Dead Woman Walking is a Speculative Biography. A speculative biography is a form of life writing that openly integrates imagination, conjecture and literary techniques (like narrative and metaphor) with historical facts to explore a subject's inner life and motivations, especially where historical records are sparse, allowing for a richer, more complete, but acknowledged "possible" version of a life story rather than a definitive one. It moves beyond pure factual recounting to fill gaps with informed speculation, creating thought-provoking interpretations of a person's experiences, emotions, and the "what ifs" of their world. 

When writing historical drama, there are often gaps in the record where events cannot be verified. In those instances, an author may choose to speculate about what might have happened in order to create narrative continuity. This is a legitimate creative choice, but it is important that such material is clearly understood as speculative rather than factual.

During his research, my father, Allan Peters, was unable to establish key details of Elizabeth’s life after the attack in the goldfields and before she was found by her mother. To bridge this gap, he used creative licence, including scenes depicting Elizabeth living with a chemist and his wife and supplying medicines to prostitutes. While this created a compelling narrative, these episodes are not supported by historical evidence. There are several other instances in the book where reconstruction and storytelling were used in place of verified fact.

Over time, these speculative elements have been repeated in podcasts, online media, and commentary as if they are established fact. This has blurred the line between documented history and creative interpretation, contributing to a distorted public understanding of Elizabeth’s story.

For this reason, these elements should remain recognised as narrative reconstruction and not be presented as established history or as part of her verified lived experience.

Only Elizabeth herself knew the full truth of what she endured, and the historical record should be treated with appropriate care and restraint.

Elizabeth Woolcock’s story matters to South Australian history for several reasons. Not because it is sensational, but because it sits at the intersection of law, gender, class, and colonial justice.

First, she was the only woman ever executed in South Australia. That fact alone makes her case exceptional. Capital punishment was rare for women across the British Empire, and when it did occur it usually reflected extreme social and legal failure.

Second, her trial exposes the limits of colonial justice. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, contested medical testimony, and social assumptions about morality and character. By modern standards, the investigation and trial process raise serious questions about fairness, evidentiary standards, and judicial independence.

Third, Elizabeth’s story highlights the position of women in colonial society, particularly working-class women. She was young, poor, isolated, and without meaningful legal or social protection. Her credibility was judged through a moral lens rather than evidentiary rigor. That dynamic shaped both the trial and the public response to her execution.

Fourth, the case reveals how class and respectability influenced outcomes. Power sat with male professionals—doctors, lawyers, officials—whose opinions carried decisive weight. Elizabeth had no comparable voice. Her execution tells us as much about who was believed as about what was proven.

Finally, her story has become part of South Australia’s historical conscience. It forces an uncomfortable reckoning with how justice was administered, how myths replace evidence, and how easily narrative can harden into “fact.” That is why separating documented history from later speculation matters so much in this case.

Elizabeth’s importance is not just that she was executed. It is that her case reveals how the colonial legal system worked when tested at its margins—and who paid the price when it failed.

The best way to help is to sign the online petition here https://c.org/jdgy5F7wrS

Petitions will be available for signing in person at the Adelaide Gaol, Moonta and other locations soon.

Follow for more information on 'Elizabeth Woolcock deserves a posthumous pardon' webpage https://www.facebook.com/HangingElizabeth/

Elizabeth Woolcock’s conviction and execution occurred within a colonial legal system that failed to meet fundamental standards of fairness, reliability, and evidentiary integrity.

Grounds for the Petition:

• Unsafe Conviction — The verdict was based entirely on weak and inconsistent circumstantial evidence and did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Deficient Medical Evidence — Medical witnesses disagreed on diagnosis and failed to perform available confirmatory tests for mercury poisoning, yet firm conclusions were presented to the jury.

• Uncertain Cause of Death — Forensic analysis identified the presence but not the quantity of mercury and did not establish that any detected amount was lethal or exclude medicinal or occupational sources.

• Medical Treatment as Alternative Source — The deceased was prescribed medicines containing mercury compounds and other toxic substances, which may account for symptoms and findings.

• Chemist Testimony Inconsistent with Poisoning Theory — Purchase records and testimony show requests connected to the Petitioner were for morphine and laudanum, not mercury compounds, and several poison sales were refused.

• Contradictory Witness Evidence — Witness testimony indicates the deceased attributed his decline to earlier medical treatment and personally requested changes in doctors, contradicting the prosecution theory of manipulation by the Petitioner.

• Inadequate Legal Representation — Defence counsel had minimal relevant experience, conducted limited cross-examination, called no defence witnesses, and failed to properly challenge medical and forensic evidence.

• Procedural Unfairness — The Petitioner was not permitted to give evidence at trial, and her prior statement was withdrawn from jury consideration.

• Prejudice and Gender Bias — Contemporary legal analysis indicates the case was influenced by moral and gender stereotypes affecting interpretation of evidence and clemency decisions.

• Suppressed Exculpatory Correspondence — Material correspondence from Assayer William Ey, containing information relevant to the defence and plea for mercy, was withheld from public circulation and was unlikely disclosed to the trial judge or properly considered by the Executive.

• Modern Review Outcome — A 2004 mock retrial concluded with a Not Guilty verdict based on evidentiary gaps, forensic uncertainty, and reasonable doubt.  

Please sign this petition to ensure that Elizabeth Woolcock receives the justice she deserves and that her story is remembered as one of courage and tragedy, not of a convicted felon.

https://c.org/rjcSb9cmNV