Crealock's notebook.

Crealock states in the court of inquiry that he lost his notebook. How important would the information contained in this notebook have been relating to Isandlwana?
Do other member’s think that the notebook was lost or disposed of intentionally. I'm trying to work out why Crealock would have said his notebook was lost if it wasn't. What did he have to lose.

Mr G

Mr G remember this From the Film Zulu Dawn
A newspaperman is commenting on Chelmsford's decision to divide his forces.

Norris-Newman: “Crealock, old fellow. I'm doing notes for my dispatch and I need to clear up a few military points... I don't want to bother His Lordship. Had it drummed into my thick skull that a good commander never willingly splits his force, especially in an enemy's country, before knowing their dispositions"?

Col. Crealock: "Ah yes, if we were facing a European enemy armed with guns I think your point would hold, Noggs. Further may I remind you, I do not make the strategies you wish to comment on. I am only His Lordship's secretary."

Norris-Newman: "I wouldn't take overly comfort from that, Crealock old fellow, because if he sinks, then you sink with him."

Well just maybe there was some truth in that scene!!!!!

From the court of inquirey. Cealock states.


Soon after 2 A.M. on the 22nd January I received instructions from the Lieutenant-General to send a written order to Lieutenant-Colonel Durnford, R.E., commanding No. 2 Column, to the following effect (I copied it in my note-book which was afterwards lost):


" Move up to Sandhlwana Camp at once with all your mounted men and Rocket Battery—take command of it."

Now this leads us back to the old debate what order was actually issued.

24th

Have to disagree, I dont think it does reopen the debate. The orders Durnford received, penned by Crealock, from Lord C are the orders currently on display in Chatham. There is no mention of the phrase ' take command'.
His evidence at the Courts Martial was intended to one thing only and that was to cover Lord C's backside. Like any loyal officer would do. ( Part of the old boy philosophy).
In short, history has proven him to be very economical with the truth.
When Offie Shepstone searched Durnfords body on the battlefield he was seen to take papers and hide them away.
This led to the involvement of Mr CE Luard who wrote to, and asked for the involvement of, Sir Arthur Clark, and Sir Linton Simmons. (22nd Jan 1885 0
It was considered that Shepstone should be sued but because of his families position : ' not a lawyer would attempt to do so for to do so would be professional suicide'.
This led to the documents being presented by the editor of the Natal Witness and their subsequent journey to Chatham. The technology for seperating the docs was eventually available in 1968. These were not the only documents found on Durnfords body, earlier orders from Lord C were also found.
Not one shred of documentary evidence has been produced to corobarate Crealock.
On the 18th May 1882, Crealock admitted, after reference to his note book, that Durnford had not received orders to take command of the camp.
Again there is no proof that any orders were given to Glyn ( it was after all his camp) or to Pulleine that Durnford would take command.

Hope that lot helps.

Regards

Lets wait until the "real" notebook is for sale on e-bay then we will at last know the truth !

What would that be worth. !!!

Dave
Considering its a work of fiction, its worth about the same as a second hand Harry Potter.

It would prove that Durnford was ordered to take command of the camp.
But we know that anyway

CTSG
I see your a Harry Potter Fan. :lol:

Regards

Major Black found the note book at Isandlwana in June and returned it to Crealock.

Crealock for clear reasons didn't mention having it until 1886, when he wrote out the text of the order in a letter.



Cheers
DB14

Does anyone know if the book still exists ? Or has it been lost ? I'd love to see the orginal order he wrote in the book.



Cheers

Quote :

Or has it been lost

Again!!!

It would suit the cause of LC and his staff in their scapegoating of Durnford, for the book to have got "lost."
If the book were to be miraculously found, it would contain but the vague, unspecific order, written by a tired and slack Crealock, for Durnford to move up to the camp, of which we are all familiar. It would exonerate Durnford as such. As Julian mentioned in his post of the 17th November,

"Clery wrote (in April) that Chelmsford told him to "order up" Durnford to "reinforce the camp". The word 'strengthen" does not appear. He also wrote that Crealock overheard this. As you know, Crealock did not use these words in the written order to Durnford."

Does anyone know if any of his family is still alive ? It may be hidden away with his other iteams.



Cheers

Who questioned or suggested to Crealock when in came to light that he hadn't written the word command.

Ulundi.

You mat find the following link very helpful, it will help you understand things a lot better.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Crealocks book was found in June by Major Black and sent to him in England, he kept its exisitence quite, untill
1882, when he showed Edward Durnford the message inside the book. In 1886, at the reguest of General Nichlson at
the War office Crealock wrote out the order into a letter and this letter was found By julian and David Jackson and i have a copy of the original.


Cheers

Thanks DB. Some what confusing.

So Black kept the note book for 3 years after finding it why?

General Nichlson in 1886 4 years later, then requests Crealock to write the order into a letter?

Then they put the Order into a draw.

Sorry I really don'f understand the relevance. Could someone simplify.

And who is Major Jekyll.

I think DB14 meansJune 1879, found by burial party on the field.
Why Crealock kept it quiet for 3 years? No one asked him. Enquiry in 1882 asked him Qs.
3 years however would have given Crealock plenty of time to think about it and make any necessary additions to cover his butt and that of Chelmsofrd.

Black found the Note book in june 1879 when he was burying the dead and sent it to Crealock in England.

Crealock didn't tell anyone he had it, untill 1882 when he showed it to Edward Durnford.

In 1886 Nicholson heard of this and asked Crealock for a copy of the order, Crealock sent him a letter
here's a link to the letter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The original order being found in a draw is fiction, it was never found, only Crealocks copy in his note book was.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Cheers

DB14, your fascination with Crealock's notebook. Do you think the order as written in Crealock's notebook essentially gets Durnford off the hook?
No mention of Durnford being required to command the camp etc

Tasker Good question. The problem I having is trying to understand the logic regarding Black, Edward Durnford and the War office, and the finding of the the document over 100 years later.

Let's just say its my Job to make sense of complicated issues such at theses, and the thought process involved in such matters. Because at the moment there are so many loose ends...

Ulundi, I am not pretending to understand either, but it seems to me:


Black finds notebook on field. He returns it to rightful owner.

Crealock shows it to Durnford's brother to kindly put his mind at rest that his brother had never deserted the camp as he was never ordered to take it, contrary to the official (LC's) account which was blaming Durnford.

The War Office sought conformation/clarification from Crealock some years later, that Durnford neglected his duties as LC implied.
They did not get the confirmation they were looking for, so the book got hidden away in a drawer so that the official, but incorrect account could remain unchallenged.

The war office had nothing to do with it, Nicholson wanted the information for private use and didn't reveal anything.


Cheers

Tasker,is there any offical statements from Black to certify that he had shown the note book to Edward Durnford, and the reasons as to why he would show it to this particular person., who as we know was involved in a campaign a long with Fanny Colenso, and Luchard to clear Col: Durnfords name of any wrong doing. Is there any connection between Black and Lucard. .

So what's the connection with the War office and Nicholson?

Thats were he was based.


Cheers

Ulundi, this was written by Crealock.


"Dear Major Jekyl’l’
I imagine you refer to the copy of the orders which I made at 2am 22 January & which was found on the field 7 months later by Colonel Black & forwarded me & which, stained with the mud of the field, lies before me-

A [???] thus & is I believe almost verbatim with what I officially stated to be my memory of it –

“You are to march to this Camp at once with all the force you have with you of No 2 column – Major Bengough battalion is to move to Rorke’s Drift – as ordered yesterday.

2/24: artillery & mounted men with the General I Colonel Glyn move off at once to attack a Zulu force about 10 miles distant

if Bengoughs battalion has crossed the River at Hands Kraal it is to move up here (Naugwane valley)”

I fear I have no longer any of the old maps in which these names appear – but my memory of the time is was meant to present is corroborated by a sketch to which I have first referred

As is as shown by any coloured sketch a most rugged broken country as I have never been called upon officially to enter into the controversy you refer to I have not been mixed up in it.

I however showed Colonel Durnford in my house in 1882[?] the note book with the copy of the orders in it -. So as to put at test (as I hoped) any doubt on the matter

In supplying the Inspector General with this information I imagine I am doing so for official purposes & sanction.

I am faithfully

Crealock

Colonel[/i]

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

The war office had nothing to do with it, Nicholson wanted the information for private use and didn't reveal anything.


Cheers

DB14, I am very confused. General Nicholson, from the War Office, "had nothing to do with the War office"; he wanted the information "for private use."

Are you serious?

DB. I enjoyed you essay. And it's good to see a person of your age, capable of writing such an artical.

I noticed an acknowledgement of thanks to individuals who assisted you with this essay. My question to you, and not meaning to sound disrespectfull. Did you fully understand the essay yourself..

Tasker

Read the letters in Julians Paper, Nicholson wanted the information for his private use and states this himself.




Cheers

Quote :

Black found the Note book in june 1879 when he was burying the dead and sent it to Crealock in England.

Crealock didn't tell anyone he had it, untill 1882 when he showed it to Edward Durnford.

In 1886 Nicholson heard of this and asked Crealock for a copy of the order, Crealock sent him a
letter

Crealock was well aware of the campaign being instigated by Colenso, and knew Edward Durnford was involved. Crealock also gave a statement at the court of enquiry, and Lord Chelmsford alive in 1882.

So why would Crealock show the note book to Edward Durnford, and why didn't Edward Durnford pursue the issue, now he had the evidence he needed, to cleared his brother name. it's not making sense.

How did Major Jekyll and General Nicholson become involved in this?

Ulundi.. You misread this the same as I did.

Quote :

Crealocks book was found in June by Major Black and sent to him in England, he kept its exisitence quite, untill
1882, when he showed Edward Durnford the message inside the book. In 1886, at the reguest of General Nichlson at
the War office Crealock wrote out the order into a letter and this letter was found By julian and David Jackson and i have a copy of the original.

It reads like Major Black kept the notebook until 1882 and showed it to E Durnford. In 1882.. Ignore this post, DB as posted another account....

LH

I didn't you see the bit in bold ?

"Crealocks book was found in June by Major Black and sent to him in England,[i][u]he kept its exisitence quite, untill
1882."



Cheers

Thanks DB got that! What about the rest of my post.

LH

Its all explained in Julians paper, its to big for me to try and explain it all.

Cheers

DB. Did you not write an essay on the subject. Surly if you wrote it, you must understand it...

Good point: LH.

Quote :

why didn't Edward Durnford pursue the issue, now he had the evidence he needed,

Nope, my essay was on papers being taken from Durnfords body.


Cheers

LH. Thanks see it now..

So who discovered that Edward had been shown the note book in 1882' is this information new if yes how new.

Pretty sure he wrote about it in his book.


Cheers

The whole eposode is in TWOTS. The removal of the orders, Crealock's note book being shown to Durnford ect. It's nothing new...

Why on earth would Crealock keep something that could incriminate himself, after giving evidence at the court of enquiry. And then showed it to Durnfords brother who for years had been trying to prove along with Colenso that Col: Durnford wasn't ordered to take command. And as LH stated why didn't Edward Durnford act on the recept of this information.

So what was the point of there Campaign to clear his name.

And if Durnford hadn't been ordered to take command. Why did he.

And what's the point behind Jackson and Whybra finding the so call order in a draw. What does it prove. Nothing it was proven back in 1882. Nothing was done with the order, no one pursued it or took it to a higher authority. It was just chucked in a draw, It's just an insufficient piece of evidence! that proves Durnford wasn't ordered to, but did take command at Isandlwana, thus encroaching on Pulliene orders. He sent men far from the camp, with not a hope of getting them back.

I have been looking but can't find nothing, but would like too, that shows Edward Durnford stating he saw Crealocks note book.

[quote="littlehand"]

Quote :

why didn't Edward Durnford pursue the issue, now he had the evidence he needed, to cleared his brother name. it's not making sense.

LH, if I could give you unequivocal proof/evidence today that the Prime Minister was an alien, it would be useless to you in every way.
No one would listen to you, or believe you.
You can't fight against the machine.
The "truth", the official version of events, will always remain what the establishment of the day decide it is to be.

But not only did he have the note as evidence but all also had the admission of Crealock himself, read the what Crealock states at the bottom. But the issue still remains, why were they trying to clean Col: Dunfords name, wanting to prove he didn't take command, when Col: Durnford did that off his own back.

I am lost,
Durnford is usually accused of not taking command of the camp when ordered to do so.
Now the issue seems to have been turned upside down with him being accused of taking command - which he didn't in any case - when NOT ordered to do so!

CTSG

I realy don't know what your on about the last order being found in a draw ? Can you expand on this ?




Cheers

Not really sure if it's relevant anymore wether he was ordered or not ordered to take command. He did anyway.

Durnford took command for the SHORT period of time he was inside the camp perimeter, not off his own bat, but by DEFAULT.

He then left the camp, in which case command reverted back to Pulleine.

This does not mean he TOOK command of the camp; if he had done, he would have stayed in camp, took over the organisation of the camp defences and commanded the battle from there. He did not. He was not ordered to do so.

A lot of people getting hopelessly confused over some unimportant semantics here.