S3-E12 - The Mark’s Murders – Telling the Story

Over the past 170 years, the story of the Mark’s Murders has been told to Australians in greatly different ways, depending on the era.  At the time, the murders were recorded in detail in official records.  At that time, all Aboriginal people were known individually by name.  Soon after the murders, a newspaper report falsely claimed that James Mark’s son was roasted alive and eaten by cannibals.  This salacious report was perpetuated for the next 100-plus years during the period when ‘white triumphalism’ was taught in schools.  In the last 40 years, ‘conflict studies’ have told the story from both sides but have been accused of exaggerating the number of Aboriginal deaths. 

Contact us at todaysstories101@gmail.com.

Transcript

William Telfer: 0:00

T he most repulsive Aboriginal that was ever seen in australia standing six feet four inches in height- after a long hunt they came on his camp on a creek on the upper Moonie Mr Marks in the lead saw him making away fired putting a bullet through his body when he fell dyeing in a short time- this was the end of the black fiend whose name was Gabbar- in their language devil.

Greg: 0:39

G’day and Welcome to“Today’s Stories from our Past”. From“Today’s Stories”…… This is“The Mark’s Murders”…. A story of murder and mayhem told over several episodes- by myself, Greg and by Peter. If you haven’t listened to this series from Episode 1, we suggest you stop listening now and go back to the very beginning. Also, a warning. This series of podcasts discusses the murders of indigenous and non-indigenous people. It contains the names of Aboriginal people who have died. Whilst quoting original historical material, this series also contains:• racist language,• some language that would be seen as inappropriate today, and• historical ideas that are offensive.

Peter: 1:36

Previously on the“Mark’s Murders”……It’s 1847– about 50 km north-west of modern-day Goondiwindi.

John Watts: 1:49

Marks was a splendid shot, and the blacks were very much afraid of him, and from information I obtained from the Beebo people, they had long been watching to kill him.

Richard Bligh: 2:01

The Blacks it appears took away both the boy and the sheep and upon search being made for them the upper half of the boy’s body was discovered hanging among the branches of a tree. The lower portion of the body seems to have been carried away and has not yet been discovered.

Denise: 2:20

Young described Marks's frenzied response, calling him'a hater of all Aboriginals',‘shooting every native in sight.

Richard Bligh: 2:32

I have much reason to suspect that he(James Mark) and some of those now in custody were with the others concerned in the murders now reported by Mr Morris.

Peter: 2:46

Eleven episodes ago, we set out to find the truth behind John Watts’ 700 words. John described the gruesome murder of James Mark’s son and related murders of Aboriginal people that happened around the modern-day town of Goondiwindi from 1847 to 1849. We’ve looked into the background of the people involved, the numerous murders, the law& order response and then the aftermath. For the most part, we’ve used contemporaneous records to get an understanding of what happened.

Greg: 3:21

So, was John Watts’ story factually correct?

Peter: 3:24

John Watts’ story is essentially correct. James Mark was a squatter on the McIntyre, having unsuccessfully tried squatting elsewhere. His son was murdered by the Bigambul and the b ody was mutilated. Seeking vengeance, Mark did put a gang together, and with a black tracker, they went to a neighbouring s tation and t hey did murder an Aboriginal woman there. Warrants were taken out for this murder. Some of the gang were arrested but James Mark was never captured. Soon after this, Frederick Walker and the Native Police came to the McIntyre and, to use John Watts’ words,“the Native Poli ce put such fear into the tribes in this district that there was no more trouble, and the country began to settle down and progress.”

Greg: 4:13

Yeah, that’s a fair summary but in Episode 1, Maurice warned us that John’s Personal Reminiscences were a recording of an oral history and could have some errors around dates and places. Are there any errors that you found?

Peter: 4:27

Yeah. There are a few minor errors. John says that the warrants were taken out for the murder of the Aboriginal woman on Mr Morris’ station, Callandoon. The gang did murder two Aboriginal women on Callandoon, not one and the warrants were issued regarding the murder of a different Aboriginal woman on a different station, Umbercollie. John says that“the warrant was never executed, and I expect the Government, after the trial of the two who were taken being acquitted, thought it was no use to try anymore.” Six members of Mark’s gang were arrested– not two– and they were not acquitted at trial. They were discharged by proclamation, meaning that they were released without trial or verdict, although they could have been recalled later to face justice later on.

Greg: 5:22

OK– but those errors don’t detract from the overall correctness of John’s account.

Peter: 5:26

No. But as we suggested in Episode 1, John does omit lots of relevant information. For example, he doesn’t suggest any motive for the Bigambul to want to murder Mark’s son, nor does he ever question why James Mark was there in the first place. We have seen that John Watts was a strong believer in the right of the British to claim the land and he praises the efforts of squatters struggling against adversity. There is nothing in anything that John wrote where he expresses any concern for the fate of the Aboriginal people that were murdered and displaced.

Greg: 6:06

Yeah, you’re right there but we recognized from the start that John was a product of the Victorian era and he believed in British imperialism- that policy of extending Britain’s power and influence as a European power through colonization of other lands with the use of military force, or by other means available to them.

Peter: 6:26

Yeah. My great great grandfather was certainly a man of his times.

Greg: 6:33

So John’s version is essentially correct if we accept that he was a man of his times. But you said that, in this episode, we would look at how the Mark’s Murder story has been told to Australians over the years. What have you found?

Peter: 6:46

In the process of researching the murders, I’ve read many, many documents that have been written at various times over the intervening 170 years. We primarily used contemporaneous records in our telling of the story but, looking back, I can now see a pattern in the way in which this story was told to Australians over that period.

Greg: 7:09

OK. So, what patterns have you seen?

Peter: 7:11

I think that it is fairly easy to group the various versions of the Mark’s Murders story and they generally fit specific time periods. The first grouping are the contemporaneous records from the times– letters, court documents, government gazette notices, depositions and more. There are similarities in these accounts and in the people who wrote them. One obvious characteristic is that the people involved are not affected by the political correctness that surrounds the issue of squatters and the occupation of the land for the last 100-plus years. They simply discuss issues concerning them day-by-day. For example, Richard Bligh was a conscientious public servant and he did his best to record all the facts he could gather. That was his job. Generally, their descriptions of the events are fairly similar. One example is the consistency with which the murder of Mark’s son is reported. Edward White, Margaret Young and John Watts all say that Mark’s son was left alone to herd the sheep. The Bigambul crept up and killed the boy and then left the mutilated body for James Mark to see. Another example is the murder of Bootha. Jonathan Young’s deposition is similar to Daniel Mclean’s and is repeated fairly similarly in Margaret Young’s journal.

Greg: 8:43

Yea, so records we've found are fairly consistent. Is there anything else that you observed about these records?

Peter: 8:47

Yeah. There is something that really stands out– particularly when you read the later versions of the story. All of these people knew the Aboriginal people at a time when their clan structures were intact and when they lived– at least in the early days of contact– as they'd lived for thousands of years. They tend to regard the Aboriginal warriors with some respect and they certainly see them as dangerous foes– and, what I initially found surprising, is that they knew them all as individuals. We should recall Eric Rolls comment in Episode 2.

Eric Rolls: 9:24

From the beginning of settlement, there was an astonishingly close relationship with the Aborigines. It was rare for a white man to be killed by unknowns. When a shepherd in a lonely hut was speared, if he saw the man who threw it, he knew him by name. And, when stockmen rode out to shoot Aborigines in retaliation, they counted the dead by name. But the names they called them were cursory and degrading: Bobby, Saturday, Sunday, King Billy. Most Europeans could not be bothered learning to pronounce Aboriginal words and in choosing names for Aboriginals acquaintances they took less trouble than teamsters in naming their working bullocks.

Peter: 10:14

This is exactly what we found. Everybody knew the name of the person who they killed and every Aboriginal person was known to the Europeans by name– although a simplistic Anglicised name. Along the way, we’ve met:• Isabella and her baby son, and Mary, who were all murdered on Callandoon by Mark’s gang.• Pantaloon and his brother Bobby, who were"ringleaders" and fugitives from Walker's Native Police.• Jimmy and Yaggai, who'd been sleeping a short distance from the camp on the night that Umbercollie was attacked. They could've provided evidence as to who committed the murders but Aboriginal people weren’t allowed to testify in court.• Bootha and Mary, who were close friends of Margaret Young on Umbercollie and who were murdered by Mark’s gang.• Then there's Mary’s husband, Ben plus Old Man and Ibbi, who witnessed the attack on Umbercollie and gave depositions to Commissioner Bligh.• Tinker, who was accused of the murder of a hut-keeper on Minimee and, having been captured by two European stockmen, was murdered in a struggle which took place between him and the two men who had him in custody.• Then there's Combo, Monday and Tommy, who were Aboriginal shepherds on Umbercollie.• Tomo, who was the Aboriginal man who Tinker Campbell communicated with on Beebo.• Gibber, who was believed to have killed Mark’s son and Scotchie, the bullock driver. He was subsequently killed when captured by a group of squatters.• Cockatoo, who survived an encounter with the Native Police near Beebo.• Then there's Darby, Pulldown, Cranky and Nobody. All were Aboriginal warriors killed by the Native Police.

Greg: 12:09

Yeah. I hadn’t realised how many names of Bigambul people we've come across in this story. Clearly, what Eric Rolls described in central NSW happened on the McIntyre. So, what’s next?

Peter: 12:20

Well, the next way in which the Mark’s story was told was in the press– by journalists. Back then, it was the same as today. Some journalists try to report just the facts. Others see it as their role to put a spin on things and to pander to their audience or to promote a certain cause. Here's an example written on 2 October 1847– just a few weeks after the murder of Mark’s son. In this case, the journalist is advocating for greater security for the squatters on the frontier.

Denise: 12:58

MURDER BY THE BLACKS.— Intelligence has just reached here of another brutal murder committed by the blacks on the Macintyre. Their last victim was a fine boy of nine years of age, the son of Mr. Marks, settler there. It appears that the boy was shepherding when the savages came upon him, and, after transfixing him with spears, they deliberately took the boy while, it is supposed, he was yet alive, and roasted him over a fire; afterwards cutting up his body in pieces, and leaving it on the spot. This is the third murder in cold blood committed in that district since July last by these savages, and yet no steps are being taken to punish the perpetrators, the authorities here waiting, as they state, for instructions from Sydney. The murderers are at this moment within a day's ride of this place, but in such large numbers that they feel perfectly secure. It is high time something were done to render life and property in that part of the country a little more secure, and the settlers there trust that some notice will be taken of it by you, so as to draw attention to their present critical slate. The moment a blackfellow is murdered the hue and cry is raised, warrants issued, and constables despatched in all directions; but notwithstanding the repeated complaints from settlers of the insecurity of their lives and property, the authorities seem to take the matter very quietly. In all probability more murders will be perpetrated ere an attempt is made to capture the savages, their numbers(from two to three hundred) being their security.

Greg: 15:05

Yeah, hang on! What’s this story about the Aboriginal men taking the boy“while, it is supposed, he was yet alive, and roasted him over a fire; afterwards cutting up his body in pieces, and leaving it on the spot.” None of the reports from those who were in the area at the time say anything about roasting him alive!

Peter: 15:22

You’re right– and if there was a grain of truth in the“roasting” story, you can bet that Edward White or Margaret Young or John Watts or anyone else at the time would have mentioned it. This is clearly an attempt– a successful attempt– to demonise the Aboriginal people and make them out to be cannibals. It seems that, for the Victorians, the lowest form of human life was a cannibal and this report was aimed at galvanising public opinion with the squatters and against the Bigambul. Oddly enough, we see the same thing happening in the press today– but this particular newspaper report had a long-lasting effect as we will see.

Greg: 16:09

OK. So salacious press reporting is one grouping when it comes to telling the Mark’s Murders story. Perhaps that is not unexpected but what’s your next group?

Peter: 16:20

The next group who tell the story are those people writing their reminiscences of the early days– and we've used four of them- John Watts, Margaret Young, Tinker Campbell and William Telfer. In all cases, these were written many years after the event. We were very lucky that Maurice gave us some good advice in Episode 1 about using this type of source. Effectively, they are oral histories. They need cross-checking and one can expect some things, like exact dates and place and names, to be in error but big events, like murders, will be remembered correctly. We have checked these sources as much as possible and, while John Watts and Margaret Young are fairly accurate, there is reason to believe that William Telfer’s telling of the Mark’s story is not without some exaggeration issues.

Greg: 17:18

Yep! So are there any common aspects you see in these sources?

Peter: 17:24

All of these people lived their lives during the reign of Queen Victoria. They never question the“manifest destiny” type of approach of the British to taking the land. In fact, John Watts clearly agrees as we've heard in various episodes. Also, these reminiscences are written towards the end of that era– in fact John Watts writes his story in 1901, just after the death of Queen Victoria. So, they all look back at the successful development of this great country, Australia as a great British colony. This obviously must be borne in mind when reviewing their words. On the other hand, their words aren’t affected by current views of the occupation of land on the frontier, so they do describe the murders of Aboriginal people, often in detail. There's no hiding this. There is no reason to believe that they have consciously omitted any murders. In fact, I suspect that William Telfer has exaggerated some stories. None of these people ever question the occupation of Australia without any treaties with the original inhabitants. Another characteristic of this group is that all of them knew the Aboriginal people at a time when their clan structures were intact. The Aboriginal people were living as they had lived for thousands of years. Hence, they tend to regard the Aboriginal warriors with some respect and, as we've just noted, they regard them as individuals. I believe they were the last generation to do so.

Greg: 19:03

What do you mean? I assume that you are alluding to the next group who tell the Mark’s Murders story.

Peter: 19:08

Yes. In Episode 1, Maurice told us that we were educated during a period when‘white triumphalism’ was the accepted approach and was part of our education. All of the versions of the Mark’s Murder story that I have found from Federation in 1901 until about 1980 have similar characteristics. For the most part, these versions describe the courageous and noble actions of the early squatters to tame this wild land, and they refer to the original inhabitants– if they are mentioned at all– as nameless wild savages. I can’t find any telling of the Mark’s Murders where an Aboriginal person is given a name.

Greg: 19:56

I presume you have some examples of this.

Peter: 19:58

Yes, of course I do. The first examples are various stories written about the Midlothian immigrants. If you remember from an earlier episode, James Mark was a bounty immigrant who came to Australia from Scotland on the Midlothian. Many of these stories were written when one of the old Scots died and the newspaper was recalling his life. Here is one example that we used in Episode 5. It’s a 1928 newspaper story and it says:

Denise: 20:31

John Mark had been one of the Midlothian Immigrants. All of that ship's party belonged to Skye with the exception of Mark and another man named Cowan, who were lowland shepherds, but at that time living in Skye. An experience of Mark's at New England was a dreadful one. Two of his little boys, aged ten and eight years respectively, were one day, as usual, minding a flock of their father's sheep. On this day, the sheep came running home in a fright, and the children were not to be seen. The father hastily saddled his horse and went to search. Judge of his feelings when he came across the skull and some bones of one of his boys, while part of the remains of the other were hanging, partly roasted, in a tree. They had been killed and partly eaten by the blacks. The father took dreadful revenge. It is said that, for many Iong years afterwards, he would not spare any Aborigine that came across his track. The authorities were for years on the watch in an endeavor to catch him. It is a gruesome story, but happily such things did not happen often.

Peter: 21:52

We now know this is riddled with errors. His name was James, not John. Only one boy was killed, not two. But, significantly, the roasting alive and cannibalism story from the 1847 newspaper report is being perpetuated. In another newspaper, the Mark’s story is reported within a Midlothian story as:

Denise: 22:18

I believe it was in New Zealand the cannibalistic blacks killed and ate"Mark's" little boys. He took summary vengeance on them for the fiendish deed and was hunted by the authorities for years for it, and would be executed if caught. Such was the state of affairs for the pioneers in the early days in this land.

Greg: 22:41

What? Somehow, t hey're now in New Zealand? That doesn’t make any sense.

Peter: 22:45

No– but again the cannibalism myth is perpetuated. It's also interesting to see that they do report that James Mark“took summary vengeance” but there's not a hint of reproach for doing so. But I think that the best– or the oddest- example of the Midlothian telling of the story comes in 1879, when the whole Midlothian adventure is re-told as an epic poem. Within this poem is the Mark’s story. It goes like this:

Greg: 23:23

Here stay and hear another tale, by shepherds often told, Of Mark's two little boys, of only eight and ten years old. Like Norval's sire, they did most bravely fo ld t heir father's flocks, Not far from home, but mid st th e lit tle hills, a nd glens and rocks. But ah one morning bright they went a little further out, Not thinking of the dange r nigh, for well they knew the route. But the cr uel cannibals that day had spied them there, And with a savage rush, they ran the little boys to spear. With nimble feet and frantic steps the boys did homeward run, Which to the cruel sav age m ind was gleesome sport and fun. But soon the heroes young were caught, and to the camp were broug ht, But who can tell us how they screamed, or tell us what they thought. And when they saw the fire lit up, and burn so very great, Oh, did they think that then was come, their dreadful, awful fate. But while they were beside the camp the sheep ran frantic home, Which made the mother's heart to quail, the father's wrath to foam. To find his darling little boys in haste he did prepare, Lest savage hands should out their hearts and bowels tear. Well mounted on his steed, well found, and in his armour clad, Not far he went, when lo, the sight that met his gaze was sad? The trunkless skull, the strewn bones, from which the flesh was ate. Of his dear white-haired bonny boy, his darling little pet, And half of one not less beloved, hung roasted on a tree Such was the end of those brave lads, who with us crossed the sea. Well, this just gets stranger and further from the truth. You said that you have another lot of stories in this period?

Peter: 25:37

Yes. There is another grouping. During this period, it was common for newspapers to run those 100-years-ago type of stories. They would delve into their archives and find interesting stories from the pioneer times. In 1947-48 newspapers, I've found several accounts of the Mark’s Murders. Here's part of one:

Denise: 26:02

The settlers' patience was really tried when the nine-year-old son of a settler, James Marks, was speared by blacks while he was shepherding sheep, roasted while still alive, and portions of the body left lying where the ghastly deed was done. A number of settlers, with their stockmen, taking the law into their own hands, carried out reprisals against the McIntyre tribe at"Urabcrcolli," for which deed they were arrested and tried.

Peter: 26:35

In 1960, a book was produced called“Historic Queensland Stations”. It includes a brief section.

Denise: 26:44

Then came the murder of a boy who had been looking after a mob of sheep. The father, half demented with grief, collected other squatters and stockmen and, mustering a tribe of blacks like cattle, drove them into a stockyard at Umbercollie, where they were slaughtered…..the murderer not being among the victims!

Greg: 27:07

I don’t remember any story about the Mark’s gang driving a tribe into the stockyards at Umbercollie and killing them all. This is a mish-mash of several bits of the story that w e've b een told.

Peter: 27:18

Yes– and in all these versions, no motive is ever given for the Bigambul to murder Mark’s son. Aboriginal people are never mentioned by name. They are all just mindless savages– cannibals. And they always have a similar view of the squatters– not too different from John Watts’ view. Here is an example from a 1952 newspaper discussing the early pastoral settlement of the Darling Downs. They say:

Denise: 27:53

The squatters were the pioneers of one western civilisation. Without them, the present settlement would occupy a narrow band along the coast, and the boundless west be still in the undisturbed possession of the Aboriginals. They are the men who followed the tracks of the explorers from the Darling Downs to the Gulf of Carpentaria—from the sea shore to the red sandhills and salt lakes and the subterranean rivers of the great lone land of Captain Charles Sturt in Central Australia. The present generation knows but little of the dreary hardships and dangers to which the pioneer squatters were exposed and people in the coast districts of today know just a little of the cheerless lives of many squatters of the far west, far from all comforts of civilisation, all advantages of society extended over that vast belt of country from Cooper's Creek to the head of the Georgina River, a distance of 700 or 800 miles. Everywhere in that wild west, so long peopled by the imagination with"gorgons and hydras and chimeras dire" are the lonely homesteads of the squatter and the tracks of his sheep and cattle—from the tropical jungles of the North Coast Range and the farm studded Darling Downs far west through the brigalow and Myall and mulga scrubs, and over the rolling downs to the red sandhills, covered with savage spinifex and in all parts of Queensland has flood, or fire or thirst claimed victims from the pastoral pioneers, and the spear of the savage still continued for 50 years in the far north, the revenge begun with the death of John Manuel at Eaton Vale Station, on the Darling Downs, in 1842.

Greg: 30:05

Yes, that is the“white triumphalism” view that I remember from school. So you said that the telling of the story was the same for about 80 years from Federation onwards. What happened in about 1980?

Peter: 30:17

It was about this time– following the civil rights era in the USA and Aboriginal people being recognised as citizens in the 1967 referendum– that several historians took a fresh look at the historical records and wrote about the frontier conflicts. These are the books that Maurice described in Episode 1 as“conflict studies”. We've already mentioned Eric Rolls and his book, A million wild acres. This was published in 1981 but perhaps the most influential was Henry Reynolds’– The other side of the frontier– published in 1983. This was probably the first book that attracted the attention of the wider public and started a vigorous discussion. Since then, there have been several other books and PhD theses written about this period. Some examples include: A book called"Six Australian battlefields: the black resistance to invasion and the white struggle against colonial oppression." written in 1988 by Al Grassby. A history of the Darling Downs frontier. 1., Conflict on the Condamine- written by Maurice French in 1989. A system of assassination: the MacIntyre River Frontier 1837-1850. Mark Copland, 1989 Goodbye Bussamarai: the Mandandanji land war, Southern Queensland. One hour more daylight: a historical overview of Aboriginal dispossession in southern and southwest Queensland. written in 2006. The secret war: a true history of Queensland's native police. 2008 Remembering the Myall Creek massacre. 2018 Frederick Walker: Commandant of the Native Police 2018 So there's plenty of these conflict story books around. Now some of these books essentially led to the History Wars that we discussed in Episode 1 because many people felt that these“conflict studies” were re-writing Australian history. I think it's better to say that these studies were writing a more complete history for the first time. The history that we were taught in school was clearly incomplete. The real argument should be around the veracity of those stories, and the likes of Windschuttle claimed that, with the lack of contemporaneous records, they contained a lot of exaggeration. I think that, in our story, William Telfer might be guilty of some exaggeration. Now I should also point out that, in the historian’s community, there have been papers and theses written on this topic prior to 1980. An example was Skinner’s“Police of the pastoral frontier: native police, 1849-1859”. This was written in 1975 and is a good book about the native Police. It includes a brief section on the Mark’s Murders. The difference is that the new works led to public debate– and perhaps Australia was ready for the debate at that time. Also, there have been claims by some that the evidence of conflict on the frontier was deliberately destroyed to hide evidence of wrong doings. At least for the McIntyre, this is clearly not true as we've shown. The records are there– it’s just a matter of looking hard and connecting the dots.

Greg: 33:56

I assume that this is the last group who have told the story. What distinguishes us from those“conflict studies”?

Peter: 34:02

I guess there's a couple of things that we've tried to do differently. Firstly, following Maurice’s advice in Episode 1, we've treated the oral histories of John Watts and Margaret Young and William Telfer with considerable caution until we've found corroborating evidence or we're happy that, in general, that part of their story is sound. I haven’t seen much evidence from the authors of the‘conflict studies’ that they've questioned the stories told by Telfer or Margaret Young with a lot of vigour. Secondly, we tried to understand the murders by looking at the backstory of those involved. I haven’t seen any historian say that James Mark was a Bounty Immigrant from the Isle of Skye who lost a son on the voyage out and who became unemployed when his employer, Adam Wightman, went broke in 1843. I haven't heard an historian say that Mark was then forced off his first run by the Aboriginal people there. We've got to ask ourselves– did his background play any role in the subsequent actions he undertook? Lastly, as an extension of this approach, we tried to look at all of the people in this saga as individuals, not as stereotypes. It’s very clear that not all the squatters acted in the same manner. Tinker Campbell, Jonathan Young and Augustus Morris all acted the same– they didn’t kill Aboriginal people at random. Rather, they encouraged the Aboriginal people to stay on their properties and to work as shepherds. This is completely different to those squatters who wanted no Aboriginal people on their stations at all and effectively prevented them from hunting and gathering food for their survival. Similarly, the Aboriginal people are not stereotypes. Some were fiercely against the squatters and attacked them. Others were content to live and work on squatter’s stations. People are people, whether they are European or Aboriginal– some are good, some are not.

Greg: 36:12

OK. The big question. Did we find the truth?

Peter: 36:17

Well, we did find the facts behind John Watts’ 700 words and his words are essentially true but what we did find is that the truth is complicated, and that people are people– whether they are European or Aboriginal. This story is more complicated than history books full of stereotypes might suggest. And I must emphasise that we only looked into the veracity of John Watts’ story. The full story of the frontier times on the McIntyre will only be known when there is input from the original inhabitants– the Bigambul. This task is way beyond our skills. An example of this approach is a PhD thesis along these lines written for the Aboriginal people around Warwick. It is an example of how to go about this. It's called"Contested histories, conflicting narratives past and present Aboriginal relationships with Warwick."

Greg: 37:16

So, after 12 episodes, we have reached the end of our journey about the Mark’s Murders. We would like your views on this topic. Do you have a similar story in your family tree? If so, please contact us on email or comment on our Facebook- contact details are on our webpage– www.todaysstories.com.au. Full details of this story are available on our website and please remember to subscribe to our podcast. For this podcast,• Your hosts were Greg and Peter• Research by Peter• Voice actors were Mark, Denise and Mick• Original music and Sound Engineering by Pete Hill• IT solutions by Shelly Thank you for listening.