john w. Posted 18 October , 2003 Share Posted 18 October , 2003 I am looking into those soldiers who were sentenced to death but escaped the firing squad. . . I have 164 men who had their sentences commuted to 15 yrs penal servitiude. My theory is that because they were not shot they actually enjoyed a quality of post war life that was obviously in stark contrast to those executed, maybe without the stigma attached of being a convicted coward or deserter. It seems that the system was wholly inconsistent. Well I went to the PRO to do some digging.. and came up with some results as detailed below... I only managed a small number of the 164 so thats why I am unsure, but I was surprised at the end result. I know that when those executed were shot they forfeited their medals I checked the MIC for Thomas Highgate...He was due a set but it states they were forfeit Did you know that those who were also sentenced to death but didnt die, received theirs? In only one case a Daniel McCorkindale did he have his medals forfeit, he was due a set. In the case of F Craven 17397 Grenadier Guards he was sentenced to death, commuted to life, AND he still got a full set! On his MIC it states deserter 19/3/16. In addition I have evidence to prove that pensions were paid to those who had been originally given the death sentence. I believe that at the start those who were shot had forfeit their pensions to their surviving dependents I picked up the attestaion papers etc for James McGowan, what a read... he even threatens the Army to pay him his full pension! he was convicted of sleeping whilst on sentry duty sentenced to death and given 15 years then reduced, and he still got his medals. Also John Dyckhoff who was declared insane in 1917 so escaped even the 15 years PS he was given. Some were returned to unit and did die in action, under the suspension of sentences act 1915. The final question relates to another recent thread, what happened to those 2700 after the war? did they slip back into society? were they blacklisted? did they or their families suffer the same stigma as those shot? or was it never known who they were so they lived their lives in peace... John Comments or thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 18 October , 2003 Share Posted 18 October , 2003 John, I am slightly confused by this. Maybe I am wrong, but it appears that you are suggesting that anyone who was sentenced to death (and then had that sentence changed) should not be entitled to medals....?? If this IS what you are suggesting, why should they not get their medals - particularly those who, as you have pointed out, went back to a unit?? Was not the military just following the guidelines that were in force at the time?? As you may be aware, I have been researching the memorial plaques and scrolls. These were issued even when no medals were due - so someone who died in training might not be entitled to a medal, but their family did get a plaque and scroll. Until recently, I had thought that anyone SAD was also not entitled to a plaque and scroll. But I was contacted recently by someone who claims that he has, in his collection, two plaques to men who were SAD. Once I have seen, and confirmed, the 'evidence' I will post it under the Memorial Plaque Production thread. What did you hope/expect to find when you started this research?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 18 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 18 October , 2003 Unsure at present to be honest... I feel that i want to clear up a few lose ends.. and that revolves around the concept of being convicted of an offence and being given the death penalty. I know that the Commonwealth war graves website makes no distinction between those executed and not. I am aware that the Royal British Legion have supported the pardon of those shot. I am aware that there are those who say it is too long ago and those who say you cannot change history. But what of those who had the same conviction and were not shot? what happened to them post war? Clearly we have to remain withthe facts as they are written one of which is the issue of medals. Of the 164 men I am looking at, only 20 were subsequently lost through enemy action. Have you read some of their offences lists? Some were habitual recidivists, given enough chances then sentenced. Others offend once and are executed. It al makes interesting reading.... Was not the military just following the guidelines that were in force at the time?? Maybe but the interpretation according to the evidence is certainly even with my small sample so far.. inconsistent. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 18 October , 2003 Share Posted 18 October , 2003 It was my belief that the Army's view at the time was that once a soldier was RTU he started again - his previous crimes would still be listed in his record, and would affect the outcome of a FGCM if tried again, but if he just served, did his bit, or was killed, then the army was happy he had done his bit and despite previous convinctions, he would be treated like anyone else. I know of a number of men who were sentenced to death who later died at the front; one I have researched in some detail. He had deserted a number of times, was sentenced to death, but it was communted. He returned to his old battalion, and was killed at High Wood. As in life he remained missing in death, until his remains were found by a farmer in the 1930s and he now has a grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 18 October , 2003 Share Posted 18 October , 2003 I meant to add that this chap also received his medals... just like the soldiers who died around him that day and had never been tried by FGCM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 19 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 19 October , 2003 The idea behind the suspension of sentences act was just that, they could be let off for good behaviour or the sentence was applied. Often there was a time limit before the case was reviewed... then and only then would a decision be made. So they didnt quite start off on a clean slate when they were RTU. My concern is as listed in my first posting, lack of consistency. Where was the base line here because at present it seems to be all over the place. In addition the next stage of this thread is post war and the treatment of those soldiers by others... allocation of medals is only the start. You see by giving them the medals society was legitimising their acts of cowardice and desertion for which they were convicted, in essence a pat on the back. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lesley Posted 19 October , 2003 Share Posted 19 October , 2003 John, do you have Pte A Gunnell of 6th Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry in your list? He was sentenced to die for desertion on 4th Jan 1918. Sentence was commuted to 5 yrs penal servitude. Also Pte B Schulman of Bucks Battalion OBLI who was senenced to death for cowardice on Sept 2nd 1916. Sentence was not confirmed Both survived the War but I haven't looked at medal awards yet. Lesley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 19 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 19 October , 2003 Lesley They havent yet got into my sample... The reason being that 1 I began and am still reading the military execution books, Babington and so on... 2 I then decided to 'step down' one layer if you see what I mean, those who were given the Death sentence then this ended up as 15 years PS. By this I assumed (rightly or wrongly) thatt their offence was deemed more serious. I gained the information from Julian Putowski's book which lists those given the death sentence. Therefore so far I have not arrived at those who were given the death sentence and given 5 years etc. If you do find their MIC could you let me know what they ended up with and likewise if I get to them I will let you know. What I am after and you can see from the thread is were these soldiers discriminated against AFTER THE WAR because of their record if it was known? After all if you had such a sword of Damocles hanging over your head what would you have done.... mind you having said that some of their records would probably show that they didny really care what people thought anyway Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 20 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 20 October , 2003 Looks like Im back on the long long trail will let you know if there are any more anomalies... In the meantime I anyone has some inspiration then do please let me know what you feel.. Cheers John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 20 October , 2003 Share Posted 20 October , 2003 I think we are in danger of missing a central point, which has nothing to do with the Great War and little to do with Shot at Dawn. There was a wide range of offences for which, if convicted, under KR and Military Law meant automatic loss of medals, both campaign and gallantry. This was nothing new. By acts of clemency, soldiers could be granted medals which "by rights" either would not have been issued, or become forfeit. Medal Rolls abound with these "resubmitted" names. I see nothing wrong in this at all. Example. LCpl, MM, entitled BWM and VM, deserts under extenuating circumstances 1917, sentenced to and serves 6 months in glasshouse, returns to unit, participates in Advance to Victory, survives, Medal Rolls say "Forfeit", matter reviewed, all medals issued. Seems very modern and touchy feely to me. Good decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 20 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 20 October , 2003 Are you saying that the offences for which a soldier could lose his medals were confined to those given the death penalty? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevebec Posted 20 October , 2003 Share Posted 20 October , 2003 So far in my reseach I have only two soldiers who were forfited their medals. Either had did anything like being sentcened to death. One was an Officer who was twice convicted of have two pay books his medals and decortions were not given and dinied him up till his death in the sixties. He had won the MC and MID with the Camel Corps, He tried to get his medals a number of times during his later life but was dinied by the Australian Goverment of the times. The other was a Pte soldier who enlisted in 1914 went to Eygpt and found himself in continued trouble untill in March when to AIF cleared most of its bad eggs by sending home all who had large crime sheets and he was discharged for Bad conduct. His file is noted that no medals were to be issed. But he relisted under another name and went throught the war. He did get his medals but under a alais. S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 20 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 20 October , 2003 The Aussies didnt shoot their men so they would fall in possibly under the category I am looking at except that mine were sentenced to death yet werent executed... I accept that currently my sample is too small and more has to be done.. but the comments here are interesting as I really do want to see if my theory works or not. The next stage is to see if those who fall into my research category had a decent quality of life having been convicted of desertion cowardice and sleeping. That may be hard to find out but nevertheless important. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 October , 2003 Share Posted 21 October , 2003 Are you saying that the offences for which a soldier could lose his medals were confined to those given the death penalty? John No. Certainly not. I precis Pay Warrant 1914 reprinted 1916.Section 1236. every soldier who is ..... guilty of, or confesses to, desertion, fraudulent enlistment or any offence under Sections 17 [conduct unbecoming, officers] or 18 malingering, disobedience, stealing, embezzling, receiving, cruel/indecent/unnatural conduct ] of the Army Act, or discharged with ignominy, or when sentenced to penal servitude,or found guilty by civil court of the relevant offences above or when sentenced to lose any medal by any General or District Court Martial, shall forfeit the medal [this includes campaign and gallantry but excludes VC] and any medal may be restored under regulations approved by Army Council. That is the legal framework, corroborated by cross-references in KR. I find no specific reference to the medals of those sentenced to death, but those of "my" regiment who were shot certainly had theirs forfeit according to medal roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 21 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2003 Am very interested in the concept of fraudulent enlistment.... would this cover age? Thanks for the other bit from kings regs most useful indeed... It does go to show that the regs could be interpreted in any way as there is no ultimate consistency in their application.. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 October , 2003 Share Posted 21 October , 2003 Fraudulent enlistment, essentially, meant enlisting whilst still under another obligation to serve, eg. having already deserted from another regiment/corps, or being still a reservist, or indeed belonging to the RN. A soldier's age was what he said it was when accepted for first attestation, there was no inspection of birth certificates because such certificates had not long been compulsory possession [my wife knows all this sort of thing]. Only boy enlistments AS SUCH had to show a certificate. Boys who could pass for men, did, if they had any sense, as the pay was a basic 1/- a day as opposed to 8d. There was a strict and low limit on number of boy enlistments allowed in each unit, and, in any case, soldiers legally [ie recognised by the army as such] under 19 years could not be sent overseas except as drummers [and the like] and with the CO's express and individual permission. The 19 year rule may have been relaxed later: others can quote chapter and verse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 21 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2003 Cheers for that, it all helps in getting the overall picture. The question of age is a sticky one... at what age would a youngster 'be able to get away with enlisting' is like asking how long is a piece of string! I can understand a youngster joining up in the heady days of the first few days of the war... but would that be the same if we were at peace. Unless there was an alterior motive... John Lastly in your precis.. cowardice and sleeping are not mentioned yet desertion is.. is that an omission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 21 October , 2003 Share Posted 21 October , 2003 Lastly in your precis.. cowardice and sleeping are not mentioned yet desertion is.. is that an omission? No. In that penal servitude was "such less punishment" than death, and death could be awarded for cowardice etc, then any court empowered to do so could choose, as I understand it, penal servitude, and therefore medals would be forfeit under the provisions of the Pay Warrant and KR. What this forum needs is a lawyer, not an ex-meteorologist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 21 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2003 So in effect this is similar to those being convicted of forfeiting their right to vote in modern day times.. Ok so if that is the case then why the inconsistency in applying the rules? or is that basically a naive question on my part... ? What I am looking at is a group of 3000 who by being given the death sentence and for some that was carried out should according to KR all forfeit their medals.. or have I grabbed the wrong end of the stick again? John PS I told you I was confused, bit like Michael Fish in 1987 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevebec Posted 21 October , 2003 Share Posted 21 October , 2003 IS not the Fraudulent enlistment more to do with my second soldier who reenlisted under an alais and so stated and incorrect name. Then say underage. The KR's were good also since the Medals could be restored to the soldiers if so ordered by an Army Council. I wonder why this was not done, say for my ex Officer who won the MC and MID. I mean there are letters from him and others of importance in his Army File during the many times he tried to get his medals back. All were knocked back in most cases with no answer given to the man. The last time was in the sixties by his son after the mans death, but still no medals? S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 21 October , 2003 Author Share Posted 21 October , 2003 always that danger.. medals never awarded.. can i ask did he suffer from others as he had no medals? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now