Bernard Cunningham:

An Assumed Identity.

by Terry Foenander.


As of early August, 2008, it has been noted that Mr. Gray has removed his biography of this person, an obvious result of Gray's having noted all the evidence shown at this web site. However, the damage has already been done, since his numerous errors and inaccuracies (which are included on every single biography at his web site), have now spread all across the Internet.

On Wednesday, April 1, 1868, the Melbourne newspaper, the Argus, carried a report of the execution, the day before, of two criminals in the Melbourne Central Gaol, for murder.   One of those executed was prisoner Bernard Cunningham, described, in the report as being 27 years of age, and only having come to the colony of Victoria some eight months prior to his execution.   The report also indicated that Cunningham had been a native of Newry, Ireland, and had served in the Confederate Army, during the American Civil War, and had been present at the siege of Richmond.    He was stated to have been a seafaring man.


Article titled Execution of Two Murderers from the Melbourne newspaper, the Argus, dated Wednesday, April 1, 1868, giving some details relating to Bernard Cunningham.

With this cursory data, some proper research has revealed a little bit more on Bernard Cunningham, which indicates he was not the person some assumed him to be.   The file relating to his trial and execution, held at the Victorian Public Records Office, in Melbourne, contains fifty pages of transcripts, as well as police dispatches relating to his background and other information.   The file containing all these pages is referenced under the name of “Bernard Cunninghame”, unit 000005, reference number VPRS 264/P/0000.   One police letter, in particular, sent by detective John Robert Hudson to superintendent Francis Hare, and dated at the “Police Office, Richmond Depot, March 9th, 1868”, titled “Antecedents of Bernard Cunningham – a convict” states that detective Hudson had done some investigations on Cunningham’s background, and had found that he did not “know anything of Cunningham’s antecedents but it certainly transpired in the course of enquiry into Fairweather’s death [Fairweather was the murdered victim of Cunningham, and for which Cunningham had been sentenced to death] that he said he had been working at Glaister’s Albion quarries or Braybrook quarries and on questions being made there information was obtained that he had and under another name.   On the name being enquired about, which was probably his right one, something further might be gleaned.” 

Another letter sent by superintendent Francis Hare, dated 24th March 1868, states, in part: “Nothing further has been ascertained of Cunningham’s antecedents that can be relied on, there is no doubt he had been working at the Albion quarries for a short time, beyond that nothing is known of him.”

From these investigative reports, it is very clear that Bernard Cunningham was an assumed name, and that his real name, which is not stated in any of the reports, had been used up to the time he was employed at his final occupation, and at which point he decided to take on the name of Bernard Cunningham.   These facts, from the police investigation, as well as other statements, including the information that he had only been in the colony of Victoria for a period of about eight months, at the time of his execution, should have made it abundantly clear to any proper researcher that Bernard Cunningham was not his real name, and that he could not have been the same Bernard Cunningham who had served as private in company H of the 57th Virginia Infantry, Confederate States Army, during the Civil War.   Yet this was the assumption made by American Civil War Round Table of Queensland member, Jim Gray, at his web site on URL:  http://www.acwv.info/.   In Mr. Gray’s rambling discourse about the history of the 57th Virginia Infantry and executions in Victoria, he fails to indicate whether he had taken the trouble to conduct any research at all on the Bernard Cunningham who served in this regiment, but from the biography at his web site, it is obviously very clear that he did not do any research at all, else he would have realised that the Bernard Cunningham executed in Melbourne in 1868 was not the same person, and this name had been only an assumed name.   As well, Mr. Gray, if he had even bothered to look through the service record of the Bernard Cunningham who was in the 57th Virginia, would have instantly realised that this soldier was never in the siege of Richmond, as he deserted from his regiment at the end of 1861.   Mr. Gray has never bothered to conduct any proper research on the veterans of the American Civil War buried in Australia and New Zealand, and this is clear to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the Civil War, and who makes the effort to read the biographies shown at Gray’s web sites.   Every single biography of the Civil War veterans included at Mr. Gray’s web pages, include numerous errors and assumptions, and shows that he could not be bothered with proper research.   Very unfortunately, Gray’s web site is linked to a number of official sites, such as the National Library of Australia.   This only indicates that the administrators of these sites are unaware of his inaccuracies and even his poor knowledge of the American Civil War, as well as his poor knowledge of how to conduct any proper research.

From all the available documentation, and evidence at hand, we are now aware of the following facts:

1.  Bernard Cunningham, the prisoner executed at the Melbourne Gaol in 1868, was not the real name of this person, but a name that was only assumed when he was employed at his final occupation, before committing the murder that eventually sent him to the gallows.   There is no indication, in any of the police dispatches available in the Cunningham file, of his real name, but it is very obvious that he had served in the Confederate Army, under his proper name, and not the name of Bernard Cunningham, which he only assumed when he took up his final occupation in Victoria.

2.  The executed prisoner had only been in the colony of Victoria some eight months prior to his execution, making his arrival there about August, 1867.   Thus, he could not have arrived in Victoria aboard the Southern Ocean or the Bucton Castle (this last vessel actually arrived in Victoria in October, 1868, some seven months after Cunningham was executed).

3.  The soldier, Bernard Cunningham, who served in the 57th Virginia Infantry, deserted from his unit at Howard Grove, near Richmond, Virginia, on December 5, 1861, and thus could not have been at the siege of Richmond.


Two of the military service cards relating to the service of the soldier Bernard Cunningham, who had served in the 57th Virginia Infantry. Note especially the last service card, at right, which clearly shows that Cunningham had deserted from his unit.

4.  Also, despite Mr. Gray’s final statement that “it appears the story of Bernard Cunningham, and his gravesite ends with his burial within the grounds of the Old Melbourne Gaol,” research would have shown that Cunningham was actually finally buried at the old Pentridge Prison grounds.


Article from the newspaper, the Australian of Monday, March 10, 2008, which indicates that the remains of executed prisoners from Melbourne Gaol had been transferred to the Pentridge Prison burial grounds.

Sources:

Argus [Melbourne newspaper], dated Wednesday, April 1, 1868, page 5.   Article entitled “Execution of Two Murderers.”

Australian [Australian national newspaper], dated Monday, March 10, 2008, page 7.   Article entitled “Ned Kelly’s remains may lie beneath.”

Confederate States Army military service cards, for Bernard Cunningham, private of company H, 57th Regiment Virginia Infantry.

Victorian Public Record Office, file for Bernard Cunningham, VPRS 264/P/0000 Unit 000005.



For more inaccurate biographies, see "A Litany of Errors."

Page Created, April, 2008 (Updated August, 2008).