| Author |
Topic |
|
member3
Advanced Member
537 Posts |
 Posted - 31/05/2008 : 11:10:34 AM
|
|
deleted
|
Edited by - member3 on 11/11/2009 2:15:39 PM |
|
|
antmc
Advanced Member
Australia
162 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2008 : 10:11:54 AM
|
| This sounds like a great opportunity to get Bill's research and efforts recognised by having the organisers include the 'actual' sites into the plans. |
 |
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2008 : 6:59:48 PM
|
Thank you antmc and Sharon,
Yes it is interesting that although I, as a member of Mansfield Historical Society (MHS), and the initiator of the push to have the true Stringybark Ck sites acknowledged, I was not invited to be part of the Stringybark Reference Group (SRG) and I wonder why ?
However I have since made contact after seeing what was planned.
It is hoped they will amend the plans to include the historical evidence to support this. Dan Kelly had reported back to Ned "the police were camped at the Shingle Hut" - (meaning Stringybark Ck) and one of the two fireplaces of the two huts found by me in 2002, belonged to the Shingle Hut that Ned referred to in his Jerilderie Letter.
As well, it should be mentioned that two police troopers were killed at Stringybark Ck and Sergeant Kennedy at Germans Ck, and that the walking trail to Germans Ck where the Sergeant lost his life should be included.
Lets hope visitors to Stringybark Creek can all enjoy the same information instead of a few privileged in the know. |
Edited by - bill denheld on 02/06/2008 7:10:27 PM |
|
|
|
stevejager
Advanced Member
Australia
100 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 10:19:20 PM
|
| Well I see that the BEST minds regarding the Kelly story meet here, and it is time for us as a group to get all the facts straight. That is why I am here, for the sake of our history!!! there is way too much disagreements about the Kelly story, and we who meet here know the stories better than anyone else. I myself have asked questions that don't get answer's, and it makes me wonder why we are all here in the first place? The facts and debate is what we need but we don't need is someone to be put down because they might not know as much as the next person. This is a learning experience. I have seen and been a victim of this already and it makes me not want to hang around, but I cant turn away from great minds. Ned wouldn't be too happy with me if I did that.... |
|
|
|
Sheila Hutchinson
Advanced Member
Australia
59 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 8:37:15 PM
|
Hi All,
Firstly Bill I’m sorry to hear that you feel disgruntled because the MHS didn’t invite you to represent them on the SRG project.
2 huts fireplaces: I guess there will be debates over the authenticity of the two huts until the proposed theories are verified or proven to be incorrect.
Heritage Listing: I believe Jeremy Smith is keen to keep people away from the ‘chimney’ sites until they can be investigated further.
Post 1878: Where are the remains of James McCrum’s 24 X 28 sawn timber cottage ??
Concept Plan: Please see - Stringybark Creek News posted 20th May
Happy debating Sheila
|
Edited by - Sheila Hutchinson on 04/06/2008 8:39:36 PM |
|
|
|
stevejager
Advanced Member
Australia
100 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2008 : 10:21:24 PM
|
My main concern at the moment is what happened to Ned's body after he was hanged and where I can see documents to verify claims. I want to be able to help clear the air on the certain facts that are sensitive to talk about, Fitzpatrick, Stringybark, the THEN Victoria Police and government officials and so on. The family and Australian history deserve this. I'm sure that if we all do debate these types of issues with an open mind and present our findings, then more people are going to listen to a group rather than one person's opinion. That's what I think though...
I hate those theories about Dan and Steve escaping, and of Dan being hanged rather than Ned. I knew it was impossible for any of those rumors to be true, and if people researched and used a bit of commonsense, then they would too, but I could only tell those few around me the truth.
|
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2008 : 2:20:08 PM
|
Not having had time to respond to Sheila and Dave regarding Stringybark Creek.
I quote Dave's posting first-
quote:
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 9:12:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to offer an alternative view (as I often do) to what Bill has written. (Bill states on his site he is happy to hear other thoughts about his theory)
Bill claims that the two huts (near where the police pitched their tents)are the ones he (and Gary Dean) found. Bill states that these are the ones Dan mentioned to Ned in relation to being the Shingle Bark hut. With all due respect to Bill's research I would like to suggest that neither of these two huts are the ones related to this story. The two huts relevant in my opinion are the ruined (burnt) Reynolds, Bromfield & Lynch's hut which is right on the police campsite and the second hut is the one shown on the 1884 survey map.So to sum this up, I believe that the two huts mentioned by G Wilson Hall are the hut in the middle of the police camp(1) and hut (2)marked on the survey map of 1884.
There are only two huts mentioned by Hall not 4 as would be the case if we included the other two Bill has identified.
Perhaps I will be shot down in flames here, but it is worth a debate.
Dave.
For those who are unfamiliar with the story, most of this below comes from my Two Huts at Stringybark Creek research, and I certainly have always invited discussion / debate ever since I first posted the two huts webpage at www.ironicon.com.au
Its fair enough to have a debate if the opposing view carries some weight.
I stumbled across the fireplace of one hut in September 2002 while at Stringybark Ck with Gary Dean in the bush nearby. I called out to him to come over and take a look at this. Then the following week not far away I found a second fireplace of a hut. But prior to that, the only real evidence of a hut at Stringybark Creek was in the image of the Burman Photo that was commissioned by the Victorian Police of the 'murder scene' at Stringybark Ck in Oct 1878. This image showing two blackened burnt corner posts of what looks to have been a hut site. see McMenomy's book.
So, with the finding of two hut sites now we know there were three huts, but unless the two posts in the Burman photo were from a 'tent frame' used by the police?
We know that at the time Melbourne news papers reported the police had camped 'near the ruins of two small huts'.
About six months later G Wilson Hall wrote his Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges book where in he wrote -
“The spot where they established their halt, was a small clearing on the rise alongside of the creek near the ruins of two small huts, one of which was burnt down and had been the temporary residence of three prospectors, Reynolds, Bromfield and Lynch who worked the creek for a short time with indifferent success.”
So we know the police pitched their tent on a rise besides the creek where there also happens to be a lower side on the other side of the creek where there are the remains of two small huts. These are the huts fireplaces that have been found.
In Dave's scenario the police would have camped 'amidst' or next to the two huts - which GW Hall states was not the case.
We also learn the two huts on the lower level on the West bank of the creek, were occupied by three prospectors- Reynolds, Bromfield and Lynch.
We also know from Sheila's research that Lynch was charged with burning down Percy Bromfield's hut some 15 months before the shootings, and a court witness was non other than Sergeant Kennedy himself.
This hut burning court case could have been either the hut in the Burman photo or one of the two huts on the western bank?
However, the following Para is just supposition ; With in the party there was obviously trouble in the camp, and as a result, it looks like Bromfield had build himself a new hut possibly right over where the gold lead was going,( under the area where the police later camped), then maybe Lynch saw this as a threat to his patch and lively hood and in a fit of anger decided to burnt it down. I believe this may have happened as evident of a burnt hut in the Burman photo, and the two blackened posts are the remains of Bromfield's hut. I say this because if it was a new hut, then new wood would have been used, and new wood does not want to burn in an upright position.
But not to get confused with Bromfield's hut burning, as before I said, maybe the two posts were part of the frame for the police tent that the Kellys burnt down when they left the scene after the shootings? I leave this for you to think about.
But what about the Shingle Hut.! . Ian Jones in his books does not make much sense of the past as he writes- of the police " they headed towards some gold diggings near a derelict Shingle hut on Stringybark Creek" where they camped.
Dave, You refer to a Shingle Bark Hut ? you should know a bark hut is a bark hut and a Shingle hut is made of split timbers like weather boards over lapping.
When Ned referrers to the Shingle hut in his Jerilderie he means the place Stringybark Ck. So we know the Shingle hut must have been standing because you would not refer to the place without a shingle hut being there. When the first surveyor came through and plotted the only standing hut there he would have noticed the remains of the other hut fireplace closeby but this did not constitute a hut, so he did not mark it.
The surveyor carefully drew a small rectangle orientated with the creek (North South) and wrote "Hut", and on the other side of the creek, - "Scene of the Police murders by the Kelly Gang"
The other huts fireplace is orientated at 90% to the creek. So we can conclude from the investigations WE have made there that the larger of the two was most likely the Shingle hut.
Sheila reckons the two huts were miners huts but as she knows, miners may not have time to build Shingle built huts if they only intend to dig out the gold and move on. In Sheila's beaut book 'Heritage and History on my doorstep' she devotes several chapters to mining records that start around 1869. So when the police camped at Stringybark Ck in 1878, it is hard to believe that newly built miners huts would be described as ruined (by age) if they had been there for such a short period.
However we have recent / new evidence of the two huts. When I was researching my two huts story at ironicon.com.au In 2003 I visited a lady who is the Great G Granddaughter of Ewan Tolmie. She has the dozen small photos- one of which is of Kelly camp of 1883.
Later discussions with her and Sheila regarding the boundary of Dueran and Hollands Ck Run and Fern Hills Station revealed Stringybark Creek was in fact on Fern Hills and not Hollands Ck Run as previously thought.
Amongst her files she produced the transcript of a letter dated June 11- 1860.
The letter regarding a boundary dispute between an adjoining land owner and the lease holder of Fern Hills Station on which Stringybark Ck is situated, one is writing to the Registrar - the other is trying to claim a portion of ground forming the boundary between Dueran Run and Fern Hills. So we know we are talking about the southern most boundary of Fern Hills station not far from Stringybark Ck.
The letter states- "In the tracing furnished to me by the survey office in 1858 the fall of the water is defined as the boundary – which are the remains of Two Huts erected by Messrs Heape and Grice, the former lessees of Fern Hills Station, and where they always kept flocks of sheep".
The original lessees Heape and Grice built the huts in 1848
(according to the Lease holders book ‘Victorian Squatters’ by Spreadwell and Anderson.)
So we can conclude these shepherd huts were better built than short term miners Bark huts and they offering long term shelter for the land owners.
As Ned Kelly referred to the ‘shingle hut’ at Stringybark Creek we simply have to believe one fireplace found belonged to the hut built by sheep keeping owners Heape and Grice - as early as 1848.
There is no evidence, but the original Shingle hut/s would have been occupied many more times by prospectors and even rebuilt from time to time after the shootings and that the first land title holder over that land ' Robert McCrum could also have used the Shingle hut. Maybe this was McCrum's first dwelling at Stringybark Creek road? See Sheila's webpage at http://www.ironicon.com.au/validlinks.htm
Edited to include- 'of the past' But what about the Shingle Hut.! . Ian Jones in his books does not make much sense of the past as he writes- of the police " they headed towards some gold diggings near a derelict Shingle hut on Stringybark Creek" where they camped.
|
Edited by - bill denheld on 08/06/2008 08:25:20 AM |
|
|
|
stevejager
Advanced Member
Australia
100 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2008 : 11:28:55 PM
|
| **** good work Bill ;) |
|
|
|
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
Australia
77 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2008 : 10:17:44 AM
|
| Well done Bill,many thanks for all the work that you have put into explaining the SBC site.I believe the work & research that Sheila,Fay & yourself have done in this field is second to none.I hope one day the authorities will realise this & you get the just reward you deserve. |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 18/06/2008 : 6:41:39 PM
|
Thank you Antmc, Steve, Robert, Sheila, Sharon, -
and Dave, I thought we were going to have a debate? |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 16/07/2008 : 6:27:37 PM
|
Thanks Dave,
You must have had a sound basis to challenge my research regarding the fireplaces of two huts found at Stringybark Creek. We are still waiting for the debate? |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 21/10/2008 : 07:57:04 AM
|
Good to see you're back on deck Dave, but are we still having that debate?
In an earlier thread on this forum about Stringybark Ck, you mention other fireplaces can be found in the SBC area if you look close? You refer to these when you were there after the fires last year.
Do you think these other fireplaces of huts play any part in the Kelly story?
|
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 28/12/2008 : 1:38:38 PM
|
Dave White is not willing to respond even though he requested the debate!
Thanks to all those private emails received regarding this subject.
I have edited the following post to add clarity to the debate.
|
Edited by - bill denheld on 30/12/2008 12:48:07 PM |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 30/12/2008 : 12:52:18 PM
|
For those interested in the works being carried out at Stringybark Ck, for the first time I include a map below showing the police camp and walking track being part of the Stringybark Creek experience. This is the result of five years lobbying the DSE to tell the truth about this very special place in the Kelly story. However this move has been resisted by Ian Jones with his obvious influence over the authorities.
The authorities, realising people demand to know the truth must allow all visitors as it is public land and public monies being spent. However, even now Ian Jones still does not concede the two old huts fireplaces located near the police camp site are those that G W Hall wrote about in 1879. Seems he would rather muddy the waters and shoot himself in the foot, than to concede he may be wrong.
It is understood we all have a view and if a history can be proven incorrect they are free to do so. We are all waiting for that alternative view with this pending debate initiated by Dave White. I believe I have provided more than enough historical proof of the true location of the police camp site, to allow the authorities to draw up their plans as below. Notice there is no mention of the 'two huts' site directly opposite the police camp site because Ian Jones said not to show them! However, we are allowed to go to the site now but we are not allowed to know why this is the true site, re the fireplaces !
Here is what Ian Jones's 2008 edition 'Ned Kelly A Short Life' says about my two huts research on page 443 -
quote:
Two fireplaces, on the Western bank of Stringybark Creek opposite the Gunfight site, have been given inappropriate significance since 2003. ( see Age 10/2/03 ) No contemporary source refers to them. A second ruined hut mentioned by G Wilson Hall in 1879 ( Mansfield Pamphlet, P24) some distance to the north of the site, was identified in 2006 by Dave Wilson & Dave Brown.” - PS (Wilson is type error for White
By this statement he is determined to continue to denigrate the importance of fireplaces found. And Jones implicates Dave.
So here we have Dave White locating another hut site, and telling Ian Jones about this - and giving Jones a possible alternative in the hope to prove my findings wrong - and he publishes this historically confusing mis-truth, in his 2008 edition - which is a private enterprise book promoted on public land on the Stringybark Ck story boards.
Dave believes he is onto something and on posting 3/6/2008 on this page thread he writes- quote:
- - - - The two huts relevant in my opinion are the ruined (burnt) Reynolds, Bromfield & Lynch's hut which is right on the police campsite and the second hut is the one shown on the 1884 survey map.
So to sum this up, I believe that the two huts mentioned by G Wilson Hall are the hut in the middle of the police camp(1) and hut (2)marked on the survey map of 1884. - - - - - - Perhaps I will be shot down in flames here, but it is worth a debate. Dave.
That's all fair enough if there is substance to the theory !
As Dave will testify, there has been no evidence of a hut site (as depicted by two blackened posts in the Burman photo) directly on the police camp site. He should know because he helped metal detect for that, and also he detected the 'two huts site' on the western bank, from which he is in possession of some items, but he refuses to furnish photos of these important items. Let it be known, as self appointed guardian of all those items detected at Stringybark Ck it is my duty by law (Heritage Victoria) to keep track of them all for later combination.
OK, then lets ask Dave, - if he believes (1) hut was in the middle of the Police camp site, then where does he place the second hut as marked on the survey map of 1884 and how does this tie in with Ian Jones's reference to this hut identification in 2006 some distance to the north? ?(please show us all where on the map, North is to the right of the map Dave!
Naturally, Dave will be reluctant to divulge ( pin point) this location, but if he doesn't I will later.
But lets give Dave the opportunity share his theory first?
For those who do not know G Wilson Hall's The Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges,1879 Page 24 -
Hall wrote - about the police camp quote:
“The spot where they established their halt, was a small clearing on a rise alongside of the creek, near the ruins of two small huts, one of which was burnt down, and had been the temporary residence of three prospectors, named Reynolds, Bromfield and Lynch, who worked the creek for a short time with indifferent success.”
G.Wilson Hall does not mention a second hut at all, he simply states the police camped " near the ruins of two small huts",
There is also mention in the Argus of 28 October 1878 of where the police pitched their tent - "near the ruins of two huts"
The fireplaces of these two small huts are located near the police camp area , and their existence proves where the police had camped at Stringybark Creek in Oct 1878 - just as The- Argus and GW Hall states.
Jones' book Notes paragraph does nothing to bring clarity, -rather to confuse the reader into believing that his print version of events is complete and correct - when clearly they are not.
From all historical records there is no mention of the huts being separated by any distance or North of the site. Unlike bad, good history is always underpinned by truth and the facts. |
|
|
|
captjack
Advanced Member
58 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 08:43:23 AM
|
Happy New Year forumites!
130 years after Stringybark Creek , it is still controversial. The official history tells us that the saintly Sergeant Kennedy rode to his doom, but a careful reading of the Royal Commission and contemporary reports shows that another scenario was whispered amongst the police at the time.
G. Wilson Hall wrote in “The Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges”: ‘had the temptation of the glittering reward been removed. .the sacrifice of three valuable lives . . .might have been avoided’ and further states ‘ it rather tallies with an opinion that has been expressed by more than one – that they were suspected ( Ned and Dan ) by Kennedy and Scanlan to be in the vicinity; and that these two went out with the desire to capture them without the interference or assistance of their fellow troopers.’ This being written 22nd February 1879!
Macintyre writes in his ‘true narrative’ that Kennedy ‘had received several of these rewards.’ Scanlan and Kennedy had shared 100 pounds reward for the conviction of Wild Wright. Mac also expressed surprise at the amount of weaponry, including the 7 shot Spencer rifle, describing it as ‘unusual’. Kennedy told Mac as they looked for the Hollands Creek crossing ‘he had been shown it a few days previous by a man from Tolmie’s Dueren station.’
Kennedy had written to Sadlier as far back as August 17 1878 that the search for Ned and Dan would ‘require to establish a kind of depot at some distance beyond the Wombat – say, Stringybark Creek, seven miles beyond Monk’s.’ and emphasizes ‘I am of the opinion Constable Scanlan, Constable MacIntyre and myself would be quite sufficient to undertake the working of that country without anymore assistance.’ Kennedy then added ‘ I should like to have a personal interview with the sub-officer taking charge of the party starting from Greta.’
MacIntyre tells that Kennedy went out on his own for two hours on the Saturday afternoon, taking the Spencer rifle for company. Strangely, they all tried to sleep that night, no watch being taken. In the morning Kennedy and Scanlan rode out together, in the words of MacIntyre ‘ Kelly’s hut was to the north of our camp and in the direction the men had gone on patrol.’ Writing of his shooting of parrots MacIntyre states that ‘I have been much criticized for this shooting, but. . I had the sanction of the Sergeant.’
There are a series of questions in the Royal Commission that probe the rumours around Kennedy’s actions at SBC. Presumably the unnamed Commissioner is G. W. Hall himself. MacIntyre is asked ‘What was the special object of camping on this ground?’ (Question 14344) he replied “That I cannot say. I expected to go to Hedi Station ( to meet the other patrol THEN to scour the country ) I asked Kennedy, in a jocular manner, why he came there, and he said “ If we meet the other party of police, we will find they are out of tucker and they will eat us out.’ Question 14355 ‘Is it your opinion that he had no special knowledge or suspicion the outlaws were in the neighborhood at that particular time?’ Mac replied ‘Well, from what has come to my knowledge since, I do not know what to believe; I do not know what to think.’
It becomes more sinister with Question14376: Might it be possible, as you say Kennedy and Scanlan took provisions with them, that their desire might be to catch the Kellys without your being present?’ MacIntyre admits ‘Yes, that is possible’.
The questioning of J. H. Graves MLA includes 15523: ‘Did you ever hear it said that these men, Kennedy and Scanlan, had information as to where the Kellys were?’ Graves answers ‘They must have. They would not have gone to that place without some pretty well grounded information.’ The line of this questioning proposes that Henry Perkins informed Kennedy as to the whereabouts of the Kellys and also warned the Kellys of the search party, Perkins encouraging Kennedy to try to get the reward for himself, so splitting the four troopers for the obvious advantage of Ned and Dan. Question 15526: It is asserted, I do not know with what authority, that this was part of a plan to lead them into a trap.’ Question 15529: Do you think the object of the information given first was with a view to leading them to this position there, and the fact of the two leaving was part of a pre-concerted plan to bring those police into a position that they might be betrayed” Graves replies ‘ I don’t think so.’
The inference through this questioning and Hall’s other statements re the reward is that Kennedy knew where they boys were and left Lonigan and MacIntyre, almost like bait, so he and Scanlan could share the large bounty and not split it four ways.
I find this rather creepy, coupled with Pewtress’ statement that Kennedy’s body was found on the same track as MacIntyre’s getaway, it seems strange that MacIntyre did not direct the search party to follow that route on the first trip to recover the bodies.
As controversial and macabre as this all is, with statements such as Bill Bryson’s
‘they tied Lonigan to a tree and shot him in the testicles and laughed as he bled to death’ is it not time for a more comprehensive look at the whole debacle of SBC.
The indefatigable Bill Denheld touches on this subject at his site, and quickly adds a
No disrespect to police line – he lives in Victoria!!!
The army of Kelly critics love to distort the events of SBC and Glenrowan, as they have little use for the two bank raids as the boys were far too charming and cavalier.
The Victorian Police understandably do not like ‘cop killers’, but the story is as much about undertrained, underpaid policemen trying to make a living as it is about 4 boys in danger of their lives. A more balanced presentation of all the evidence is 130 years overdue.
Is that controversial enough ?
|
|
|
|
marcus
Advanced Member
Australia
185 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2009 : 11:44:23 AM
|
Welcome aboard Capt Jack.
interesting theory you put forward. I'm interested to see what others can add to this.
regards
Marcus |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2009 : 1:46:31 PM
|
CAPTJACK is DAVE WHITE
Anyone hiding behind a pseudonym is a worry.
Are you avoiding the Stringybark Ck hut debate by changing the topic?
Once again lets ask Dave, - if he believes (1) hut was in the middle of the Police camp site, then where does he place the second hut as marked on the survey map of 1884 and how does this tie in with Ian Jones's reference to this hut identification in 2006 some distance to the north? ?(please show us all where on the map, North is to the right of the map Dave!
Naturally, Dave will be reluctant to divulge ( pin point) this location, but if he doesn't I will later.
But lets give Dave the opportunity share his theory first?
|
|
|
|
captjack
Advanced Member
58 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2009 : 2:20:49 PM
|
Hello from Captain Jack! Yes, I am a worry, but I do not hide, simply sail the seven seas. And I am NOT Dave White, I promise. I merely raised another thread of the SBC story, I claim no special insight into this just trying to see what other people think of that theory. It is G W Hall's theory, not mine, nor Dave White's aka Wilson.
I have only been to the top of the mountain to see the ( wrong ) site at SBC, so I appreciate all the research done, and I am not writing to "blow" - I don't play the trumpet.
to those who know the site at SBC well, my question is: Would two horsemen have heard a flurry of shots in that much more noiseless world? Could Kennedy and Scanlon not heard them ringing through the countryside?
And no offence to anyone! I thought it would be controversial as a topic, but I am in no way a Kelly Historian and I cannot be blamed for my name!
Furiously riding - out of your way!
Captain Jack Hoyle ( retired ) very. |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2009 : 7:11:48 PM
|
Hello Captain Jack Hoyle,
Please accept my apology for assuming you to be Dave White. Pseudonyms on this forum are a worry. We accept you as CaptJack.
Your posting is important for analysis of events leading to the Kelly outbreak. Perhaps Bruce our Moderator can help you to create a new thread to allow your specific discussion to take place.
This thread is about proving the true location of the police camp site at Stringybark Ck that Ian Jones and Dave White have challenged me on. We still await their theory.
We welcome you to the forum and do highly commend your posting.
Regarding your question - two troopers (Kennedy and Scanlan) hearing those shots fired? perhaps not as they would not then have just ambled back into the camp.
The subject of the Royal Commission of 1881 into the Kelly outbreak is certainly controversial considering the questions you and I have highlighted. Yes I do live in Victoria and I do say "No reflection on the police, rather it shows the system was bad "
Dave, over to you -
|
|
|
|
kellycountry2000
Forum Admin
Australia
586 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2009 : 10:24:53 AM
|
All new sign ups go through me
and ISP's are easy to check
you can start as many threads as you wish
there is no limit
KC2000 |
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
96 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 10:37:27 AM
|
Lets get back on track with the Two Huts debate that Dave wanted to have,
Lets again ask Dave, - if he believes (1) hut was in the middle of the Police camp site, then where does he place the second hut as marked on the survey map of 1884
And how does this tie in with Ian Jones's 2008 book notes reference to this hut identification some distance to the north? ( of the Police Camp)
We are waiting for Dave to show us on the map plans below, where he places the HUT that he told Ian Jones about.
Dave, To make it simple here are four choices, (only approximate will do) - is it near the Picnic ground? , the Kelly tree, near the Police camp? or between both?
It is only 7 months since Dave first wanted to debate this !
If he does not respond, then I will reveal the location to you soon.
Stay tuned, you will be surprised.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
SBC Upgrade Plans On Display Thru June 3