Talk:Myall Creek massacre

second trial
what happened in the second trial the the Myall Creek Massacre??? i need some info for my assignment i have got to reserch for it... yeah me too

In the second trial I think the 11 people go punished for the murder of the baby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.166.100 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Clarify
I'd suggest these clarifications: First, to an obvious error. The massacre was on June 10, 1838, so the murderers could not have arrived on June 27. To call eleven of the men convict settlers is misleading. Some were still convicts, and some were ex-convicts who had served their time. Second, they were not settlers in the terminology of the time. They were employed by or assigned to squatters who were sending their sheep and cattle out on runs beyond the officially defined boundaries of settlement. The prosecutor's opening address to the jury in the first trial lists the eleven defendants' status individually as convicts or time-expired ex-convicts, and it also makes clear the massacre took place beyond the boundaries of settlement.

I have never seen a challenge to the claim it was the first time whites were tried, convicted and executed for the massacre of Aborigines in Australia. It's almost certainly the only time, also.

Those wishing to research the massacre will find value in the reports of the first trial published in contemporary newspapers and now available online from a Macquarie University Law School project, particularly the prosecutor's opening address and the witnesses' evidence. http://www.law.mq.edu.au/scnsw/Cases1838-39/html/r_v_kilmeister__no_1___1838.htm#bn1

This web pabe provides links to the second trial reports (in which the judge's sentencing remarks are worth reading), and points to the archival material available for even more advanced research. Grumpyoldjourno (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've opted for 'settlers' in the intro based on an Australian government source. It also refers to the killers using other terms but this is what I perceive to be most clear and helpful in context. DBaba (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The event of the Myall Creek massacre shows the prejudice of the British towards the Aboriginals even thogh they had invede their land!

"This was the first time that the European legal system had been used to punish white people for crimes against Aboriginal people."

Is this true? Or is the more tightly worded sentance in the Significance section more accurate? Rich  Farmbrough 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

'''*NEED TO BE ANSWERED PLEASE* I was researching this for a school project and was wondering, what where the stockmen actually killing the Aboriginals for? in a school textbook, it said that they where killed becuase an Aboriginal broke into a house and stole some food or something, (but was not from the tribe near the hut, some other tribe) so the stockmen just went and murdered the nearest tribe. i don't know if this is true, but i've looked all over the place and i just can't find a single thing. if this could be answered, that would be really helpful. Thanks, Puzzlled'''


 * It's in the third line under "The Massacre". Man, not only do people want us to do their research, but also read the article for them (!) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Australian"
The current article states "One of the jurors later told the newspaper The Australian...". The Australian was launched in 1964, so it can't have been directly told to that paper. The source just says that he was quoted in it. Billwilson5060 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * there have been a number of newspapers called The Australian over the years and I'm guessing they are referring to a 19th Century incarnation. --Roisterer (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sentence structure
"They found many charred bones, with pieces of at least twenty different skulls, and other identifiable skeletal remains in numbers enough for Day to conclude that at least twenty-seven people had been killed there, three survived."

"Three survived" is a completely separate and independent sentence. It has a subject - "Three" (meaning "three people") and a verb- "survived". It is an important sentence which contains considerable impact because these three people were presumably able to witness.

Why has the writer of this sentence tagged it on, with nothing more than a comma, to a long sentence about the discovery of the charred remains? Is the writer telling us that the three survivors were still there, to be found among the remains, all those weeks later? The information about the survivors needs to go into the article somewhere! But not at the point at which you describe the finding of the bones. Amandajm (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has just occurred to me, not having read the article... does the writer mean that three skeletons had survived intact? or three skulls had survived intact? If this is the case, then the sentence still needs to be fixed. Amandajm (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
A lot of questions on this page reflect confusion caused by the persistent vandalism of the page. If something is unclear or ambiguous, it is probably a result of this vandalism. Please be bold in improving this entry's issues. DBaba (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
SOMEONE please block this IP: 124.183.249.248 ← that IP has vandalized this page numerous times, and I can't keep on undoing them forever.... That would be much appreciated, thanks. WikiTome (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:WARNINGS}} - 3 are enough then to [[WP:AIV SatuSuro 10:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi WL Ross

Happy to discuss any of the issues you have with Myall Creek.

One small point to begin with, Bruce Elder is predominately a travel journalist. trying to hide this fact appears to be an attempt to beef up his "credentials" to give his point of view more weight.

There are several factual errors in this article that you seem determined to maintain.

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.169.159 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)  (Transcribed from User Talk:WLRoss)


 * Taking your recent edits one at a time.


 * The article already mentions that one of the men was an African in the very first sentence. Your addition later in the article was largely irrelevant as a point is being made with that sentence and Africans did not play a significant part in the killing of Indigenous Australians.
 * Your addition of the mention of innocence is not only repetitious, as it is already mentioned in the previous sentence, but it is written in a style more suited to a newspaper.
 * There is only one source for the number three, fringe historian Keith Windschuttle. He bases this number on a report from a soldier who arrived at the scene at the end of the action. This soldier only mentions that he personally saw three killed and does not comment on how many were killed before he arrived. Another soldier who took part in the action confirms that many more were killed in his own report. Historians reject Windschuttle's estimate and academic consensus accepts that 40 is a minimum. See WP:FRINGE/PS for a more detailed justification for exclusion.
 * Yes, Elder is a travel journalist but he has written more than 60 books covering a wide range of disciplines and also works in other professions so why have you ignored those job titles? That he is a historical writer whose book, that details the massacre, is recognized by historians as one of the best written is relevant here. Calling him only a "travel journalist" is irrelevant and POV as it suggests that he is writing outside his area of expertise.
 * If you find any factual errors in this article point them out. Wayne (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Second Trial - Double Jeopardy?
It would be good if someone could add an explanation of the legal status of the second trial. Was the first trial ruled a nullity by an appelate court? Did the legal system of the colony permit multiple trials for the same offence? Or, as the article currently hints in referring to "additional charges" but does not say explicitly say, was the second trial for different offenses? If so, how were they different? Was the first trial perhaps for the murder of a subset of the victims, the second trial for others?Bill (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, the 7 that were found guilty were found guilty of a single murder of an Aboriginal person that wasn't listed in the first trial. For example, if person A is suspected of killing people X, Y and Z, and is charged and found not guilty of the murder of persons X, Y and Z, then double jeopardy dictates that A cannot be charged with their murder again.  However, if person A is only charged and found not guilty of the murder of person X, then they can be still charged with the murders of person Y or person Z.  It is reasonably common that in cases where the prosecution is unsure whether they can get a guilty verdict on a multiple homicide charge, that they'll charge the person with one person's murder, and only introduce the others after the initial trial. Magpieram (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Myall Creek massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714163126/http://tracker.org.au/2011/08/reflections-from-myall-creek/ to http://tracker.org.au/2011/08/reflections-from-myall-creek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Reasons and consequences section
While I don't necessarily personally disagree with content the 'Reasons and consequences' section, it have a number of problems. First there is already a section titled 'Consequences'. How is this one different. But more importantly, it reads like a personal essay. Most of it is unsourced, except for a single line that has over a dozen sources, which is a red-flag that the section is WP:OR. Also, most of the section isn't about this massacre, but massacres of Aborigines generally, and history of the dispossession of their land, which seems to me belongs in a separate article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myall Creek massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912173606/http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/Research/SCCRG/Henry%20Dangar%20and%20the%20Myall%20Creek%20massacre.pdf to http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Humanities%20and%20Social%20Science/Research/SCCRG/Henry%20Dangar%20and%20the%20Myall%20Creek%20massacre.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Description of the massacre
I think the following sentence is a bit too long and unclear; could someone take a crack at making it more clear?

"A group of eleven stockmen, consisting of assigned convicts and former convicts, ten of them white Europeans, the 11th, John Johnstone, a black African, led by John Henry Fleming, who was from Mungie Bundie Run near Moree, arrived at Henry Dangar's Myall Creek station in New England on 9 June 1838."

Cheers Unibrow69420 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)