, she said, must have noticed her, but he did not
acknowledge her in any way.
Matthews said nothing of how long she stayed. Next day, at the
Melbourne Hotel, at 3 o’clock, where she had an appointment, she
read in “Truth,” so she said, of the murder of the little girl, and she
went straight to Ross’s wine cafe. “He was busy serving behind the
bar,” she continued, “and I walked past the wine cafe door twice. I
mean that I walked past and I came back again. The second time he
saw me and he came to the door without a coat, and he spoke to
me [although he wouldn’t acknowledge her on the previous day]. I
was the first to speak. I said, ‘I see about this murder; why did you
do it?’ He said,‘What are you getting at?’ I said, ‘You know very well;
why did you do it, Colin?’ He said, ‘Do what?’ I said, ‘You know very
well what you did. That child was in your wine cafe yesterday
afternoon, for I saw her.’ He said, ‘Not me.’ And with that he said,
‘People are looking at us; walk out into Little Collins Street, Ivy, and I
will follow you.’ He returned to the wine cafe and put on his coat. I
stood at the corner in Little Collins Street for perhaps two minutes,
and then he followed me. Before that, when he said, ‘I did not do
anything like that,’ I said, ‘Don’t tell me that, because I know too
well it is you, for I saw the child in your place yesterday.’ It was then
he passed the remark that people were looking.”
“When he came into Little Collins Street what did he say,” she
was asked.
“I cannot think of the exact words,” she replied.
“Well, tell us the substance of it,” said His Honour.
Mr. Macindoe: What did he say when you resumed the
conversation?—First of all he tried to make out that I did not see the
girl.
His Honour: Well, what did he say?—He said it was not the child.
He simply said: “You know I did not have that child in there.” I said,
“Gracious me, I looked at the child myself, and I know it was the
same child by the descriptions given,” and for a long while he hung
out that this was not the child.
Mr. Macindoe: How did he hang out?—He said it was not the
child. I cannot tell you exactly every word he said.
This was in the Arcade?—It was in Little Collins Street, just at the
corner of the Arcade.
Well, what then?—I was so sure it was the child, and I would
make him know it was the child.
Will you tell us what he said?—I am trying to explain it.
His Honour: You have been told several times that you are only
supposed to tell what was done, or what was said, between you and
the accused, instead of telling your inferences, or assumptions, or
suppositions. Tell us now what took place—what was said.
Mr. Macindoe: Don’t tell us why he said things; just tell us what
he said.—Well, at last he told me that it was the child. He told me
that the child came to him while he was at the door, on the Friday
afternoon. He said there was no business; there was no one there
and he was standing at his door, and when the child came up and
asked him for a drink he said, “I took her in and gave her a
lemonade.” I said, “When the child came and asked you for a drink
of lemonade why didn’t you take her into the bar? Why did you take
her to that little room?” I said, “I know you too well. I know what
you are with little children.” He said: “On my life, Ivy, I did not take
her in there with any evil intention, but when I got her there I found
that she knew absolutely what I was going to do with her if I wanted
her. Assuming that this ⸺”
Mr. Macindoe: Never mind the assumption. Did he say what he
assumed?—Well, you cannot expect me to say it just the way he put
it to me.
His Honour: No, it is the substance of it we want.—Well, I am
trying to tell you to the best of my ability.
I am not saying that you are not, but tell us what he said.—He
said that after taking the child in there he gave her a drink of
lemonade. He did not say wine; he said lemonade. And she stayed
on there talking to him for a while. She stayed there until about four.
He said a girl named Gladys came to see him and he told the child to
go through to the little room with curtains and he kept her in there
until Gladys Linderman left, and he then brought her back into the
little private room.
Mr. Macindoe: What did he say then?—After that, he said he
stayed with her during the rest of the afternoon, with the full
intention at six o’clock of letting her go; but when six o’clock came
she remained on. He said that after six o’clock, when Stanley went,
he left us in there together. I could not tell you just exactly what he
said that led up to the⸺
His Honour: No, you need not tell us exactly; just as far as you
remember the substance of it.—I can remember everything quite
well, but it is⸺
His Honour: I think if you would not go quite so fast you would
remember better.
Mr. Macindoe: What did he say then?—Just after that he said that
he had outraged the child; he said that between six and eight o’clock
he had outraged her.
What did he say about it?—What do you mean?
Well, I suppose he didn’t say, “I outraged the child”? No, that is
the hardest part of it.—I cannot say it.
His Honour: Is it because you cannot remember it, or because it
is too foul?—It is because the language he used is too foul. I cannot
say it.
Will you write it down?—I will try to the best of my ability to say
it.
Mr. Macindoe: What was it, as near you can remember?—He
said, first of all, “After Stan went, I got fooling about with her, and
you know the disease I am suffering from, and when in the company
of young children I feel I cannot control myself. It was all over in a
minute.”
Are those his words?—That is just using my own language.
His Honour: Is that the substance of what he said?—Yes, that is
the substance, and he said: “After it was all over I could have taken
a knife and slashed her up, and myself too, because she led me on
to it. He tried to point out to me that, so he believed, she went there
for an immoral purpose. That is what he said to me. That is what he
tried to imply to my mind.”
 The witness then wrote down the exact words used, which was a
statement in coarse language that the girl had previously been
tampered with.
The witness went on to tell what happened after the girl’s death.
“After it had happened, he said that he had a friend to meet—a girl
friend. He took the body of the little girl and put it into the beaded
room, and left it wrapped up in a blanket, and at nine o’clock, or
half-past nine he brought a girl named Gladys Wain there. She
stayed until ten o’clock. He took her home at ten o’clock, and came
back between ten and half-past, after seeing her to the station or
tram, and removed the body from the beaded room into the small
room off the bar. He then went to Footscray by train, but came back
again between one and two a.m. I asked him how he got back, and
he said he came by motor car, and went in there and looked for a
place to put the body. He first thought of putting it in the recess
alongside the wine cafe, but that the ‘Skytalians’ would be blamed
for a thing like that. Then he thought he would put it in Mac’s room
(that is room 33 opposite, occupied by a man named McKenzie). I
said what an awful thing to do. He said: ‘I did the very best thing. I
put it in the street.’”
It will be noted that up to this time the witness had not said a
word of the actual death of the child, and that great difficulty had
been experienced in dragging a consecutive story from her. She was
brought back to the main point by the question: “Did he tell you at
any time how the girl had died?” She answered: “I had better write
it down. He strangled her while he was going with her. He said he
strangled her in his passion. He said he heard or saw where they
were saying a cord had been round the child’s neck. He said that
was not so. He said: ‘I pressed round her with my hands. I did not
mean to kill her; but it was my passion that did it.’ He said she was
dead before he knew where he was. That was just his words to me.”
In cross-examination, the witness absolutely declined to say
anything that would let light in on her past life. She objected to
saying where she lived, and when that was forced from her she said
at an apartment house at 25 Rathdown Street. Asked if among the
people who lived there was a woman named Julia Gibson, she
replied that she was the proprietress. Asked if Julia Gibson was
identical with Madame Ghurka, she said she did not feel called upon
to say anything as to the names Mrs. Gibson assumed. She knew
her as Mrs. Gibson, the proprietress of the boarding-house, but
didn’t know she was a fortune-teller, though she knew her as a
phrenologist. She had lived with her since the previous November.
She admitted that she had made several additions to her evidence
as given at the inquest, and these are so suggestive that they will be
referred to in more detail later. She admitted that she had gone—or
“may have gone”—at different times under the names of Ivy Sutton,
Ivy Dolan, and Ivy Marshall. She swore that she was married, but
declined to say what her married name was. She admitted that Ross
had dismissed her from his employ following the shooting case with
the intimation that, after the evidence she had given in the case, he
“would not have a bitch like her about the premises.” “Those were
his exact words to me,” she said. She admitted that, after her
dismissal, she claimed to be a partner, and that a lengthy
correspondence ensued between her solicitor and Ross, in which she
demanded a week’s wages in lieu of notice, and claimed a share in
the partnership; that Ross claimed £10 from her as a debt, and that
her solicitors wrote to him, in reply, accusing him of insulting her by
calling her Miss Matthews, instead of Mrs., “on account of not being
able to force from her the sum of £10 which he wished to obtain.”
She admitted that Ross sued her for the £10, but withdrew the case
on the morning of the return of the summons in petty sessions; that
her solicitor wrote saying that, if the costs were not paid, a warrant
would issue. All these letters were written with her authority, but she
denied that there was any ill-feeling whatever between her and
Ross. She did admit, however, that Ross and she had never spoken
from the day she left his employ until the day she spoke to him
about the tragedy.
By comparing the evidence which Matthews gave at the inquest
with that which she gave at the trial, it will be seen that on the trial
important additions were made. The significance of the additions will
be discussed later when her evidence is being analysed, but here it
may be said that at the inquest she said nothing about Ross going
back for his coat; she never mentioned the name of Gladys Wain (or
Gladys Linderman), or anything about meeting with such a woman.
She did not say in the Coroner’s Court anything about the tragedy
having happened after Stanley left; she did not say anything about
Ross having got the murdered girl in the afternoon to go from the
little room (the cubicle) off the bar to the little room off the parlour
(the beaded room), in order to clear the way for Gladys Wain, or
about having brought her back when Gladys Wain was gone; she did
not say that Ross had said that, when Gladys was coming in the
evening, he took the dead body from the cubicle to the beaded
room, and then came back between 10 o’clock and half-past 10, and
shifted it from the beaded room back to the cubicle.
What is more important than all this, at the inquest Matthews
made the conversations all take place in Little Collins Street. In one
way this may seem a small matter, but it is very important, because
when one is retailing a conversation he can clearly visualise the
place where he was standing when certain things were said.
Matthews’s exact words at the inquest were: “After I passed the
third time he came out, and I spoke to him in Little Collins Street.”
She gives some words of the conversation, and then she added:
“then he told me to walk along a little bit, as people were looking at
us from the Arcade. I walked along a little bit, and several people
went past, and they could have noticed me.” On the trial the witness
made the early part of the conversation take place at the door of the
saloon, and then the suggestion came from Ross, she says, that they
should walk out into Little Collins Street, as people were looking at
them. The significance of this alteration will also be adverted to later.

HARDING’S STORY.
Deferring comment upon these matters for the moment, we will
proceed with the evidence of the next disreputable witness—the
odious Sydney John Harding, who now obtains £250 out of the
reward and a free pardon for his “services to the State.”
Harding at this time was awaiting trial on a charge of
shopbreaking, together with another man named Joseph Dunstan.
He had a list of convictions at the time so long that he could not
remember them all. He was a wife deserter, and was living in
adultery with the so-called Ruby Harding. A verdict of guilty against
him might almost of a certainty have been expected to result in an
indeterminate sentence for him. The “key,” as it is called, has a
peculiar terror for criminals. As he lay in the Melbourne Gaol
awaiting trial he had a tremendously strong inducement to try and
render some service to the State. Harding arrived in Melbourne from
Sydney on January 4, a fugitive from justice. He was on bail in that
city, and he bolted. He was arrested on the 9th, and lodged in the
Melbourne Gaol. He was in the remand yard with different persons,
including Ross at different times, and on the 23rd of January was in
the yard with four men, again including Ross. The conversation was
general for a while, he said, and then reverted to Ross’s case.
“I remarked to Ross,” he said, “that a girl named Ruby, whom we
both knew, informed me that a woman was down in the female
division of the prison in connection with his case. He said: ‘I wonder
if it is Ivy Matthews?’ I said: ‘It could hardly have been her, for Ruby
knows her, and would have told me so.’ He said: ‘I wonder what she
says?’ I said: ‘Can she say anything?’ and he said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Why
worry?’” Ross and he meantime were walking up and down the yard,
which is triangular in shape, while Dunstan, because he had
rheumatism, was sitting under the shed on a form, “idly turning over
the pages of a magazine.”
“After saying ‘Why worry?’” said Harding, “I said: ‘Did you see
the girl?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘How was she dressed?’ He said: ‘She
was dressed in a blue skirt and a white blouse, and a light-coloured
hat with a ribbon band around it, and black shoes and stockings.’ I
said: ‘Did you tell the detectives you saw her?’ and he said: ‘Yes, but
I told them she had black boots on.’ I said: ‘Did you speak to the
girl?’ and he said: ‘No.’ After a little while he said to me: ‘What do
you think of the case?’ I said: ‘I do not know any of the details of
the case, and, therefore, I am not qualified to offer an opinion.’ We
ceased talking on that for a little while, and continued walking up
and down, and then he said to me: ‘Can a man trust you?’ I said:
‘Yes; I have known you a good time, and have not done you any
harm, have I?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Did you speak to the girl?’ and
he said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Where?’ He said she was standing in front of
Madame Ghurka’s, and she came down the Arcade, and when she
got in front of his place he spoke to her, and she took no notice of
him at first. He said: ‘You have nothing to be afraid of. I own this
place, and if you are tired you can come in and sit down.’ I asked
him what time this was. He said about a quarter to 3, or a quarter
past 3, I am not sure which. I said: ‘Did you tell the detectives you
spoke to her?’ and he said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘Did you take her into the
cafe?’ and he said yes, she went in, and he took her into the cubicle
near the counter. I said: ‘Could not any of your customers see her?’
He said: ‘No; we were not busy that day, and the customers were in
the parlour.’ When he had the girl in the cubicle, he said, he spoke to
her for a few moments, and then offered her a drink of sweet wine.
She at first refused it, but eventually accepted it and sipped it, and
appeared to like it. He said he gave her a second glass, and gave
her in all three glasses. He said about this time a woman whom he
knew came to the door of the cafe, and he went and spoke to her
for about three-quarters of an hour, that when she left he went back
to the cubicle and the girl was asleep. About this time his own girl
came to the door of the cafe, and he went and spoke to her until
nearly 6 o’clock. I asked him who served his customers while he was
talking to the girl. He said his brother did. I said: ‘Could not your
brother see the girl in the cubicle when he went behind the counter
to get the drinks?’ He said: ‘No, the screen was down, and when the
screen was down no one dared to go into the cubicle.’
“At 6 o’clock, or a few seconds afterwards, he closed the wine
cafe and went back into the cubicle. The little girl was still asleep,
and he could not resist the temptation. I asked him did she call out,
and he said: ‘Yes, she moaned and sang out,’ but he put his hand
over her mouth, and she stopped and appeared to faint. After a little
time she commenced again to call out, and he went in to stop her,
and in endeavoring to stop her from singing out, he said, he must
have choked her. He further added that ‘you will hear them saying
that she was choked with a piece of wire or a piece of rope, but that
was not so.’ He said he picked up her hand, and it appeared to be
like a dead person’s hand, because it fell just like a dead person’s
hand would do. I said to him: ‘I suppose you got very excited when
you realised what had happened?’ He said: ‘No; I got suddenly cool,
and commenced to think.’ There was a great deal of blood about, he
said, and he got a bucket and got some water from the tap, and
washed the cubicle and around the cubicle, but seeing that, by
comparison, the rest of the bar looked dirtier than the cubicle, he
washed the whole lot. I asked him: ‘What time was this—7 or 8?’
and he said: ‘Yes, about that time.’ I said: ‘Was it before you met
your girl?’ He said: ‘Yes,’ that he had time to clean himself and go for
a walk around the town before meeting his girl. I asked him did he
meet his girl, and he said he did. I said: ‘You took a risk, didn’t you,
in meeting her?’ He said: ‘No, I would have taken a bigger risk had I
not met her, because I would have had a job to prove my
whereabouts.’ I said: ‘Could not she see the girl when she went into
the wine cafe?’ He said: ‘No, we had our drink in the parlour.’
“He said he took his girl home at half-past 10, and caught the
twenty to 11 train to Footscray. When he got to Footscray he got on
to the electric tram for his home. Whilst on the tram he created a
diversion so as to attract the attention of the passengers and
conductor, so that he could have them as witnesses to prove an alibi.
I asked him if he went home, and he said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘Did you
come back to Melbourne by car?’ He said: ‘No,’ that he had a bike. I
said: ‘A motor bike?’ He said: ‘No, a push bike.’ I said: ‘Have you a
push bike of your own?’ He said: ‘No, but a man I know, who lives
near us, had a push bike, and I know where it is kept.’ I said: ‘Did
you go straight into the Arcade?’ He said: ‘Yes.’ I said: ‘But the gates
are locked there at night.’ He said: ‘Yes, but I have a key.’ I said:
‘When you went to the Arcade did you go straight in and remove the
body?’ He said: ‘No. I went in and took the girl’s clothes off,’ that he
went out and walked around the block to see if there was anybody
about, that he came back and rolled the body in a coat or an
overcoat—I don’t know which—and carried it to the lane. I asked
him was he going to put it in the sewer, and he said he did not
know. I said: ‘Did you not know there was a sewer there?’ He said
he did, but he heard somebody coming, and he went from the lane
into Little Collins Street, and saw a man coming down from the
Adam and Eve Hotel. He added that, if they tried to put that over
him, he would ask what the old bastard was doing there at 1 o’clock
in the morning. I said: ‘Where did you go then?’ He said he went
back to the cafe. I asked him what he did with the clothes. He said
he made a bundle of them, put them on his bicycle, and rode to
Footscray, that when he got to the first hotel on the Footscray road
he got off the bicycle and sat on the side of the road and tore the
clothing into strips and bits. He went round with the bicycle and
distributed the strips and bits along the road, and when he came to
the bridge crossing the river he threw one shoe and some of the
strips into the river, and then distributed more strips, and went down
the road and down Nicholson street to the Ammunition Works, to the
river, and threw the other shoe and some more strips in. He then
went back and got his bicycle and rode home to bed.
“Before this I said: ‘Supposing they open the girl’s stomach and
find wine in it?’ He said: ‘What do they want to open her stomach
for when they know she died of strangulation?’ I said: ‘Suppose they
do open it?’ He said: ‘I’m not the only one who could give her wine;
couldn’t I sell a bottle of wine over the counter in the Arcade to
anyone, and couldn’t they give it to her to drink?’ I said: ‘That is so.’
He then said: ‘What do you think of the case?’ I said: ‘Pretty good;
have you told anybody else?’ He said: ‘No. Sonenberg told me to
keep my mouth shut.’ I said: ‘Why didn’t you keep your mouth shut?’
He said: ‘I can trust you; anyhow, you are in here.’”
On the next day, said Harding, the conversation was resumed. “I
asked him did he always have a screen up in that cubicle. He said:
‘No; I used the one in the parlour—the red screen.’” Ross also said
(according to the witness) that there was a good deal of blood
about, and on being asked by the Crown Prosecutor: “Did he say
anything about the old man again?” Harding replied: “He passed the
remark that this old bloke, about 70 years of age, was there, and if
they put that over on him he said: ‘I will ask what he was doing
there, and that he is just the sort of fellow they would pick for that
sort of crime, and that they would never think a young fellow like
me would do it.’”
In cross-examination, Harding was asked by Mr. Maxwell: “Did
Ross tell you that, on that night, he had had hard luck in that he was
seen by so many people?” “He did not,” said Harding.
“Did he not tell you that, when he was in the Arcade, a man had
come up and asked him whether he could lend him a pencil?”—No.
Mr. Maxwell was slightly in error there, for what Alberts had said
was that Ross came to him and asked him for a pencil.
“Did he not tell you that, while he was preparing the body for
removal, a man pushed his way into the wine cafe, and that he
(Ross) went out with his hand covered with blood, and served him
with a bloody bottle?”—“No.”
“Did he not tell you that he had told about the tragedy to Ivy
Matthews?”—“No; each time he mentioned Ivy Matthews it was with
some execration.”
Asked as to his record, Harding said he was 30 years of age, had
been convicted “about nine or ten times—it might be eleven.” His
offences included housebreaking, larceny, assault, wounding,
escaping from custody, and a fourteen days’ “solitary” while in prison
for making false statements against two warders. The confession, he
said, was made on Monday, January 23rd, and that same evening he
sent for the governor and asked him to send for Detective Walsh,
and when Walsh came he communicated it to them. The inquest was
on the 25th and 26th, and it finished about midday on the latter
date. He thought he saw a report of his evidence in the “Age” of the
next day, and Dunstan might have seen that report. When asked
how long he remained in gaol after making his statement to the
Governor, he answered: “Until the 27th of January—no, it was more
than that, I think the 30th January.”

DUNSTAN’S CORROBORATION.
Dunstan was then called to corroborate Harding. He was awaiting
trial with Harding for housebreaking, and at the Police Court he had
pleaded guilty, and had exonerated Harding. It should be recalled
here, however, that when the two men came up for trial, and the
same course was adopted, the jury declined to accept the story that
Harding knew nothing of the charge, and he was found guilty of
receiving. Dunstan had twice previously been convicted of larceny,
and he was one of the five that were in the remand yard on January
23. His story was that he heard certain answers made by Ross, but
only one question put by Harding. The answers were: “I was talking
to the girl”; “if they do find any wine inside her, that ain’t to say I
gave it to her”; “my brother was serving”; “I left my girl at half-past
10”; “I ain’t the only man that has got a disease”; “no, a bike”; “I
will ask the old bastard what he was doing there at half-past 1”;
“Ammunition Works.” The only question he heard Harding ask was:
“How was she dressed?”
Dunstan admitted that when Ross came back from the inquest
Ross said to him: “That is a nice cobber of yours, to go into the box
and swear a man’s life away.” Dunstan had not been called at the
inquest. He said that he first told the Governor what he had heard
on the Friday or the Saturday two or three days after the inquest. He
had had opportunities for quiet talks with Harding in the meantime,
but there had been no conversations on the subject of Harding’s
evidence. He said he had never read in the papers any account of
Harding’s evidence. Harding had asked him had he heard the
conversation, and he had told Harding that what he had heard he
would tell to the governor of the gaol. He had not told Harding,
because he “didn’t have much time for him.” Being shown a copy of
the “Herald,” with Harding’s photograph in it, and being asked if he
had seen that before, he said: “I do believe I did.” He couldn’t say
when it was, but it was when it was in gaol. He had said that he
never read a paper in gaol, but that didn’t mean that he had never
seen one. It was only a passing glance of the “Herald” as he walked
up and down the yard.
Harding, who had been out of court, was then recalled, and
further cross-examined by Mr. Maxwell. He said that, on the day
following the inquest, he and Dunstan were reading a paper, either
the “Age” or the “Herald”—that is, he was reading it aloud, and
Dunstan was looking over his shoulder. He had often had papers lent
from the adjoining yards, and on these occasions Dunstan got the
benefit of them.

ROSS’S MOVEMENTS.
We now come to a different class of evidence—the evidence
which purported to tell of the movements of Ross on the important
dates. The conflict between this evidence and the supposed
confessions and the inherent improbability of the evidence itself will
be dealt with later.
David Alberts, an eccentric-looking individual, who described
himself as a vaudeville artist, residing at 47 Little Smith Street,
Fitzroy, said that he left home about half-past 6, and between half-
past 7 and a quarter to 8 he walked into the Arcade through the
Little Collins Street gate. Opposite the wine saloon he saw a man
whom he now recognised as Ross. The man asked him if he could
lend him a pencil. Alberts said: “I am sorry; I have not got one,” and
walked on. He went as far as the middle of the building, and seeing
there was no light in the office upstairs, he walked back, and the
man was then standing in the doorway of the wine saloon. He
recognised Ross by his gold teeth and by his hair, which was
brushed neatly back. It would, he said, be about three weeks after
the incident that he went to the Detective Office and reported it. He
knew the reward was offered in the meantime, “but,” he said, “I was
looking for no reward.” It should, however, be mentioned here that
he has shared in the reward. It may also be taken as certain that, if
Alberts was honest, he was mistaken, for the evidence that Ross was
at home between 7 and 8, and came back to Footscray on the tram
with Mrs. Kee and George Dawsey, may be accepted as being
beyond question. Apart from that, however, it is simply incredible
that a man who was engaged in the gruesome task of washing away
the bloodstains of a murdered victim, and who would have the
deepest interest in keeping his presence in the Arcade at an
unwonted hour a close secret, should have gone out deliberately to
ask a passer-by for a lead pencil, which could be of no imaginable
service to him.
Alexander Olson, who described himself as a phrenologist,
carrying on business in the Eastern Arcade, said that, between 9 and
a quarter past 9, he walked out into Little Collins Street, to go to a
Chinese laundry, and he saw the accused man pacing up and down
between the back gate of the Eastern Market and the back gate of
the Eastern Arcade. How this evidence, so far from being damaging,
supports the truthfulness of Ross’s statement to the police, can be
seen by a reference to the statement, for this was the exact time
that he was waiting outside the Arcade gates for Gladys Wain.
Then we come to the evidence of George Arthur Ellis, “and very
important evidence it is,” said Mr. Justice Schutt in summing up to
the jury. Ellis keeps the “lodging-house” previously referred to as the
old Adam and Eve Hotel. On the night of the 30th December he was
sitting at his front door, at the corner of Alfred Place and Little
Collins Street. He saw Ross a little after 9 on that night. He next saw
him before 10 o’clock, then at 11, and two or three times after that,
until ten minutes to 1, when the witness wound his clocks and went
to bed. Ross was walking in and out of the Arcade. There was an arc
lamp, hung over the centre of the street, between where the witness
sat and where Ross was walking up and down. At a quarter to 1 two
Italians came out of the Arcade and bade him good-night. Some
time after he had gone in he heard a loud report, and he rushed out
on to the pavement, and looked up and down for a few seconds, but
saw no one. He had never before seen Ross until that night. The
light was almost equal to broad daylight, and he admitted that he
would be as obvious to Ross as Ross was to him. When the two
Italians came out the man walked down towards Russell Street.
They went up to Exhibition Street, and when Ellis turned to look
again Ross was back at his post. He would walk in and out of the
Arcade. Half the gates were open, and it was very dark inside. He
first informed the police of what he had seen on the Sunday after
the tragedy. His house, he said, was a lodging-house—night and day.
Anyone could get a bed for the night; they paid in advance, and
were sometimes gone before he got up. He identified Ross on the
day he was arrested—January 12. He had known the wine shop for
years, but had never been in it, though he had seen some “terrible
bad characters there,” and had seen some “terrible carryings on”
there as he had been coming through from Bourke Street. It was his
habit to sit outside his lodging-house every night as long as it was
fine.
The two Italians, Michaluscki Nicoli and Francisco Anselmi, had
been in the Italian Club until about a quarter to 1. The club is at the
Little Collins Street end of the Arcade, upstairs, and the stairs go up
close to the wine saloon. There was an electric light upstairs, and as
they came down they noticed a light in the wine shop. When they
got into Little Collins Street one of them saw a man walking towards
Russell Street. They said “Good-night” to Ellis, and walked up
towards Exhibition Street. A third Italian, Baptisti Rollandi, the
caretaker of the Italian Club, came down about a quarter of an hour
or twenty minutes after Nicoli and Anselmi had gone, to lock the
back gate, and he saw no light in the wine shop when he came
down. It was his duty to lock the gate when the last member had
left the club, whatever time that happened to be.
A curious piece of evidence came out quite incidentally whilst this
last witness was in the box. Ross, at about 3 o’clock, or half-past 3,
on the Friday, had asked Rollandi for the loan of a key of the back
gate. The witness said: “I can’t give my key to anybody; go to Mr.
Clarke, the manager; he might give you one.” This looked suspicious,
until it was revealed that Ross wanted the key in order to get into
the Arcade early on the Monday morning to remove his things from
the saloon, Saturday being the last night of the license, and Monday
being the New Year’s Day holiday. The prisoner did get the key from
Mr. Clarke on the Saturday afternoon, and did remove his things
early on the Monday morning. This was mentioned to the police in
the statement, was no doubt verified by the detectives, and was not
challenged when Mr. Clarke was called. So far, therefore, from the
circumstances of Ross wishing to borrow the key being incriminating,
it was entirely in his favor, for it showed he had no key of his own,
and is almost conclusive evidence against his having told Harding
that he had a key, or having told Matthews that he came back
“between 1 and 2,” when he could not have got into the Arcade
unless he had a key.

THE SHEEN OF GOLDEN HAIRS.

Two other pieces of evidence, of still another class, were used
against Ross. One was that hairs, which it was claimed were
identified as Alma Tirtschke’s, were found on blankets taken from
Ross’s house at Footscray on January 12; the other was that pieces
of serge, which it was claimed were identified as being part of the
child’s dress, were found on January 27 on the Footscray road, thus
confirming the supposed confession to Harding.
The story of the hair is one of the most remarkable and one of
the most unsatisfactory, in a case every feature of which is
unsatisfactory. On January 3, the day Alma Tirtschke was buried,
Constable Portingale went to the house where the body was lying,
and with a pair of scissors he cut a lock of hair from the left side of
her head, just over the ear, “and about six inches from her head.”
When the detectives went to Colin Ross’s house to arrest him on
January 12, nearly a fortnight after the tragedy, they took two
blankets from a sofa in a vestibule. “Brophy and I,” said Piggott,
“opened one of the brown blankets which were folded up. I turned
the blanket back, and I could see the sheen of what appeared to be
some golden coloured hair. I said to all present: ‘Fold those blankets,
and carefully place them in the car; they must go to the Government
Analyst.’” They did go to the Government Analyst next day. Where
they were kept in the meantime was not disclosed on the trial,
except that Ross, at about 2 o’clock on the afternoon of his arrest,
saw them lying across the back of a chair in the clerk’s room of the
Detective Office. The detectives, in the room of the Government
Analyst (Mr. Price), next day, spread the “reddish brown blanket”
over a wooden screen, and removed from it in his presence twenty-
two hairs. Five hairs were taken from the other blanket by Mr. Price
himself. Mr. Price then took ten or twelve hairs from the envelope
containing Alma’s hair. They had an average length, he said, of 6½
inches, the longest of them being 9 inches. Let it be remembered
that these were cut 6 inches from the girl’s head. He then took the
twenty-two hairs, and found they, too, averaged 6½ inches, but the
longest of them were 15, 12, 10, 9 inches, down to 2½ inches.
“They were not identical in colour with the hairs in the envelope,”
said Mr. Price; “they were of a light auburn colour. They were not a
deep red; they were of a light red colour. They were not cut-off
hairs; they had fallen out, or had been taken from the scalp
somehow or other. They did not appear to have been forcibly
removed. One had a bulb root, but the others did not show the
presence of any bulbous portion or root, as they would if dragged
direct from the scalp. I came to the conclusion that they were hairs
about to be cast off in the ordinary process of nature.”
“If hairs were cast off,” Mr. Price was asked, “would there be any
distinction in their colour as compared with hair that was actually
growing?” “Well, I cannot say that directly,” he replied, “but the
conclusion I formed, as regards the hairs I found on the blanket,
was that they did not come from the frontal portion; that they had
not been exposed much to the light; that they came from the back
portion of the head, and that that is the reason why their colour was
not as deep as those on the front portion.” The two sets of hair, he
said, were “very similar.” Microscopically, they agreed, because there
was a kind of coarseness about them, and when treated with caustic
soda it tended to bring out the pith portion of the hair, “and that pith
was identical with the hairs on the blanket.” The five hairs from the
grey blanket, Mr. Price said, were “similar in colour” to the hairs on
the reddish brown blanket, but that was all he had to say about
them. When being re-examined, he said that his reason for thinking
the front and back of the hair would differ was that in one head he
had tested “the frontal portion was quite red, and the hair from the
back of the head quite dark.”
On cross-examination, Mr. Price admitted that it was “several
years” since he had last made an examination of hairs from any
woman’s head. “It does not often come under my notice,” he added.
He had made very few such examinations in his life. Not only did the
hairs from the child’s head and the hairs from the blankets differ in
colour, he said, but they differed in diameter, and it was possible, but
not probable, that the hairs on the blankets may have come from
another head. He had examined many hairs since he had conducted
this particular examination, and he had, in the course of his
examination, found some hairs that were as like Alma Tirtschke’s as
the hairs on the blankets.
It will be shown later that Mr. Price might, on the facts which he
deposed to, have been called as a powerful witness for the defence.
Yet in the atmosphere that prevailed, it seemed to be assumed that
his evidence advanced the case for the prosecution.

THE FINDING OF THE SERGE.

The finding of some pieces of serge on the Footscray Road, on
the 26th or 27th day of January, was also relied on strongly by the
Crown. Mrs. Violet May Sullivan was on the Footscray Road on
January 26, and she saw certain strips of serge on the left-hand side
going to Kensington. She didn’t pick them up. On the next day she
read, in the alleged confession to Harding, that Ross had said that
he had strewn the serge of the girl’s dress on the Footscray Road,
and Mrs. Sullivan went back to the road, and on the opposite side to
where she had seen it on the previous day she saw a roll of serge.
She picked it up and handed it to the local police. One piece she left
at home. The serge was produced in court. One piece was fairly
large, in no sense a strip, looked quite new and fresh, and bore no
signs, as Mr. Justice Isaacs indicated in his High Court judgment, of
having lain on a dusty and busy road for nearly four weeks. Of the
rest, one was a strip of a quite different texture, and looked much
older than the piece. There were also a couple of other fragments.
None of them appeared to have been four weeks in the dust. The
serge that she had seen on the first day, Mrs. Sullivan said,
resembled the fragments, but were not like the larger piece, so that,
whether it was the same bundle she saw on both days does not
appear. When Mrs. Murdoch, the girl’s aunt, was in the box, the
serge was handed to her for identification, and she was asked to say
what she had to say about it. “It is very similar to the serge she had
on on that day,” said the witness. “All of it?” she was asked. “That
has nothing to do with it, I should say,” said the witness, discarding
the larger piece. The three other pieces, she said, were “very
similar” to the material of which the girl’s dress was composed.
When asked further, she said she recognised a row of stitching on
two of the pieces. “Do you recognise it as a row of stitching you did
yourself?” she was asked, and she answered: “No; I fancy the
stitching there is from the old stuff I made up. I believe that is the
stitching. It did have stitching on.” She remembered the old
stitching, because she had had some difficulty in ironing it out. She
made the dress out of old material. It was box-pleated, and the stuff
she had in her hand looked to be box-pleated, but there was a
portion missing.
Summarised, then, Mrs. Murdoch’s identification amounted to
this, that she remembered there was some stitching on the dress
that she had made up, and there was also a little bit of stitching on
two of the three pieces handed to her which she “fancied” was the
same stitching, while the fourth piece handed to her, which was part
of the same bundle, “had nothing to do with it.” It was on such
“evidence” that Colin Ross was hanged!
It will be remembered that Harding’s account of what Ross said
was that he “tore the clothing into strips and bits, and distributed
them along the road.” Yet we are asked to believe that, by some
operation of the laws of cohesion peculiar to the Footscray Road,
four or more of them had rolled themselves together by the 26th,
and that they had succeeded by the next day in crossing the road
and joining up with another and dissimilar piece of blue serge.
On January 23 the police knew that Ross was supposed to have
said that he scattered the fragments of the girl’s dress along the
Footscray Road. If this could have been verified it would have
clinched the case against Ross, for it would have established beyond
question the fact of some confession. Every effort should have been
directed to clearing up this point. The road Ross said he took was
clearly indicated—so clearly that it showed beyond question that
Harding knew the locality well. If that is doubted, let anyone who
does not know the locality try to describe Ross’s alleged route after
reading the description once. If one knows the locality, he has a
mental picture, as the words are spoken, which he can reproduce. If
he does not, the words are words merely, and cannot be repeated
without rehearsal. But the point is that, on getting this alleged
confession, the detectives should have got half a dozen men to take
the road, or the two roads if necessary, in a face in order to discover
the serge. It was so plain, Mrs. Sullivan said, that “it could not be
missed.” The local police did not find it, the detective’s agents did
not find it, but a casual wayfarer stumbles across it twice, because
“you could not miss it.” Piggott’s answers to questions were that, on
learning of the confession, “we took certain steps,” and “gave certain
directions”; and his explanation of the failure to find the serge was
that his men searched the wrong road! One would have liked to
have heard the comments of, say, the late Mr. Justice Hodges, on
this extraordinary admission.
 THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
The last class of evidence, though given first on the trial, was the
medical testimony. It showed that there was an abrasion on the left
side of the neck which extended across the mid-line, and measured
2½ inches in length by ⁷/₁₆ of an inch in breadth at its widest part.
Below this, on the left side of the neck, there was a narrower
abrasion, about ⅛ of an inch in width, and not extending across the
mid-line. There was another abrasion on the left side of the lower
jaw, an inch in length, and a quarter of an inch in breadth. There
was a small abrasion on the outer side of the right eye, a small
abrasion in the centre of the upper lip, another small abrasion at the
back of the right elbow, and the skin of the back of the left elbow
had been slightly rubbed. There was some bruising and lividity on
the right side of the face. The upper part of the chest was livid, and
showed small hæmorrhages. Hæmorrhages were also found in the
scalp and on the surface of the eyes. There were some small bruises
on the right side of the neck. Internally, there was a bruise on the
left tonsil.
In view of absurd rumours that have been circulated as to the
injuries to the body, it is well to give Dr. Mollison’s next words as he
uttered them: “I think those were all the abrasions and bruises.” It
has got abroad that there were facts about this case that were
unprintable. There is no truth in the report. With the exception of
one coarse sentence said to have been used to Matthews, and one
coarse word said by Harding to have been used by himself, there
was nothing in the case, from start to finish, which has not
appeared, either literally or euphemistically, in the reputable press.
The child had been violated, but the cause of death, in the doctor’s
opinion, was strangulation from throttling. The violation would have
led to a considerable amount of blood being lost. The stomach was
opened, and contained some thick, dark-coloured fluid, mixed with
food. No smell or trace of alcohol was detected, but the doctor
added that the smell of alcohol would disappear fairly rapidly. In this,
it may be here stated, Dr. Mollison is not supported by a number of
other medical men of standing. The post-mortem examination was
held within a few hours of the discovery of the body, and within
about sixteen hours of the child’s death, if she died between 6 and
7. “Alcohol,” said the doctor, “starts to be absorbed almost
immediately it is swallowed.” This subject was discussed at the
British Medical Association Conference in Glasgow at the end of July,
1922. Professor Mellanby, who has made a special study of the
effects of alcohol on heredity, said that, “after a good carouse, it had
taken from ten to eighteen hours for the alcohol to be cleared out of
the circulation of a man.” Now, three glasses of sweet wine is a
“good carouse” for a child who probably never drank a glass of wine
before. Sweet wine contains a very high percentage of alcohol.
Accepting the Harding story, the girl was dead within an hour or two
of taking them, and the process of clearing the alcohol out of the
circulation would cease, or be greatly retarded. And still the fact
remains that no trace of alcohol was found in the body.

DETECTIVE BROPHY’S BLUNDER.

That was the full case as made by the Crown against Ross, with
the exception of an admission said to have been made to Detective
Brophy. This admission may be stated and dealt with at once.
Brophy said that, on the 16th of January, he took a man named
White to the Melbourne Gaol, and confronted him with Ross. White
said: “Yes, that is the man.” Brophy then said: “This man has
identified you as the man whom he saw in the Arcade speaking to
the little girl, Alma.” Ross said: “Oh,” and then, turning to White, he
said: “What time was that?” White said about 3.30. Ross said: “Yes,
that’s quite right.” Ross’s version of the conversation, as given in
evidence, was that Brophy said: “This man says he saw you talking
to a girl in the Arcade at 3.30, and he said: ‘That is correct.’” Brophy
made no comment. It is not only clear that Ross’s was the correct
account, but it is extremely hard to see how an intelligent man could
have any doubt about it. Let us look at the facts.
 Ross had denied on December 31, when first seen by the
detectives, that he had spoken to “the girl Alma,” but had said that
he was speaking to a girl at the door at about the time mentioned;
in his written statement on January 5 he denied that he had spoken
to the girl; when brought to the Detective Office, under arrest, on
January 12, Piggott said to him: “It will be proved that the little girl
was seen in your wine shop on December 30,” and he promptly
answered: “That’s a lie.” From first to last he had denied specifically
that he had ever spoken to the girl Alma, and from first to last he
had said that he was speaking to Gladys Wain at the saloon door
about that time. Gladys Wain, it should be remarked, though a
married woman, is very small, and extremely girlish in appearance.
Yet we are asked to believe that Ross, by a quite casual remark on
January 16, made an admission, the most important by far he had
made during the course of the police investigation, and that one of
the detectives in charge of the case turned away from him without
the slightest comment on his startling admission.
But there is the further fact that White cannot have said that he
saw Ross speaking to “the little girl Alma,” for the simple reason that
White did not know Alma. From that it follows that Brophy could not
have said, if he were speaking accurately—and a detective should be
accurate—that “this man saw you speaking to the little girl Alma.” If
Ross had intended to refer to Alma, he would not, and need not,
have inquired “What time was that?” The time would have been
quite unimportant. If he had another girl in his mind, the enquiry as
to the time was natural. In any case, the evidence never should
have been tendered or admitted, for if it was sought to be proved
that Ross was seen speaking to the murdered girl the proper way to
prove it, according to the “rule of best evidence,” was to call White
to prove it. And White was not called, not because he had
disappeared, but because it was known that he would not swear
that he had seen Ross “talking to the little girl Alma.”
 PART III.
⸻
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE.

In seeking to show how doubtful it is that Ross should have been

convicted on the evidence, it is not proposed to go deeply into the
case for the defence, and argue that the weight of testimony lay
with the prisoner. It will be shown later that not one word that Ross
said as to his movements was shown to be false, and that every
word he did say was supported by strong evidence, but in the
meantime the Crown evidence will be subjected to analysis, with a
view of showing that from it it was impossible to arrive at a certain
conclusion that Ross was guilty.

WHY CONFESS TO MATTHEWS.

Let us take first the evidence of Ivy Matthews. Suppose Ross
were guilty, why should he have made a confession to this woman?
They were at daggers drawn. He had cast her out of his employment
with terms of the deepest insult. They had fought bitterly, through
their lawyers, almost up to the date of the tragedy. They had not
seen one another, much less spoken to one another, between the
date she was turned out of his employment and the 31st of
December. Yet on the 31st of December, according to the Matthews
evidence, we have them addressing one another as “Ive” and
“Colin,” and we have Ross handing his life over to the unsafe
keeping of this “woman scorned.”
The strongest appeals were made through the press for anyone
who saw the child to inform the police. But Ivy Matthews, if her
evidence is true, not only saw the child in the saloon on the Friday,
but on the Saturday she had a full confession from Ross. Yet she
remained silent, according to herself and the detectives, until she
gave her evidence at the inquest. She gave no reason for keeping
silence, and she gave two reasons for eventually speaking. At the
inquest she said: “I pledged my word to Ross I would not give
evidence against him,” but even if he had not been arrested, she
said: “Perhaps my conscience might have made me tell.” “If some
other man had been put in the dock on this charge,” she added, “I
would have come up and said Ross is the guilty man.” On the trial,
when asked why, if she had given her word, she had not kept it, she
answered: “Would you expect me, a woman, to keep the secret?”
But the fact is that she did keep the “secret” for over three weeks.
At the inquest she said that the circumstance that the £1000 reward
was offered should not be put to her, for, she said, “money and
those sort of things hold no interest for me. I do not suppose I will
get anything, and I do not want it.” But, again, the fact is that now
she has been allotted £350 out of the £1000 Government reward
offered, and £87/10/- out of the £250 offered by the “Herald.” This is
not a negligible inducement for a lady who had done no work
between November and the end of February.

CHANGES IN MATTHEWS’S EVIDENCE.

But it is the changes in Matthews’s evidence, as between the
inquest and the trial, that cast the most doubt on it. She makes
Colin Ross in his confession, as retailed at the trial, get the girl to
come out of the cubicle in the afternoon, and stay in the beaded
room for an hour or so, while he talks to Gladys Wain; she makes
him bring the girl back to the cubicle when Gladys Wain is gone; she
makes him cause the girl’s death there after 6 o’clock, and then
carry the dead body back to the beaded room, in order that he may
make love to Gladys Wain in the cubicle later on; she makes him
come back, after seeing Gladys Wain home, and carry the dead body
back from the beaded room to the cubicle.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com