But this was not all.  Immediately after the murder of Edgar, Mr. J.S.  Dunn the editor of the Critic newspaper, recited the facts of the case as they were known to him and passed some severe strictures upon Dr. Krause, the First Public Prosecutor, who was responsible for determining the charge against policeman Jones and fixing his bail in the first instance.  The steps now taken by Dr. Krause no doubt were within his legal rights, but they do not appear to a layman calculated to ensure justice being done.  Before proceeding with the murder trial Dr. Krause took criminal action against Mr. Dunn for libel, and in order to prove the libel he, whose duty it was to prosecute Jones for murder, entered the witness-box and swore that under the circumstances as known to him he did not consider that Jones had been guilty of murder, and had therefore faithfully performed his duty in charging him with the minor offence and releasing him on bail.  Further, he called upon the Second Public Prosecutor to testify in a similar strain; and finally he directly and deliberately associated with himself as witness on his side the man Jones himself who was charged with the murder.  All this ostensibly to prove a paltry libel which could have been dealt with quite as effectively and infinitely more properly after the trial for murder had taken place; indeed it is incontestable that the verdict in the murder trial should properly have been relied upon to a large extent to determine the gravity of Mr. Dunn’s offence.  It had appeared to the British population that the chance of an impartial trial, with the jury drawn exclusively from the burgher class, was sufficiently remote without any proceedings so ill considered as these.  The result fulfilled anticipations.  In due course the constable Jones was indicted for culpable homicide and acquitted; and the presiding judge (Mr. Kock, who as already described had claimed a judgeship as a ‘son of the soil’) when discharging the prisoner said, ’With that verdict I concur and I hope that the police under difficult circumstances will always know how to do their duty.’

After the preliminary examination of Jones the Acting British Agent had written to the Acting High Commissioner (December 30, 1898):  ’I will only remark that the enclosed report ... seems to show that the Public Prosecutor (Krause), who has been deeply offended by the slur cast upon his judgment through the orders from Pretoria to keep the accused in prison instead of out on bail, was more inclined to defend than to prosecute and showed an extraordinary desire to incriminate either the British Vice-Consul or the South African League for what he termed contempt of court in connection with the publication of certain affidavits in the Star.’