An Absurd Story: Doubts and criticisms

Doubts about the existence of the white woman were a central feature of the search to find her. This was the case even in the records created by the government officials who were taking part. Throughout the two-year period, statements about the truth of the story swung between confidence and doubt.

Confusion about the identity of the white woman emerged from within the government search parties on at least two separate occasions. During one of the searches conducted in January 1847, Sergeant Windridge followed a group of Kurnai people who were supposedly in contact with Bungaleena, the headman suspected of holding the white woman captive. While with this group, a messenger told Windridge that Bungaleena would never give her up. The next day the group moved on but Windridge continued tracking them. Shortly after arriving at their camp, a young Aboriginal woman was brought to one of the Aboriginal men taking part in the search. Windridge thought that the Kurnai people were making a compromise offer, a fair exchange in place of the white woman. On the other hand, the offer may equally suggest some kind of misunderstanding about what the Kurnai people of Gippsland understood to be the purpose of the search party.

A similar incident happened in February of that year. Bungaleena was found by a group of Native Police. On this occasion, his wife Loondejon was offered and presented as the supposed 'white woman' who was being held captive. Loondejon had apparently been kidnapped from the Boonwurrung people of the Westernport area. This led William Dana, who was one of the officers leading the government search party, to express his opinion that 'there is no white female among the natives of this district'. Native Police officer David Bowden reported a similar exchange offer. Having received orders from Commissioner of Crown Lands Charles Tyers to suspend their search for the white woman, the Native Police had no choice but to let Bungaleena and his wife Loondejon go free. Tyers later cautioned that he had received conflicting accounts regarding this incident.

Reflecting on these confusing events, Chief Protector George Augustus Robinson and Assistant Protector William Thomas shared the view that there were ulterior motives to explain why some of the Boonwurrung people were so eager to join the private search party under Christian de Villiers. Robinson suggested in his annual report for 1847 that the Boonwurrung men may have volunteered for the de Villiers expedition out of a desire for revenge. Robinson also observed that the men returned from Gippsland 'with a number of women, some boys, and a few male adults'. The unexpected consequence of this, in Robinson's view, was that the old feuds between the Gippsland clans and the Boonwurrung were 'now done away and the Gipps Land Natives invited to Melbourne, so that instead of the Western Port natives [Boonwurrung] becoming extinct, their numbers have been greatly augmented.'

Robinson made similar observations in his annual report the following year. With the passage of time, he offered a more frank assessment of the entire episode. Referring to the 'absurd Story of the White Lady held in captivity among the Savages of Gipps Land', he noted the 'extraordinary and fatal results against that unfortunate section of aborigines' who were forced to 'surrender a number of their Females' to the Boonwurrung. This resulted in both the continuance of the Boonwurrung people, whose numbers had been falling, and the beginning of more friendly relations between them and the Gippsland clans. Thomas likewise made observations in his quarterly report for June-August 1847 about the 'cowardly' motivations of the volunteers for de Villiers's expedition.

Even senior figures in the government eventually admitted that there was most likely no such person as the captive white woman. This was what Superintendent Charles La Trobe told Governor Charles FitzRoy in Sydney in April 1847, summing up what had taken place during the past year. At around the same time, Tyers also wrote that the authorities had been tricked by Bungaleena, although to what extent he does not say.

Some Gippsland squatters came to resent the search for the captive white woman because it distracted the Native Police from looking after their interests. On 18 January 1847, Lachlan Macalister wrote to La Trobe, stressing that the Native Police were the only protection the pastoralists had at their disposal. Macalister was the largest stockholder in Gippsland and had a pastoral run at Boisdale. In response to an earlier complaint from Macalister on this matter, Tyers had been willing to concede that Macalister's run had suffered greatly from recent raids. But he had also reminded Macalister that the Native Police provided frequent protection for his stock. He explained that there was only so much the Native Police could do:

The number of lives already Sacrificed at the head of your run at Boisdale is sufficient proof that the wild Blacks do not commit devastation with impunity. The severe lessons they have been already taught, having produced no good result, may almost lead to the inference that they will continue the practice of Spearing cattle in spite of the Consequences.

On 9 January 1847 Tyers had written to La Trobe, defending himself against Macalister's more recent complaints. Tyers argued that the assignment of troopers to the search for the white woman had been an important priority for the government, and that he was acting under direct orders from the Superintendent himself. Although Macalister claimed to speak on behalf of the pastoralists of the district, his view was not shared by Mr Raymond and a number of other Gippsland stockholders who continued to take pity on the poor white woman they believed was being held captive.