shot at dawn

[Ron Clifton]

They were detailed, often being chosen by the RSM from among those with bad disciplinary records themselves. They did not have the option to refuse, it being a direct order, or they might have faced the same fate.

Officers in charge of firing squads were also detailed, by their COs.

The custom of having one unloaded rifle, or with a blank cartridge, was to soothe the consciences of those who found it difficult, although once you pulled the trigger you would know, especially with an unloaded rifle.

Ron

[west coast]

ron, when you say unloaded, dop you mean 'unloaded'? or a blank round?. also would there be and records of men partaking in firing squads in batt or army records afterwards, or was it a cae of 'you you ,and you ' in the morning , outside with your rifles!. and then carry on with the war. [don`t mean to be flippant on this subject].

mike.

[Steven Broomfield]

This has probably been dealt with, but can someone confirm something for me, legally?

The 'pardons' don't imply they weren't 'guilty' - just that the blokes have been pardoned for their crime. Is that right? Presumably they would have been 'exonerated' or similar if it had been decided they didn't do something wrong?

I apologise if this has been endlessly discussed, but I only asked.....

[John_Hartley]

Mike/Ron

I have a recollection from previous threads discussing the "blank" issue, that it may be one of the myths of the war as there appears to be no real primary evidence that it actually happened.

Someone did find an account, written much later, by a firing party NCO who said something on the lines that "he loaded all the rifles, putting a blank in one of them". Can't find that thread now - presumably lost in the great cull.

John

[MelPack]

If anyone has the information to hand, I would be interested to know how many of the executions were carried out by men of the condemned's own unit.

Regards

Mel

[Ron Clifton]

In answer (I hope!) to the last few posts:

Mike and Mel - I meant either, but the blank round is more likely. Firing parties were usually detailed on the "you, you and you" basis from within the man's own unit.

Steven - yes, "pardon" implies that his guilt is not challenged.

John - the evidence is anecdotal only, as far as I know, but its persistence suggests that it may be based on fact.

There is probably a set of instructions somewhere, issued by the Provost-Marshal, setting out the correct procedure for executions (size of party, blindfold, offer of a drink of spirits etc) but I cannot find a copy at present. Those procedures which are recorded in individual cases are so similar that there must have been some official standard rules laid down.

Ron

[west coast]

i presume there would be six men at least in a firing squad?? i have read reports of the officer having to administer the coup de grace [how true ,and how often ]. surley with at least five men hitting the target with 303 it should have been enough. a long time ag i was under the impression that only one rifle was loaded with a live round ,then i could understand the officer having to finish it, but with five it seems there should never be the need for the officer to step in.

mike.

[Ron Clifton]

As far as I am aware, and it may all be anecdotal, the normal firing party was six men and therefore at least five live rounds. The MO pinned a piece of white paper or cloth over the heart and the men were told to aim for it, to ensure a quick death rather than a painful last few seconds.

If the MO did not certify immediate death, it was the officer's duty to administer the coup de grace with his revolver. This certainly happened according to anecdotal evidence, but I have no idea of the proportion of cases where it was necessary. In some cases, the officer might step in while the body was still twitching but the man may have been medically dead in any case.

The Army seems to have made as certain as possible the carrying out of executions in as humane a way as possible, and also in a way which caused least distress to those who had to carry it out. Like so much in army life, it was a nasty job but someone had to do it.

Ron

[John_Hartley]

This has probably been dealt with, but can someone confirm something for me, legally?

Steve

The legal position is clear and specific in the Act (Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 359 Para 4A). As detailed in subsequent MoD press releases, there is no overturning of the issue of guilt, nor is there any criticism of the courts martial process (generally or specifically) nor of the appropriateness and legality of the original sentence.

In layman's terms, it puts those executed now in the same legal position as the many others who were convicted and sentenced but for whom sentence was not carried out. A posthumous commutation of sentence if you like.

John

[George Armstrong Custer]

The legal position is clear and specific in the Act (Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 359 Para 4A). As detailed in subsequent MoD press releases, there is no overturning of the issue of guilt, nor is there any criticism of the courts martial process (generally or specifically) nor of the appropriateness and legality of the original sentence.

Quite - and it's a pity that those facts aren't as well known as they ought to be.

ciao,

GAC

[Steven Broomfield]

Thanks John.

Gesture politics? Surely not?

[Gunner Bailey]

Thanks John.

Gesture politics? Surely not?

It was a running sore for a number of Defence Ministers and Des Browne obviously wanted to end it. A gesture for the relatives and certain action groups, but historically it changed nothing.

Gunner Bailey

[geraint]

Officers in charge of firing squads were also detailed, by their COs.

Ron

I'm sure that I've read various memoires and accounts which point to the man's Company officer as being the presiding officer in an execution. Doesn't Crozier have an account in which the officer allocated to one execution was so 'windy' that he Crozier, took the responsibility and administered the coup de grace?