In real life, it was Morant and/or Handcock, if I understand correctly. The film, though, does not make this clear. I imagine the film makers would have had quite a time trying to justify that killing, so, they leave it open to interpretation.

Was it the nervous soldier who testified at the court martial?

I watched a relatively "recent" documentary not too long ago, they seemed to pin it on Handcock, under direction of Morant. I would imagine in real life and the movie, they'd all be pretty nervous, they'd probably been doing a lot of things for a while that they were suddenly, potentially on the hook for.

Handcock apparently confessed to the murder to a friend, Witton, after his aquittal.

However, there still seems some dispute over the veracity of Witton's account.

Witton's Letter

I can't say I've looked closely at this case, but if the evidence is to be believed, they're not the martyrs they've been made out to be. Beresford's film, though, is quite good.

Morant struck me as a ends justify the means type, as evidenced by his ‘Rule.303’ statement; “We were fighting the Boer the way he fought us!” I personally feel that Handcock did the actual killing, Morant knew of it, at the very least, if he didn’t actually tell Handcock to carry out the act.

I agree that it’s a very good movie, one of my favorites.

Based on what I read of the various shootings, both Morant and Handcock were equally guilty. Hard to say who actually pulled the triggers.
An outcome of the trial is that Australia then disallowed any of its troops to be tried criminally by the British.

quote:

...However, there still seems some dispute over the veracity of Witton's account

Over a century later, there are still unanswered questions due to vagaries. Plus, look at the state of jurisprudence and forensics of the era. What passed for testimony and evidence then would be laughed out of court half a century later.

Which is exactly why Bereford's film is so compelling, how do we know or is it even possible to be certain. It sort of reminds me of "Tom Horn" in that sense. Sure, they did other despicable things, but did they do the particular despicable thing they were accused of?

Maybe that is the point of such cases. It's sort of like the theory that when the refs blow a call in the 1st half of football game against one team and they make a second bad call to make-up or erase the advantage for the first bad call. Were they scapegoated by the British Empire to make up for prosecution of the war?

Never heard of this. Going to have to check it out. Will put the movie on my watch list.

quote:

Originally posted by gunnutty:
Never heard of this. Going to have to check it out. Will put the movie on my watch list.

Make sure you have the time to not be interrupted. Fantastic movie!

quote:

Breaker Morant

Found this https://www.nma.gov.au/definin...aker-morant-executed
Which basically said it was a common practice in the day for both sides with prisoners.

I read up on this last night, prior to watching it this morning.

The movie certainly gives a different feel than reading in black and white.

I remember when I thought Col. Jessep from A Few Good Men was the bad guy. Not sure at what point in my life my opinion changed, but I’ve got a similar feeling here.

As has been stated in another thread (David v Goliath), the standing army has to be much more ruthless when fighting an asymmetrical warfare enemy.

The Brits basically did total warfare against the Boers, by destroying everything that was useful to the Boers (scorched earth). But probably the biggest factor was rounding up civilians (women and children) into what are now known as concentration camps. The death rate in those camps was very high. That put the Boers at a tremendous disadvantage as they no longer had supporters in the countryside that they could rely on.

this is streaming on kanopy, library service.

Thanks for the post, Para.
I loved that movie.
Wasn't Morant as portrayed by Edward Woodward the man each of us would want to be?