What do you think?
Rate this book
Not Guilty
In 1910 in Bendigo, three children were found dead in their home, brutally murdered with an axe and a knife.
Their mother, Camellia McCluskey, was a de facto wife at a time when such a position was not socially acceptable. Her partner, George, was considerably older than her. The two lived together happily for a few years before the relationship deteriorated, putting in place a chain of events that finally resulted in the slaying of Dorothy, Eric and Ida.
'Not Guilty' tells the story of those events, and the court proceedings that followed them. A storm of newspaper coverage surrounded Camellia as the Australian media struggled to understand the motivations that led her down the path she took.
This story is based on Camellia's letters, court records, newspaper coverage, and other historical documents.
Their mother, Camellia McCluskey, was a de facto wife at a time when such a position was not socially acceptable. Her partner, George, was considerably older than her. The two lived together happily for a few years before the relationship deteriorated, putting in place a chain of events that finally resulted in the slaying of Dorothy, Eric and Ida.
'Not Guilty' tells the story of those events, and the court proceedings that followed them. A storm of newspaper coverage surrounded Camellia as the Australian media struggled to understand the motivations that led her down the path she took.
This story is based on Camellia's letters, court records, newspaper coverage, and other historical documents.
- GenresTrue Crime
102 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 7, 2013
4 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 17, 2013
This is a short book but an interesting one about a true murder case in Australia back in 1910. A mother killed her three kids. Just awful and you originally have some sympathy with her. She brought to mind what I've read of Ruth Ellis and David Blakeley and the callous way he treated her and Camellia's chap George was very similar.
As you learn more about her behaviour after the crime and her relatively VERY light sentence you tend to become less sympathetic. She was a very self-centred woman indeed and many people tried helping her only to become very disillusioned indeed and wish they'd not bothered. It ended very abruptly indeed with a sentence quickly detailing Camellia's latter life and you don't get to learn what happened to George at all. The author chose to protect his descendants' identities and didn't reveal his proper name but to my way of thinking he was never much ashamed of his despicable behaviour before (and subsequent to)when the crime was committed and I'd not have been so charitable !!
She also chose to comment on newspaper articles and statements BEFORE she then shared then with us. I'd have preferred she did that afterwards so we didn't need to keep flicking backwards.
There were mistakes in the book and they seemed to come more often the further I read, like the author got fed up rechecking her work which was a pity.
Stills when still should have been used, council being repeatedly used instead of counsel, McLuskey was suddenly written as McMcLuskey and hyphens kept being added to dis-satisfied when there's no need for them. The name Sayer was used then it turned into Sayers and most annoyingly this line "he get his get his deserts" which is in any way you read it all wrong !! These were all pretty careless mistakes.
As you learn more about her behaviour after the crime and her relatively VERY light sentence you tend to become less sympathetic. She was a very self-centred woman indeed and many people tried helping her only to become very disillusioned indeed and wish they'd not bothered. It ended very abruptly indeed with a sentence quickly detailing Camellia's latter life and you don't get to learn what happened to George at all. The author chose to protect his descendants' identities and didn't reveal his proper name but to my way of thinking he was never much ashamed of his despicable behaviour before (and subsequent to)when the crime was committed and I'd not have been so charitable !!
She also chose to comment on newspaper articles and statements BEFORE she then shared then with us. I'd have preferred she did that afterwards so we didn't need to keep flicking backwards.
There were mistakes in the book and they seemed to come more often the further I read, like the author got fed up rechecking her work which was a pity.
Stills when still should have been used, council being repeatedly used instead of counsel, McLuskey was suddenly written as McMcLuskey and hyphens kept being added to dis-satisfied when there's no need for them. The name Sayer was used then it turned into Sayers and most annoyingly this line "he get his get his deserts" which is in any way you read it all wrong !! These were all pretty careless mistakes.
July 27, 2014
I chose this book because of my interest in historical crime, particularly those committed by women. Society, prefers to view the women as nurturing, caring and delicate. When a woman is violent it challenges that view and there is a need to find a cause, someone or something else to blame.
In 1910 Camellia McCluskey murdered her three young children; Dorothy, Ida and Eric using a shocking amount of violence. This book examines the documents relating to her trial in Bendigo, Australia.
Christine Gardner uses the reports in the newspapers along with the documents from the trial to invite the reader to decide whether the verdict reached by the courts was a just one. I like to read the contemporary views of the time, after all the newspapers reflected what the local community of the time were saying. Both the court and the papers were keen on working out what would motivate a mother to behave as she did and her common-law husband George’s behaviour was put under the spotlight. Camellia and George’s relationship was fraught to say the least so there was plenty for the community to mull over.
This is a short book that presents the evidence in a factual manner although I did feel the author did occasionally slip at times leading the reader to come round to her view of the Camellia, although having read the later evidence once Camellia was out of sight of the judge, I think most people would be in agreement with her.
This wasn’t a case that I had come across before and I found this book an interesting and informative read, although it the death of those poor children was particularly shocking.
In 1910 Camellia McCluskey murdered her three young children; Dorothy, Ida and Eric using a shocking amount of violence. This book examines the documents relating to her trial in Bendigo, Australia.
Christine Gardner uses the reports in the newspapers along with the documents from the trial to invite the reader to decide whether the verdict reached by the courts was a just one. I like to read the contemporary views of the time, after all the newspapers reflected what the local community of the time were saying. Both the court and the papers were keen on working out what would motivate a mother to behave as she did and her common-law husband George’s behaviour was put under the spotlight. Camellia and George’s relationship was fraught to say the least so there was plenty for the community to mull over.
This is a short book that presents the evidence in a factual manner although I did feel the author did occasionally slip at times leading the reader to come round to her view of the Camellia, although having read the later evidence once Camellia was out of sight of the judge, I think most people would be in agreement with her.
This wasn’t a case that I had come across before and I found this book an interesting and informative read, although it the death of those poor children was particularly shocking.
October 27, 2014
a little repetitive. But over all a enjoyable read. Even though the subject matter was dark.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews