|
Author |
Topic |
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
 Posted - 14/07/2010 :
01:25:09 
|
Hello again Mr Alanros
and thank you.
I will now spend a little time in providing transcript:
1. On the 7 August I swore the following before Mr Foster P.
M.
"When I first saw the men, Lonigan was standing at the
opposite side of the fire to me and about 10 or 12 feet from
me, Lonigan had started to run towards a tree.
The man on the right took the gun off my body and fired at
Lonigan.
When the man on the right fired at Lonigan he was about forty
yards distant from him (Lonigan).
The effect of the shot in Lonigan was that he immediately fell
- he ran only about four or five yards before he fell, I heard
him fall. I did not see him fall"
This information was also included in the Prosecution's brief
for the Central Criminal Court Trial.
2. At the Bechworth preliminary examination I was placed in
the witness box on the 6th, again on the 7th and again on the
11th.
On the 11th I swore to a document prepared by the court which
was a transcript of my testimony and cross examination:
" I saw the accused move his gun a little to his reight from
me and he fired. I heard Lonigan then fall.I remained standing
I saw Lonigan had fallen down."
and when I conversed with Ned, in the presence of Senior
Constable Kelly, at the Benalla lockup on Tuesday 29th June
1880:
"I said 'When I turned round you had my chest covered'. He
said 'Yes' 'I had' and I said 'As soon as I held out my hands
you moved your gun a little and shot Lonigan' He said 'No
Lonigan got behind some logs and pointed his revolver at me
did you not see that'. I said'No That is only nonsense'.
and then in reply to mr Gaunson:
"I heard Lonigan in the act of running when he was shot he
fell on my left rear. Lonigan had his revolver on him when the
accused came up"
3.And in my memoirs I had this to say:
"...accordingly threw out my arms horizontally, immediately I
did so Ned Kelly shifted the muzzle of his gun to the right
and without taking it from his shoulder shot at Lonigan who
had started to run partly towards and partly down the creek
putting his hand down as if to get his revolver, he had no
time to open the case and must have been looking over his
right shoulder when he was shot in the right eye by Ned Kelly.
I took a hasty glance around when Kelly fired and saw Lonigan
fall heavily . . . THe whole affair occurred so quickly that
Lonigan did not run more than 4 or 5 paces before he was shot;
had he stooped down he would have been under cover of the
logs..."
So to answer your question Mr Alanros, I am satisfied that the
evidence presented was as truthful as my recollections allowed
of the very quick space of time in which my collegue Lonigan
was shot.
I rely on my sworn statements presented and used by the
courts.
What I find disconcerting is the way (some) newspaper
correspondents record and report on evidence - they don't
always get it accurate.
Just as Mr Denheld points out in his recent words - the words
are of a reporter NOT any of mine. Hearsay only!
As an instance one newspaper reported that the presentment at
Beechworth read that I did kill and murder THOMAS McINTYRE .
I rely on my sworn statements as do the legal authorities.
In cases even today the press have on occasions been negligent
in the accurate reporting of facts !
|
 |
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 14/07/2010 :
02:17:46
|
Hello Mr Denheld.
Excuse me but My dictionaries do not provide such an
interpretation of "indecorums" And of your indecorums I think
others may say the same about some of your material which you
seem to revise from time to time.
The only diagram used by the prosecution was the very simple
one I had some time earlier prepared. I am sure you are aware
of this diagram and that it was retained by the Crown and
filed in the Crown Law Department's papers [available at the
Public Records Office - VPRS 4966, Unit 2, Item 10]and used in
books since published.
My detailed scale drawing was kept within one of my three
scrapbooks amongst quite a few loose papers which I had not
stuck into my scrapbooks.
It remained unknown to anyone (except family descendents who
had custodianship of my papers)until it was recently brought
to light by the people at the Victoria Police Museum.
If you peruse my memoirs you will see a reference to "an
accompanying engraving" (Its in Chapter 3) and this diagram is
it !
Oh yes doubts as to the accuracy of the scene (leading to
reconstructions) there certainly were - not to the place -
which is the only way in which the photograph by Mr Burman was
considered of use, BUT THE RECONSTRUCTION (DEPICTION) of the
placement of the actors being without foundation. SO the
photograph established the locality and layout BUT provided no
evidence of substance with the placement of the actors (AND
THE TRIAL WAS NOT TO DO WITH KENNEDY ! which is the subject of
the inclusion of actors in the scene). The photo of the
"finding" of kennedy's body similarly was a posed one ! Mr
Burman's interest in the site was to be able to sell the image
and make a few shillings - in fact he produced a series of
cards (I recall there were 16 in the various sets he
produced)for sale to the public so he had a strong reason to
embellish his scene by the inclusion of actors and NO REASON
to make what your police forces of today refer to as forensic
analysis/evidence.
My diagram represents moments in time; it cannot represent
every moment of activity or time. I was sitting on the south
side of the log - a place to which I was directed by Ned.
You will note that my diagram has a table indicating what each
notation represents and "M3" says "Where McIntyre sat upon the
log as orderd by Ed. Kelly"
However, as the men approached I crossed the log and commenced
to move towards Mr Kennedy to tell him to surrender. You will
note that I do also show this as "M4" - I am on the North side
of the log by this time.
And the case against Ned was not mine !
The legal system then and as it is still now requires the
Crown to prepare and mount a case as they believe is necessary
to pursue their case for the trial of any and all offenders.
And yes I was pleased to be able to put it all behind me and
try to get on with my life !!
So to now consider a few other matters relevant to our camp
site of which I will have things to say in due course;
and I see Mr Fitzy suggests a seance to assist in the
deliberations.
Its not such a bad idea and such may be arranged in due
course. |
|
|
|
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
Australia
89 Posts
|
Posted - 14/07/2010 :
12:45:05
|
|
Mr McIntyre I would like
to congratulate you on the way that you have brightened up
this forum. In an earlier post you say that you were a student
and you made a visit to SBC after reading Bills newspaper
report in Mansfield. May I humbly suggest that after completing
your studies you might consider a career in journalism, as I
think you would be a great success. I can see another Dan Brown
of Da Vinci Code fame in the making. You have a good knowledge
of history and like Mr Brown you have a way of making a good
tale out of the Kelly hearings sound quite feasible. I hope you
will continue to give a lot of enjoyment to the forum and not
return to the grave and be lost forever. Seriously though I do
think you should give your correct name and receive the
plaudits that you justly deserve.....Regards Bob |
|
|
|
ChrisR
Advanced Member
Australia
211 Posts
|
|
Glenn Standing
Junior Member
Australia
7 Posts
|
Posted - 14/07/2010 :
17:19:06
|
Bill,
I find it interesting that you tend to use McIntyre’s
statements when they suit your scenario.
Yet disregard them when they don’t.
Re; the log layout & McIntyre’s statements with regards to the
log layout.
Earlier I produced a Burman image indicating the log
directions and angles etc according to McIntyre’s statements.
They both match.
In addition to which there are two known sketches drawn by
McIntyre showing the log layout.
Both show the men advanced along the same log. Both show the
approx. position of Lonigan.
The most recently discovered sketch provides us with the tent
position in relationship to the logs along with compass
directions.
Both sketches match McIntyre’s statements.
Are you not tending to base much of your findings on your own
assumptions?
You assume McIntyre explained the events to Monk & he new the
positions of the figures.
Again you assume that the figures were placed position by Monk
for the photographer.
How can assumptions be used as evidence?
Even with the figures in the positions shown they still need
to be moved around to fit either scene.
Yet you disagree with me, as the figures shown in the Burman
image do not match the positions described by McIntyre.
Your log layout does not match either of McIntyre’s sketches.
There is no N/S log. Ref. Your scaled log layout. Posted 6/7
Kindly prove your point.
Regards,
Glenn
|
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
113 Posts
|
Posted - 14/07/2010 :
20:49:33
|
Mr McIntyre,
Thank you for your reply.
I do have several dictionaries the favorite of which is my
Sheridan ' Improved Dictionary of 1810.
Indecorum ; a synonym for Mistake, blunder, slip blooper.
Dear fellow, I do recommend you acquire one of those late
editions as we must get things right you know.
And that brings me to your dismissal of Reporters. Now that is
very unkind of you, as you know you spoke at length to George
Wilson Hall
the Mansfield Guardian proprietor and editor . Mr Hall made
sure your story was reported very accurately and even "
praised your courage for leading the search party back to
Stringy-Bark Creek" ** Mr Hall would have had no reason to
write anything other than what you said -
we pitched our tent " Near the ruins of two huts" it was true.
He did not write we pitched our tent ' near the ruin of a hut'
he wrote ruins and huts, so there were TWO huts where they
camped.
The only reason you now want to diminish my research papers
(Document) is because you are not Mr McIntyre at all, But an
Imposter pretending to be Thomas McIntyre. Oh, we can see
through you alright. You had us fooled there for a while by
jingo.
Mr Mc, in your post to me and all, you say you were to sit on
that log - ( as ordered by Ned at M3 on your map, see page 17
my Doc at
www.ironicon.com.au ) - on
the southern side of that log looking South, yet in your
manuscript speaking of yourself, Ned Kelly and the other men -
quote:
" they faced North looking down the creek, the Sun sank
behind the tall trees to our left ” ( Page 23 McIntyre
Manuscript )
And then moments later on page 24
Mc's Manuscript
quote:
" I said to him, ‘For God’s sake don’t shoot the men and
I will try to get them to surrender’. He said, ‘all right
but mind you do so, go and sit upon that log and give no
alarm, or I will put a hole in you’. At the same time he
covered me with one of the rifles. I went to the place he
indicated about 10 yards off and had barely time to sit down
when the two men came in sight. Kennedy was in advance about
two horses length and Scanlan was carrying the rifle. I
stepped towards Kennedy and was about to explain the
position -"
Mr Mc, in your above posting you
say -
quote:
"However, as the men approached I crossed the log and
commenced to move towards Mr Kennedy to tell him to
surrender."
You did not cross that log as you
say.
Mr Mc, after being seated and seeing the ' two men come into
sight 'your manuscript reads " I stepped towards Kennedy "
You did not clamber across the log to the other side. You just
stepped towards -
And further, are you capable of turning your head around 180
degrees ? You say you were able to sit with your legs to the
south and have your head facing north. How is that possible?
Mr Mc, your map strongly resembles Mr Burman's photo regarding
where you 'M3' sat on that log, but silly you, you thought you
were facing north - when your own map shows you are facing
south. You continue your stuff up and I would rather stick to
Mr Burman's photos because photos do not lie.
** Forward in, Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges, 2004 transcript
available from Brian McDonald
|
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
113 Posts
|
Posted - 14/07/2010 :
20:58:29
|
Hello Glenn,
Can you not understand that Mc has used the Burman photo to
construct his map.
Go back to my posting 11/07 2010, see my document page 27 of
the Burman photo and the Sydney Mail sketch attributed to
McIntyre.
The point you ask me to prove is explained there.
Click
http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/sbctheauthenticlocationpage27.jpg
Proof of the correct site is the SLOPE in the Burman photo.
So it is up to you to show us all where YOUR slope can be
photographed as in the Burman1 photo if you do not agree with
the two huts site.
I am happy with my research, show us all your group's
research. |
|
|
|
Glenn Standing
Junior Member
Australia
7 Posts
|
Posted - 14/07/2010 :
23:35:45
|
Hello Bill,
Yes, I did read your posting on the 11/7. But do not agree.
To say that McIntyre constructed his map/sketches using the
Burman photo is an assumption. Not a given fact.
The 2 sketches that we currently have available both drawn by
McIntyre show the men advancing along the N/S log.
Not where the artist has them in his drawing.
We have primary & secondary evidence compared to an artists
drawing. Drawn from a rough sketch.
So who is correct? McIntyre or an artist?
Do we accept McIntyre’s own words and sketches along with the
Burman images or an artists drawing?
Certainly the slope should be taken into consideration when
assessing the correct site.
It is very difficult to take images of the slope near the
Kelly tree due to the amount of current undergrowth.
However, I have previously presented a photo which
demonstrates a reasonably good slope behind the current Kelly
tree.
A slope greater than you would first have us believe.
I also believe that both Burman images should be used when
assessing the slope. Both are equally important. Not just
Burman Image 1.
By comparison we have a better perspective of the slope
height.
I would also like to add that I am not representing our group
& speak solely for myself.
Our document at this point of time is irrelevant.
Regards,
Glenn |
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
00:17:47
|
Dear Bob, thank you for
your words.
You will of course know that I did spend time as a teacher in
NSW before joining the Victoria Police.
I put much time into considering the construction of my
written words.
Just one example is the years of work I committed to preparing
my memoirs, with numerous revisions. All of which was a slow
process with just pen and paper and typewriter. Its not like
what you have at your fingertips today where the mere movement
of a "mouse" and the typing into these fandangled computers of
required changes and additional words is instantaneously
committed to be printed, displayed and so forth.
I'm sorry but your Mr Dan Brown is not someone I have bothered
to contact so as to his works I remain ignorant.
I hope as further material is exposed on this forum that it
continues to brighten your time, as I am sure it will for
others also.
PS If you would like to read a very early draft of my memoirs
may I suggest a visit to the State Library's manuscripts area
and you accessing MS6343 (You will be locked in their secure
area whilst you peruse this early draft, but its warm and
quiet).
No, I will continue as I started with my impersonation (as Mr
Denheld has said "an imposter" whom it seems I had fooled for
a while); plaudits can be given to a nom de plume, but wait
and hold your judgement till this story is completed.
|
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
00:31:15
|
Hello Mr ChrisR.
As much as I would like to be able to assist you in your quest
I must decline at present due to the time I must commit to
this matter of establishing the location of our camp site in
the Wombat.
It has ignited a passionate debate as to who has located the
place - if in fact it will ever be proven beyond reasonable
doubt!!
You know a primary matter when pursueing a case for the truth
is that ALL EVIDENCE needs to be weighed and NOT A SELECTIVE
sub-set.
Whilst on my horse about this I note that Mr Standing is also
pursuing the resolution of probable anomolies in Mr Denheld's
information.
You will also appreciate that in my cosmos there are so many
people now on this side and many more arriving every day that
it is difficult to find those with whom we would like to
converse.
Just as you would like answers to your questions I too still
have questions to be resolved.
Your thoughts for my continuiing safe journey are appreciated.
Regards Thomas Mc. |
|
|
|
ChrisR
Advanced Member
Australia
211 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
00:55:39
|
Mr McIntyre,
Thank you for the time you have taken to comment on my
request. I know that when researching something important and
close to the heart, you should leave no stone unturned to find
the absolute truth and nothing but the truth. White lies don't
count anymore. Did you have your fingers crossed when you were
giving evidence at Ned's trial?
By the way, you state 'On my Horse...' was that Stg Kennedy's
horse you refering to?
I know there are many people on the other side but Henry Hart
won't be too hard to find. He's the one that has two sections
of his body as he was cut clean in half when run over by a
steam engine in Corowa on Feb 23, 1920. He might look like one
of those magicians assistants who, on stage are cut in half
with a sharp saw.
Enjoy your venture here. Forgot to ask - do you have fast
broadband on the other side? |
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
01:19:22
|
Mr Denheld,
You seem to have taken exception to my word "SOME".
Well here then are your words:
"And a special thanks to those who are supporting me."
SOME: ie of a certain or unspecified number, being more than
one!
And so some questions:
TWO huts - yes, but not in the close proximity that you
continually claim is proven by two stone fireplaces!!
Post(s) can be seen in the Burman photographs and I assume you
would agree that they are those of the ruined hut we pitched
our tent behind.
So what is the second possible tent position you identify as
"Tent could have been on this rise" in your latest diagram
meant to mean as it is nowhere near the logs if your "Log
scale of 3 x 3" is applied across the diagram and you show no
post holes near it as you have done at the logs??)
NEAR to does not mean AT.
AT is applicable only to the description of the upright post(s)
in relation to our tent position.
Your diagram has the nearest of the two tents at 20M from our
fire with NO indication that somewhere in front of the tent
there should be two upright posts.
Your diagram seems to take NO account of my description of the
tent location relative to the remains of a hut which we camped
behind.
Could not the second hut have been the shingled hut?? and that
this hut was located NEAR, but not within, the cleared area in
which we made camp in the North West corner.
Where would you propose to show this hut in your diagram ? Or
is it simply convienient to ignore it??
This hut is referred to by Kenneally. I have taken the liberty
of quoting him below.
And why do you not produce a diagram of the locale using ONE
SCALE, (as I did in producing my detailed diagram that you now
have made no comment on to my early reply as to when and how
it was used), and not the mish-mash you have in your latest
diagram - the logs area at one scale but to the South
intervals of contour at 1M, and to the east, west and North an
unknown scale (if any).
And your two camera positions are about 7 - 8 metres apart
(using the 3 x 3 scale of the log area). How did you determine
this distance? And how does this relate to the two Burman
photographs
you are "good" at asking questions, so here a some that occupy
my thoughts for you to consider.
*Kenneally, The Inner History of the Kelly Gang:
"Dan was deputed to find out exactly where the police were
camped. After a careful reconnaissance he returned and
reported that the police were at the shingled hut on
Stringybark Creek, and their tent was pitched in the open
space nearby."
And he goes on to say:
"Ned Kelly then called out, asking McIntyre who was in the
hut. The latter [Me] replied, 'No one,' and Kelly advanced..."
Of course, Ned had to ask the question as the hut was NOT on
the South side of the camp as Ned was in this locale and would
therefore have been able to reconnoitre the area before
advancing on us;
but it was to the NORTH of our camp and outside of the cleared
area we were occupying!!I also said about the finding of poor
Scanlan that his body was just outside of the clearing.
These comments are matters for your consideration. |
|
|
|
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
Australia
89 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
11:42:07
|
|
Thank you
Thomas (Constable, Sergeant,Detective, Commissioner he,he,he} for
your reply. From your earlier post I had the impression that
you were a student, a rather smart one at that. However a
policeman has come as a bit of a shock to a distant Kelly
relation like me. I do have an open mind on the whole saga
though and it is good to converse with a person of your
calibre. My cousin Gail has a foot in both camps as like me is
a distant relative of the Kellys through the Quinns but whose
husband was a Shoebridge. He is a descendent of Edward
Shoebridge, who under Senior Constable Strahan was a member of
the other party in search of the Kellys that left from
Greta. As he is of the same generation as you Thomas do you
know of Edward (police number 1142)?Once again keep up the good
work.....regards Bob |
|
|
|
kenny t
Average Member
Australia
16 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
23:16:04
|
Mr McIntyre,
Could you tell me a little more about the early Draft of your
Memoirs (MS6343) that is in the State Library.
When was this draft written? In what form is this manuscript?
How long has the State Library had this in their pocession?
I have many questions, so if you could fill me in I am sure
many other people might be interested to know as well |
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
23:20:01
|
Hello again Bob.
I knew of Ed but and did pick up some information which I
provide herein.
Edward was a Senior Constable at the time he was a member of
the other police party that left from Greta and which we had
intended to link up with eventually.
Alas as you know this never eventuated.
I know he was at Bright in September of 79 and he was
stationed there with Constable Montgomery.
During September as I recall he, as were police in many
sub-districts in the North East, directed by Mr Nicolson to
report back to him detailing the attitude of the local Chinese
people to the outlaws.
I believe that Edward reported that he had made enquiries on
several occasions and that he had been told that they would
give up any intelligence they could for the sake of obtaining
the reward.
Edward also said that he had no reason to suspect any of the
Chinese had or were providing supplies or aiding the outlaws
in any way.
I also recall he had a large family, and that one of his sons
followed in his father's footsteps within the force, joining a
few years before Ed's death.
Sorry, but my memory now is not what it used to be. Old age
does slow one down unfortunately but whilst there are things
remaining to be done I will keep on going.
If you wish to find out more about Ed's police service history
a request to the police museum I am sure would elicit such
information.
Kind regards,
Thos.
|
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 15/07/2010 :
23:51:28
|
A fine day to you Mr
ChrisR.
You ask were my fingers crossed.
NO, but I was pleased that the Crown were able to present a
solid case. You see, I witnessed the deaths of two of my
fellow police and was also a fellow policeman with Sgt
Kennedy.
As to horses, well the force had a very large number of horses
as you would expect. We did not necessarily use the same horse
all the time and on many occasions we would be riding whatever
horse was provided at the time.
But I can give you some details, as best my memory serves me,
about the 5 horses in our party.
All of the horses were of course branded but I will restrict
my descriptions to the principal brand mark of each.
Crown 42, Chesnut gelding, about 10, which I think, from
memory was Lonigan's.
Crown 09, Brown mare, about 8, My Horse and a fine mare she
was too.
Crown B87, Bay gelding, about 7 or 8, Constable Scanlan's
horse.
Crown P18, also a Bay gelding, about 8 also, Sgt Kennedy's
mount.
Crown L43, Chesnut gelding, our pack horse.
Mr Kennedy's horse was the first to be found.
The others some time later in an area in the Warby Ranges I
think.
Oh, and Broadband is here - as speedily as that of a galloping
spirited steed at full gallop. |
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 16/07/2010 :
00:05:36
|
A fine day to you Mr
KennyT.
The draft at the library was started in the early 1890s, it is
typed and has my extensive edits in pencil, as well as
additions and deletions - strikeouts.
My pencil markings are now becoming hard to read in some
places.
I am reasonably sure the library has had it for more than 20
years.
A request to the library to elicit the date and as to how they
came by this draft would I am sure be met with a response to
you.
Thos. |
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Average Member
14 Posts
|
Posted - 16/07/2010 :
00:16:37
|
Sorry but I must ask
that if there are more questions, comments and so forth to do
with me and the story of the Kelly era please use the new
topic now made so that this space can return to the prime
reason for its existance to debate and critically analyse the
propositions and hypothesis' of all.
The new topic space is entitled MC2384 and the Kelly story
|
|
|
|
kenny t
Average Member
Australia
16 Posts
|
Posted - 16/07/2010 :
01:30:39
|
Mr McIntyre
I ask the questions in regards the draft MS6343 as It may
contain sketches of the Stringybark Creek Police campsite. If
there are sketches are they the same as what was displayed at
the Police Museum? |
|
