|
Horrie
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 22, 2014 at
1:46am
Sarah
says there were no 'murders' at SBC. If so, why are the deaths
of the three police always described in the newspapers and
police reports of the day as the "Mansfield Police Murders"?
Ned and Dan were being hunted because of their attempted murder
of Constable Fitzpatrick earlier, in April 1878. Under the law,
they and three other defendants were equally guilty of that
offence if proved. On 26 October 188, it was stupid of the gang,
all of whom were armed, to go to the police camp and order
Constables Lonigan and McIntyre to "Bail up". McIntyre was
unarmed, Lonigan had a police Webley revolver which was
holstered in a cumbersome leather case with a clip.
Four against one. McIntyre never wavered in his written reports
and courtroom evidence that Lonigan was killed without being
able draw his revolver. A witness at Kelly's murder trial
demonstrated that Kelly had shown how Lonigan had in fact
surrendered before being shot. Serving police going about their
duties, if killed in this way, after being surprised, or
ambushed as were Constable Scanlan and Sergeant Kennedy upon
their return to the police camp, was murder. Under the law, all
four Kelly gang members were equally guilty of murder by being
present and participating in these offences.
Ned Kelly later claimed the gang had gone to the police camp to
get weapons and horses. In fact they also stole jewellery and
watches from the dead police, who were found with their pockets
turned out.
Today, it is absurd to entertain a plea of self-defence for
armed criminals who invaded a police camp and killed three
police. If you believe the Jerilderie letter, Dan Kelly got a
graze to his forehead. No evidence exists that this happened.
Ned Kelly was tried, found guilty and executed for the murder of
Constable Lonigan, the first SBC case prepared by prosecutors.
The three other defendants were deceased, following Glenrowan.
HORRIE, I’VE COPIED THIS
POST TO A NEW THREAD CALLED “WERE THE KILLINGS AT SBC MURDER?"
Dee
|
|
Last Edit: Feb
22, 2014 at 6:21am by
Dee |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 22, 2014 at
11:21am
Dee,
I find it some what interesting that you have twice now
mentioned the light angles in the Burman images.
The only site that I have posted anything to do with this is on
the SBC forum. Where I have provided images etc on this subject.
How is it that you know about this? |
| |
|
|
Dee
Administrator
|
Post by Dee on Feb 22, 2014 at 2:35pm
Glenn you seem concerned
that I have some sort of hidden agenda that I haven’t told you
about. Honestly and truly I do not, and I don’t think I have
found ever found or been on the SBC Forum. If you posted a link
to it that would be useful.
I cannot recall exactly where I had the idea from but I think it
was from reading Bills site where there were comments made about
the light angles and I have simply assumed that this was a point
of difference between the two groups. The reason I mentioned
them above was because I was thinking what is the most basic
point at which the attempt to locate the true site begins at,
and I think its with the Burman photos. My sense is that
everything starts there - is that right? Essentially what you
are all trying to do is identify the exact place that those
photos were taken from. And therefore at the very beginning you
need to try to establish what direction they are being taken
from, and looking at where the shadows are seems an obvious
place to begin. When I look at those photos I find it quite
difficult to be certain where the light is really coming from.
I also thought that what you were suggesting to Bill was that
you select a single point of difference and make that something
to discuss on this forum, which seemed a great idea, and I was
just sort of trying to help you decide. Sorry if I gave the
wrong impression or had the wrong end of the stick. 
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 22, 2014 at
4:03pm
Dee,
The wording -Orientation Of the Burman Photos - is exactly what
the topic was on that forum.
An uncanny coincidence perhaps? Given that it is a members only
forum even more so.
Also for him to "download" a copy of the CSI@SBC report to you.
Thank you for your explanation. I understand now.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
| |
|
|
Dee
Administrator
|
Post by Dee on Feb 22, 2014 at 4:29pm
Hi Glenn
Yes I assure you its coincidence and nothing sinister! So I have
just Registered to that site and will wait for the email to
complete it. It said you already had a member with username Dee
so then I wondered if maybe I had tried to join last year. The
process was a bit strange but I have just adopted a different
username.
As for the CSI@SBC Report, I downloaded it from Bills post here
yesterday - scroll up a bit on this page and you will see it. I
still haven’t read it but will get around to it sometime soon. |
| |
|
|
bill Member
|
Post by bill on Feb 23, 2014 at 1:14pm
Hello Dee,
Regarding picture postings -
You wrote -
Feb 21, 2014 21:04:43 GMT 11 Dee said:
Hi Bill
Thanks for drawing this problem to my attention. I had been
impressed by the way you were making your posts. I would like
everyone to be able to post nice big pictures like you did.
I have just spent a couple of hours trying to work it out,
searching all the Help Forums for this Forum Board , and haven’t
really come up with anything. I have tried posting a picture of
my own and using the “Add Attachment” button at top right the
best I seem to be able to do is get a Thumbnail size picture
which, if you click on it will open up to the full sized Pic.
Another Member said they couldn’t Log In a few days ago and I
don’t know what the problem was there either. I get the feeling
this Forum Boards template we use is a bit “buggy” but I am not
literate enough in Computer things to be able to take it any
further.
Keep trying - it may sort itself out again sometime.
I will
do a few tests -
As explained, your picture settings changed while I was in the
middle of making the post top of page 3.
Click button 'Insert Image', 6th from the left.
Into Image URL -
www.ironicon.com.au/images/realhistory.jpg
This image should be post card size. |
| |
|
|
bill Member
|
Post by bill on Feb 23, 2014 at 1:19pm
This time I
used Attachments
Attachments:
 |
|
|
|
bill Member
|
Post by bill on Feb 23, 2014 at 1:33pm
Dee ,
Seems you have turned off the Insert Image button function.
With the Attachment button it said not to exceed 1MB in size,
and that's fair enough. But pictures set for web need not be
more than 2-300 kb, so three picture could amount to 1MB.
If you have not turned off the Insert Image button perhaps the
forum board.net providers have decided you need to upscale the
page so you can accommodate pictures in the post? just a
thought?
All images I upload are usually resized to small files
around 700 pixels wide will do for page width.
Problem now is if we make a posting using attachments they will
only appear at the bottom of the posting.
This is unsatisfactory if we
are discussing things where an image is essential within the
paragraph.
Can you contact the Board.net and get this rectified, otherwise
its all a waste of time debating on the page without proper
picture references.
Bill |
| |
|
|
Dee
Administrator
|
Post by Dee on Feb 23, 2014 at 10:43pm
I discovered you can buy
more Storage Space for the site, and did so but nothing changed!
So its not a storage issue. I shall keep playing around...  |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
8:53am
Ohh geez Bill,
like the little cartoon sketch thingy. How nice of you to
feature me in it.
Really you shouldn’t have.
I’m so sorry. I didn’t know this was also kiddies forum. I feel
really bad now. I was taking it all far too seriously.
If we are all very quite he might draw some more cartoons and
tell us another story – all about The Magic Huts and their best
friend The Amazing Moving Tent.………
|
| |
|
|
bill Member
|
Post by bill on Feb 25, 2014 at 10:07am
Thanks Dee,
At first I thought your forum platform was the way all forums
should worked.
In the early days of Trent's forum he had a similar problem
but later discovered he was able to set 'preview image' to Large
which turned out to be around 700* pixels wide which helped ( *7
inches or 180cm.)
However, this still would not exactly help as we hope for text
and image text and 'images' showing around page width.
Certainly something has changed from when I first placed the
those Spring images on page1 using the 'insert Image button' ?
Maybe as an exercise I will sign up to one of those free
templates so I can have a look around and try a few things.
Lets ask the question out there - Are there any IT techs around
that know how to get the 'Insert image button' on Boards.net
forums working? |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
11:39am
The only
thing that spoils that little cartoon above is that it’s about
as accurate as the scaled diagram of the camp site which is
about as accurate as the diagrams in the Peter Fitzimons book.
Sadly even in those diagrams the burnt hut moves around in each.
Thank heavens the tent is shown but the hut behind which it was
pitched must have been out of view hiding somewhere.
Perhaps the hut new that the tent should have been on the other
side the log. So it was all confused.
Never mind. Apparently it doesn’t matter.
This tent does have a mind of it’s own as it has a habit of
moving around from one side of the clearing to the other. Seems
to be in a different location each time I look for it.
Tricky little sucker.
Back or forth the tent goes from the other side of SBC road to
the other – from 70 yards to 40 yards from the creek, all over
the place.
Maybe by moving the creek alignment further away in the scaled
diagram has added to the tents confusion. |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
11:55am
We have no
idea which hut is which anymore as besides moving around like
the tent, they change identities. Makes it even trickier.
Still that doesn’t matter as we should keep it in mind that the
two fireplaces are very important markers that fit the Burman
images, even if they may now not be in their original positions
as subsequent miners may have moved them when they built their
new huts.
Busy boys those miners.
This may account for the other 2 or 3 huts that were around the
place.
The problem is trying to identify which two fireplaces are the
important ones. |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
12:07pm
Would be interested to know which
one was the shingle hut that Ned referred to. Apparently he may
well have burnt this down. Ned may have also burnt the hut that
the tent was behind when they left the scene.
(Ned should never have been allowed to play with matches.)
Poor McIntyre no wonder he could not easily find the location of
the tent when he came back with the search party. Silly bugger
if he had of said that this hut was burnt as well as the tent
then it would have made things much easier to understand.
Guess it is partially McIntyre’s fault as we cannot really be
sure when wrote 70 yards he didn't mean 70 feet. Maybe that also
helps to explain why the tent and huts keep moving around, they
don’t know either.
Anyhow, someone should tell them all it is no use nit picking
about a few yards this way or that. They should all just chill
out and do what they are told. |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
12:10pm
Silly
McIntyre also had no idea as to the layout of the logs so had to
use the Burman images as a reference. To top it off he had no
idea which way was north or south.
Just like his distances, most of his descriptions are no good
either as they do not fit to the two (or 3 or 4 ) hut site.
If McIntyre said they pitched their tent behind an old hut, we
could then assume that hut must have had a front. Thanks Mac,
yes I suppose it did.
Not much help really, poor old McIntyre. What a nuisance.
It is all there in the conclusions. So it doesn’t matter, we
should believe anyway. |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
12:14pm
Clearly confused … One would have thought 12 years would be
enough time to work all this out.
Guess we will never know.
Anyway, it is all irrelevant nonsense what does it matter behind
which hut a tent was pitched, or what is a spring etc, etc,
.Clearly I know nothing as Bill keeps saying:
" Sorry Glenn, you and the CSI team you
are all very wrong. I don't know how many more times I have to
keep telling you-" |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
12:15pm
Get real Bill.
|
| |
|
|
Dee
Administrator
|
Post by Dee on Feb 25, 2014 at 7:44pm
Oh dear!
Glenn you're obviously very frustrated! And Bill is like a dog
with a bone!
And Kelvyn thinks our new Forum is on the path to self
immolation or tsunami wreckage! I hope not guys!
Its obvious you lot are never going to settle this dispute
that's been running for years it seems - and I think that's
because there is too much ambiguity in the various features that
you use in your arguments - this was my original point way back
on the bad Attitudes forum - that there are no absolutely
unequivocal facts that establish either site definitively - if
there were such facts then there would only be one camp.
But this Forum doesn't HAVE to slide down the path to self
immolation. I think agreeing to disagree and having respect for
the other persons view will avoid the Tsunami Wreckage. Bill is
entitled to his view and the CSI team are entitled to theirs -
both views seem to have been arrived at after lots of study and
thought and experimentation and are promoted in good faith.
Instead of having such a wide unfocussed discussion, if people
want to discuss SBC sites could we perhaps focus on one thing at
a time, as one of you suggested earlier? And As I suggested,
could the two camps explain how they worked out the orientation
of the Burman Photos? That would seem an obvious place to start.
|
| |
|
|
Roberto El Mo
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at
8:58pm (aka Kelvyn)
My wordy
word the story told by Glenn is indeed an excellent one it
demonstrates the contortionist, the re-inventor of "facts" which
have been altered time-and-time again by BD to suit his latest
suppositions which seem to be caused by the mentioning of a
matter to do with the spot and of which he had a different
position (in fact more than that well versed manual of -sorry I
forgot its name) every other full moon or whatever. I assume BD
is constantly bombarding the people who he says didn't heed his
most wonderous knowledge when they went and set up the walking
trails and such forth up at Stringybark Creek with his "edited"
or re-oriented diagrams etc of which Glenn has made reference
to. A serial player of the man it seems to me and not an
historians bootlace when it comes to presenting erudite literate
argument.
This it seems to me is diametrically opposite to the other
party's position - no constant revisionist material as their
report is still being sold (I assume) as it was when the
published document first became available for purchase.
My hats off to them for being able to stand by their report |
|
| |
|