MovieChat Forums > 'Breaker' Morant (1980) Discussion > Did Hancock kill the Boer priest?

Did Hancock kill the Boer priest?

posted 20 years ago by MrBigglesworth999
25 replies | jump to latest

Did Hancock (the character played by Bryan Brown)actually murder the Boer priest?
Hancock had an alibi ("entertaining" the Boer wives while their husbands were away) and those alibis were accepted by the court martial. However I had the impression from the flashback later in the movie that he visited the wives AND committed the murder of the priest in the buggy. Although all they showed in the
flashback was a horserider in the distance stopping the priest's buggy and a gunshot being fired.
I can't understand that although the court martial accepted the Boer wive's evidence (by letter) and that the flashback of the killing was not conveyed to the court martial why Hancock could still be found guilty of murder.

[–] switchBLADE-86 20 years ago

Handcock did kill the 'boer priest' (it was actually a germen missionary spreading the word of god). Morant told Hesse (the missionary) not to talk to the prisinors however he did. He didn't want the British Empire to seem weak so he organised with Handcock to have him shot.
They lied in court because they realised they could get away with it.

Ironically the only thing they lied about was the shooting, and they were found not guilty for it.

[–] MrBigglesworth999 20 years ago

Ravi, thanks for the answer. One more question - if Hancock was not found guilty for the missionary's murder whose murder was he convicted for? Was he involved at all in the shootings ordered by Morant?

[–] Bitter_Almonds 20 years ago

Actually, I think he was acquitted of the missionary's murder because of the testimony given in court, but Hancock was Morant's right-hand man, so they were probably convicted for other executions at the prison.

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

[–] enthusiast 20 years ago

Hancock did kill the reverend. That was witnessed. The movie simply does not show it. The movie is terribly biased I am afraid. If you read the actual testimony and eyewitness accounts (by people who you would expect to be sympathetic to Morant) you get a better picture of what actually happened. And, it was not very pretty. Morant and Hancock deserved the death penalty. Presuming of course, that you agree with capital punishment to begin with. Even if you do not; the fact remains they were guilty of not only the offenses shown in the movie but quite a few others.

[–] chuck52 20 years ago

Can you tell me where I can find the actual testimony and eyewitness accounts? Even if the movie is not accurate, the questions of soldier's behavior during war, the following of questionable orders in an unjust conflict, and the desire for revenge are presented in a thought provoking way. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and would like to know more. Also, have you read "Scapegoats of the Empire" the book mentioned at the end of the movie? I checked once years ago and it was out of print.

[–] enthusiast 20 years ago

There is a good website concering the whole miserable affair. It gives references that are unbiased. Witton was not unbiased but I agree that he was the most "innocent" of the three so probably deserved the commutation. He was a bitter man to the end of his life. To answer your comment- shooting unarmed prisioners has never been allowed in war.

[–] The_Breaker 20 years ago

A number of issues concerning the above thoughts.

The shooting of Heese by Handcock was supposedly confessed to by him on a few occasions. The first during interrogation following arrest. It was later recanted on the grounds that Handcock's `mind gave way'. Handcock's final letter penned the night before execution claims that he does not consider himself to be guilty of murder (shooting the missionary maybe, for which he was found not guilty anyway). This didn't mean that he did not commit the crimes etc. Witton later claimed (some years after his book was published) to Major Thomas that Handcock had confessed to him that he'd killed the missionary... This wasn't in Witton's book of course as it maintained that they were all innocent. There is also a rumoured piece of paper torn from the letter that says `It was me who shot the missionary'. It seems pretty clear that Handcock killed Heese at Morant's bidding.

Handcock and Morant were convicted of murder for their part in 3 other cases, the execution of Josef Visser and the murder of 8 boer prisoners (as dramatised in the movie) and the murder of three surrendering boers (as glossed over in the movie). It is important to note that there were a number of specific charges laid against the defendents and multiple courts martial... Artistic licence saw them condensed into one trial.

From my research and a little bit of logic it is reasonable to suggest that Captain Taylor (a big player in the events but a minor part in the film) supplied written testimonies by Mrs Schiels and Bristow (the women Handcock `visited' and why he couldn't have killed the missionary) giving Handcock an alibi in exchange for Morant and Handcock not testifying that the orders not to take prisoners came from him. Schiels' son worked for Taylor and Bristow's farm was the location of one of Taylor's intelligence outposts.

As for eye witness accounts of Handcock in the area where Heese was killed, they were never substantiated. It's very likely it was him that the native boy saw, once on horseback (wearing the uniform of a sergeant as opposed to his own lieutenant's uniform) and then once again later walking away from the shooting.

At the end of the day though, both Morant and Handcock were acquitted of murdering Missionary Heese.... who oddly enough although born of German parents, was a British subject!

Hope this helps.

[–] enthusiast 20 years ago

Yes, it does help! Thanks!

[–] Bitter_Almonds 20 years ago

Wow. This story never ceases to amaze me. Of course, I take what I see on-screen as mainly based on the play and not as a bona fide documentary. This was made in Australia, and having seen Gallipoli and Prisoners Of The Sun, I can see there is some bent there to say, "We've been jipped over in the wars we participated in..." This is a vast generalisation of all three films, but I couldn't shake that idea after seeing them. It's still a very powerful film with memorable lines (esp. the "3-0-3" line).

Do The Mussolini! Headkick!

[–] rem483-1 19 years ago

It took me years to track down a copy of 'Scapegoats of the Empire' but I finanlly found a copy of it some time ago.

[–] wallmonster 16 years ago

Here is an eBook of Scapegoats of the Empire for anyone that may be interested. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400611.txt

[–] rem483-1 19 years ago

Ain't war grand.

[–] rwsmith29456 17 years ago

In the movie Hancock admits to Wittington that he did kill the missionary. I agree the film is biased, but not on that account.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

I think Morant and Handcock suspected the missionary of working for the Boers, perhaps even setting up the ambush that killed the Captain earlier in the film. The film leaves this ambiguous but it does seem that Morant has a history with Hesse.

"I can tell you that I am very much uninterested in whether I am shot or not."

[–] Muleke 19 years ago

I know nothing about the case itself; this is a response to an earlier post and refers to the movie only:
As for H's motivation for killing the missionary: they suspected that he was a spy and that he was partly responsible for the death of a well-loved officer and friend. Although they had a personal grudge against him at that point, they didn't act on it until the missionary ignored Morant's order against speaking to the prisoners. H didn't kill him to protect the dignity of the British Empire: he had ample reason to believe that the prisoners were using him to pass military intelligence. I would have done the same thing, under the circumstances (remember, I'm talking about the movie now, not the real case, and only in reference to the murder of the spy, not the prisoners.) In war time, spies are shot. It's not nice or enlightened, but it's hardly an atrocity. That may have been a factor in H's acquittal on that particular charge.

[–] enthusiast 19 years ago

It is an atrocity if he is not actually a spy. The Hancock acquittal came about due to a lack of witnesses (there was one I think but did not give a good enough description).

[–] Nikon11 19 years ago

His alibis placed him somewhere else, and helped acquit him.

[–] kjd03842 19 years ago

I'm sure he was feeling pretty damn happy with himself over that aquittal, as he was looking down the barrels of his executioners!

I've always enjoyed this movie immensely, knowing that it is not entirely accurate, but have never read much else about it.
I did find the soundtrack to it on vinyl, and was disappointed that "Soldiers of the Queen" is not the same as in the ending credits. Nonetheless, what a powerful closing to the movie.

[–] dmann80 18 years ago

I haven't seen the movie in quite some time now but I remember somehow Handcock firing his rifle from the top of the ridge into the wagon down below. One shot and it was perfect. In real life though you would think it would have been a pistol shot behind the ear. It was a good shot though if it was anything like the actual event. I just cant imagine him not making sure he was definitely dead.

[–] The_Breaker 18 years ago

The only witness putting a soldier anywhere near the Heese murder site was a local kaffir boy. He couldn't identify Handcock as the man he saw on foot in the area, and he also reported that the soldiers rank was not a lieutenant, but a sergeant (suggestion is that Handcock borrowed a sergeants tunic)..... showing yet another bit of confusion in the story, the kaffir boy is occasionally noted as being a local tribal chief.. whom Morant had stiffed over the sale of some cattle and was after a bit of payback (and cash from the military).

Morant is quoted as saying something along the lines of `when that kaffir's word is taken over that of a British soldier's, some people are playing all they know, and a bit low down at that'

B

[–] hotfriend1 18 years ago

Remember the scene when Jack Thompson (their defense attorney) tells them that they've been acquitted of the charge against the missionary? It's the scene when Hancock asks Morant to read the poem he's been writing and then Hancock (Brian Brown) shares a little "poetry" of his own--the limerick. Then Thompson enters, tosses a flask to them, and gives them the news. The British intelligence officer, Taylor, is present and lets Morant know that he can arrange his escape.

In any event, this still left the charges regarding the execution of the Boer prisoners to be decided.

[–] autopro50 17 years ago

There was a scene late in the movie where Lt. Handcock admitted to Lt. Witton that he did kill the missionary, and he explained that he and Morant (who told him to do it) believed the missionary was assisting the Boers and was the one who had tipped off the Boers about the raid where Maj. Hunt was killed at the beginning of the movie. Witton is angry and asks Handcock what about his alibi (the visits to the ladies), and Handcock says he visited them after the killing.

[–] rwsmith29456 17 years ago

Hancock himself says in private that the sex encounters occured at different times from the minister-shooting incident.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rwsmith29456 14 years ago

Hancock admitted it to Witton himself. The romantics were done at other times. I believe in the historical case there was even a witness that Hancock did it. If it were me I would have detained the missionary until his info got cold.