Kinmel in the ‘Mail’, continued

On March 10, 1919, three days after the initial report, this appeared in the Mail:

On March 14th, this first report from the inquest appeared:


A week later, on March 21st, there is this full account of how the riot was presented at the inquest:


The first news reports gave acknowledgement of the men’s grievances week later still, on March 28th, the story is being presented in a way that blames foreigners and drunkenness for the events:


On April 17th, , the Mail was reporting a court-martial resulting from the riots:


On April 19th, this appeared, giving some idea of the conflicting stories arising from the confusion of the riots:


This appeared on April 25th:


The Mail kept at the story as proceedings continued. There were a couple of short  reports of Not Guilty verdicts, then on June 4th:

kinmel mail9.jpeg

We hear no more from the court-martial, but on June 9, there is this interesting item, suggesting that there was still an unruly (because dissatisfied?) element in the camp:


After that there are no more reports. Several verdicts remain unrecorded in the newspaper.

Together, the reports give a confusing idea of events. The initial story of a ‘high-spirited’ demonstration by men with grievances has been confused by accounts of Bolshevism, foreigners and drunkenness. Witnesses’ narratives conflict. The court seems unwilling to deliver guilty verdicts, and instead is hurrying men home as soon as possible (in accordance with their main demand).

Maybe the local newspapers would have more details on the story.

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: