TOPIC:

This is my first post here, so hope I'm doing it properly

William Edward Goodwin, Regimental Number 4321, served in the Royal Berkshire Regiment in the Boer War, and on discharge became a postman. When he retired from the Post Office in 1935, he was interviewed by the local paper. Amongst other things, the article says:

"Mr Goodwin was wounded in the shoulder, and some time later was reported as having died from wounds. Mr Winston Churchill was a newspaper correspondent at the time, and reported Mr Goodwin's death."

I have found newspaper reports of his death and a later amendment to him "only" being severely wounded.

What I'd like to know is whether there's any way of proving that it was actually Churchill who submitted the report, or whether William was merely name-dropping because he knew that Churchill was a war correspondent?

Can anyone help me, please?

Thanks.

Perhaps I should make it clear that I don't blame Churchill, if indeed it was him, because whoever filed the report would have been acting on information provided by the regiment.

Goodwin was clearly shown by the War Office, in their casualty returns, as, wounded on the 21st of April 1900 at Wakkerstroom.
Although WLSC was a correspondent with the Morning Post, it is very important to remember that he was also a supernumerary SAMIF officer, his duties did not include preparing casualty returns for the War Office, he was far too busy out on the veldt.
He had rode into Ladysmith on the 28th of February and had managed to join Robert's command on the 11th of April so he actually spent the next two months fighting, on the 19th of April he was famously engaged at Dewetsdorp and had to be rescued, his final engagement was at Diamond Hill on the 11th of June, he left for home on the 4th of July.
The only thing that I would say is that they were BOTH in the same area, very close indeed to each other that particular week in April, Goodwin could certainly have met WLSC at some point.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that it is most unlikely that it was actually Churchill who filed the reports to the papers. Right?

No, what I am saying is that WLSC did not, to the best of my knowledge, prepare casualty returns, but, at this particular point in time they were both very close indeed, in geographical terms, they could have met at some point and there could be a connection unless it was merely a coincidence.

Sorry, am being a bit slow here

When you say "... did not ... prepare casualty returns.... " do you mean that he didn't file/submit casualty returns to the press, or that he didn't compile the lists?