The horrific extent of Vizard's injuries became apparent when he was examined by Francis Drake, a registered medical practitioner at Melbourne Hospital. Drake found four wounds around the eyes and upper head of the Constable, all cut to the bone. At the base of one wound, Vizard's skull was visibly fractured, with bone fragments penetrating the membranes of the brain. As Drake would later explain, 'It was necessary to trephine him, i.e. to remove a circular piece of the skull ... the size of a shilling'. With this procedure Albert Vizard's life was saved. He remained at the Melbourne Hospital until 8 October 1889, some six weeks after the attack. By February 1890 he was, by Drake's estimation, 'not quite right yet'. For injury to one of its own, the response of the Victorian police force would be swift and determined. Within twenty-four hours of the assault, the first arrest was made.

On the evening of 26 August, Francis De Le Veilless, resembling the description of the shorter assailant, was arrested in Kilmore. De Le Veilless was a South American circus worker of French extraction. He had a long history of larceny, assault, and insulting behaviour (a crime for which he had served fourteen days in prison).⁵ Upon his arrest by Sergeant Edward Murphy, De Le Veilless was searched and found to be in possession of a loaded revolver and a blood- stained pocket book, bearing the name of the Globe Hotel, Carlton. With his suspicions reinforced by fresh injuries to De Le Veilless' head, Murphy took his prisoner to Melbourne for identification. In transit to Melbourne De Le Veilless told Murphy, 'I'm sorry I did not shoot you. If I had known who you were at the time I would have shot you'.

On 28 August, Patrick Bailey arrived at the Detective Office where De Le Veilless was being held. Without hesitation, Bailey pointed across the room as he entered, stating:

'That is the man.'

You've made a mistake', De Le Veilless protested.

'I've made no mistake', Bailey replied. 'Take off your hat.'

Examining the prisoner's head Bailey declared:

'Here is the lump. That's from my stick, from the blow I gave him.'

'I've no lump', De Le Veilless maintained.

But further examination by others present confirmed De Le Veilless had injuries fitting Bailey's account. Furthermore, De Le Veilless' explanation that he was in Kilmore after leaving Melbourne on the morning of Saturday 24 August was disproved by John Hegan, manager of the Globe Hotel. Hegan swore to personally giving De Le Veilless his swag on Sunday morning. The first of Vizard's assailants now apprehended, the search for his accomplice was on.

In 1889 John Hassett was twenty-one years old. The young man was held in fair esteem by his employers, having worked in and around Gippsland for three years without trouble. He had also worked for Albert Lynch of North Melbourne, who regarded his character as good.⁶ Whilst Hassett had fathered an illegitimate child, he displayed sufficient concern for moral standing and respectability to claim the child's mother, Mary Redmond, was his wife.

In the eyes of the authorities, however, Hassett had 'fallen amongst evil companions, and ... contracted evil habits'.⁷ In January 1888 he received one month's imprisonment for assaulting a police officer. At midnight on 17 August 1889, the stable of Albert Lynch was burgled, and following his identification as one of the perpetrators, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Avoiding capture for five months, Hassett was eventually arrested by police on 11 December 1889, and as he entered the Carlton watch-house, his troubles deepened. Patrick Bailey was there to identify him as Albert Vizard's principal assailant.

From the outset, Hassett claimed he was innocent and maintained that he could prove it. Writing from his prison cell, Hassett enjoined John Kennedy, a resident of Lang Lang, Gippsland, to bear witness to his distance from the crime:

My dear friend ... I am in great trouble and under lock and key at the Melbourne Gaol. I am blamed for assaulting Constable Vizard in Carlton on the 25^th of August 1889 and you and your family know I was not down in Melbourne on that date. You know I was at your place ... I might want you to prove my innocence ... Mr Kennedy, I am going to be tried on the 17^th of February 1890 and I may get a long term of imprisonment and floggings ...⁸