This is a true copy of a forum debate about SBC where the Police were shot by the Kelly gang in 1878. These following 25 pages were lost when one of the participants complained to forum host Despite numerous efforts to have the whole forum re-instated by me, this topic was one of several threads on DEE's 'Ned Kelly Truth forum' that questioned the many mythologized elements of the Kelly story, and is the reason for much personal attack on those that may have alternative views of how Kelly history is recorded. Bill Denheld May 2014

Man stands at fireplace of one of two huts, the police tent stood behind where this photo was taken.The Kelly gang came from left of little hill above.

The Great Debate about Stringy-Bark Creek  


New Member

bill Avatar




























Post by bill on Mar 7, 2014 at 1:57pm

Thank you Kelvyn,
I think you and all readers would have to agree your CSI team's site is near the Kelly tree.
In your last post you advise me Bill to

" read what I said carefully, the tramway I referred to was between the road and the Creek, ie east of the road, ---- ---- ---- ----- I pointed out that there was a significant tramway running some distance along between the road and the creek – ie on the eastern side of the road. Remnants of the tramway were what became a well worn “path” that went passed the now No 3 Kelly Tree."

Back in 1985 I detected all through Kellys Creek area and tramways were very easy to follow because there were thousands of big rusty nails just under the surface soil. No such nails or evidence of tramways were ever detected by me along SBC.

I have a letter from Charlie Engelke ( now deceased), part of which is shown below,

Charlie writes- 25/4/2003
" 2/ I understand (was told by Dad) that the stump (of the Kelly tree)
was pulled out by the McCashneys. He was working at the Mill at the time.
I understood that it was in the way of a proposed tram line.

There were no remains of a tram line there so it seems the plan was changed"

About the police camp-
"4 / We were always told it was the west side adjacent to the tree marked by Beasely"

" 5 / -- --- --- --- "Locals always considered it to be the wrong place"

This Beasely K tree site is where CSI team have placed the Police tent, and assert that Burman took his photos looking North East towards the current Kelly tree, which they claim is somewhere in the 1878 Burman photo. That is why the CSI@SBC teams location is referred to as the Kelly tree site.

There is absolutely no reason why you should go crook at Horrie for referring to your police camp location as the Kelly tree site as it is the truth.


PS: Dee,
perhaps you could edit - grey out all postings that do not relate to the subject.



GuestGuest Avatar

Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 2:06pm

Brendon, I am having nightmares about "Sarah" and "her" relentless trouble-making in this Forum. You aren't helping.  

A smarter person would have realised I am avoiding "Sarah" at all costs.

Your wild pronouncements about threats and jibes are ridiculous. "Sarah" is the one with the 54 hate posts, not me.



Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 3:48pm

Question for one Mr Denheld &/or Horrie aka Mrs Denheld

The following image
 SBC36.jpg on page 8 
Is that a sketch of a tent pitched on your preferred slope? why would a band of first class bushman pitch a tent on a bloody slope? Please explain.
Also the figuration of the logs appear way off. I would also appreciate the feedback from the a member of the csi team. 

These are simple observations by a simple minded sympathiser.




Guest Avatar







































Notes in black text are by BILL to help explain to Glenn and the reader the orientation of the panorama views.

Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 4:43pm

I'm still trying to work out why the "tent stood here" as shown on page 2  ( on this forum)

Note added by Bill, Glenn does not realise this picture is a Panoramic view arcing through 160 degrees and the road wraps around behind the viewer running north south. Following Glenn's confusion I added the N East to South on this image below. The tent faces east.

Was moved from the North to the South side as on the map shown on page 9

Pitched behind which hut? 
( Bill's explanation note; There is a hut shown on map as yellow near W. The nearest hut fireplace is where it reads 2 Huts. This would be the hut they pitched the tent behind as the fireplace would not be considered as the front of the hut )   

Within the findings and conclusions -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location
( Note, Glenn could not even provide a link -    )

From page 29
Quote: 2.
“That the police tent was pitched on the rise slightly west of the road with a commanding view overlooking the numerous logs that the police had used as a beacon bon fire far enough from the tent.” Unquote

Note added by Bill,  Glenn, Yes this would be correct of the tent was 70 yards from the creek, but I always said it was more likely 70 feet, and this confusion is an oversight by me which Glenn has made me aware of, I go by my map as shown. This would have placed the tent on the far side of SBC road ?  Yes, but the tent was not there any longer as the reporter wrote only days later he said that ' from the little hill  (-slope) he could look down on the tent location ' the burnt out tent ' so we know the tent was on lower ground.


Quote: 3. “That the police tent was pitched behind a ruined hut but one still standing maybe slanted over and dilapidated ready to fall “ Unquote
  Note from Bill, Yes the ruined hut may well have been still standing only 'just'.  

So for now I will continue painting my house.


Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:11pm

Brian, Many eons ago the matter of pitching a tent in or on a spot where any good bushmen would was the subject of debate somewhere in another forum. It was pointed out to BD then that no sensible person with any knowledge of the bush would pitch on a slope and would seek out level/flat ground for the purpose. But you can only lead a horse to the water. The camp being near a spring with easy access would meet the bill most certainly, and I am certain they would have bucked the adage and had their fill.





Guest Avatar









































Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:13pm

And again here B (or W) D again attempts to mislead.
In his recent graphic with the wording at the bottom of it
“Images on map by W Denheld Jan 2013 . . . . pdf
The citation
“sketck of SBC approved by McIntyre. Editorial read – ‘Being drawn from a rough sketch, made at our request by constable McIntyre”
Well that’s not correct – the sketch drawn by McIntyre was indeed rough . The sketch was drawn by McIntyre on the 2 November on the day after he was admitted to the Police Hospital in Richmond, Melbourne.
The sketch, reproduced in many books consists of two intersecting logs, an indication of men advancing (the Kellys) represented by small circles, McIntyre’s position (a small circle) and notations of “Fire”, “Lonigan” (with perhaps a circle line arrow around his name) and “Scanlan Shot (circled). NO depiction of a tent nor a creek nor any directional information (the latter two would be included by McIntyre around ten years later in his very detailed to scale diagram now on permanent display at the Victoria Police Museum, and reproduced in both the CSI Team’s report and my book.
From this an artist produced the sketch shown by W Denheld.
AND the word “APPROVED” appears NOWHERE in the accompanying article – a verbatim transcript is below. If the words “, the words “its general correctness can be relied” are those of the newspaper and NOT words attributed to McIntyre. MCINTYRE DID NOT APPROVE ANYTHING (no wonder history becomes perverted when erroneous statements are made).
This rough sketch of McIntyre’s can also be accessed on-line in the Public Records Office VPRS 4966, Unit 2, Item 10 papers.
McIntyre’s rough sketch was also used by the prosecution at both Ned’s preliminary hearing and subsequent murder trial.
The correct citation of the newspaper is: The Sydney Mail New South Wales Advertiser.
And here is the story that accompanied the paper’s depiction:
Scene of the Bushranging Outrage
We have given to our readers a full description of the murderous outrage perpetrated by the Kelly gang of bushrangers on the police at Stringybark Creek in Victoria. What further details have come to hand of the endeavours made to bring the murderous villains to justice will be found in another column of this week’s issue. We are enabled this week to present our readers with a view of the scene of the encounter. For the most part it tells its own story, for it at once shows the desperate nature of the attack made by the Kelly party, the fatal results, and the narrow struggle for life which was made by the police concerned. Being drawn from a rough sketch, made at our request by constable M’Intyre, the sole survivor of the police engaged, very shortly after the outrage, when every detail was fresh in his memory, its general correctness can be relied upon. And looking at it, one may fairly ask whether a more deliberate bushranging murder has ever been committed in the colonies. That any of the police escaped at all is a wonder. The chances were a hundred to one that they would never more have been heard of until some chance traveler found a few skeletons, the identity of which with the missing troopers time had rendered impossible. It will be remembered the police were searching for the Kellys – well known horse-stealers – among the ranges at the head of the King River. As the neighbourhood was infested by the relations and connections of the Kelly family, the expedition was, especially to men who were imperfectly acquainted with the intricacies of the country, one of peculiar difficulty, though to some of them the general locality was well known. Their opponents were on the watch; and by some secret system of communication , the ring leaders were made acquainted, not only that search was instituted in the neighbourhood, but that the very movements of the searchers were closely observed. At length the police party, which consisted of sergeant Kennedy and constables M’Intyre, Scanlan, and Lonergan – all strong men over 30 years of age – left Mansfield in private costume. Equipped with revolvers, a rifle, and a double-barrelled gun, they arrived at Stringybark Creek, about 20 miles from the township, and camped near the creek. They were provisioned for a fortnight, and within that time they hoped to complete their capture. They pitched their tent in an open space, 80 yards from the creek, all around them being a thickly timbered and scrubby country, with the ranges of hills in the distance. Thick ferns, fallen trees, and sword-grass five feet high surrounded the camp. It was not thought by the party that the bushrangers were near them – such experience only, as backwoodsmen in America, or those accustomed to the treachery of Indians, would have suggested such a thing. Evidently, however, they were closely watched, and their preparations were well understood. Kennedy and Scanlan then went out on the search, leaving M’Intyre and Lonergan in charge. A fire was lighted, and M’Intyre with Lonergan was boiling the “billy” for the afternoon tea ready for their companions’ return, when suddenly through the grass appeared four men, one of them (subsequently recognized as Edward Kelly, the ringleader, whose portrait we gave last week) wearing a digger’s sash. E. Kelly carried two rifles, and had a thick beard; D. Kelly, next to him, was beardless; and there were two others, one of whom had a medium beard, and the other none. Each man wore a hat with a string coming down under the nose. This party made an immediate demand for surrender, and M’Intyre, being then unarmed, held up his arms; but poor Lonergan attempted to get behind a tree, and in doing so tried to draw his revolver. Kelly, seeing this, immediately shot him, and he died at once. Kelly then told M’Intyre to advise sergeant Kennedy and Scanlan, on their return, to surrender; but on hearing them approach, retired with his three brigands behind some logs, warning M’Intyre on pain of death not to give the alarm. This was the first attack.
The second is the subject of our picture.

“sketck” the k is two positions to the right of h! not even next to it.
I suggest that B (W) D takes a leaf out of Peter Fitzsimons’ book and his employment of a good editor (his wife) or at least take the time to re-read stuff before rushing to post.



Guest Avatar




Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:05pm

Horrie you are one waste of space. Your description of SBC 20 years ago when you supposedly visited there is very confusing, or you are not knowing east from west. From your description, I don’t believe you have ever been there as it is totally nonsensical! You have shown you know nothing about SBC and are just being a nuisance here, not contributing a thing.

Horrie any nightmares you may be having about Sarah would only be that she knows more about Stringybark Creek than you do as she has posted some interesting things along with the SBC team. I can assure you that I have been to SBC many times and Bill’s site is too small, the orientation is wrong by 180 degrees and no bloke would pitch a tent on the side of a steep rise.

You now question my intelligence for not supporting your vindictive persecution of her! I thought she asked you a reasonable question and you not only refuse to answer her, but you ridicule for asking you to explain your accusations.

Stop waffling Horrie and tell us who are Bill’s detractors that have never been there!


Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:48pm

Brendon, I don't give a fig what you think.

You assure us you have been to SBC many times. Prove it.

While you're at it, photos of Fitzy, Pooflower and Sarah at SBC would give credence to their claims...


Going Places
Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:13am

Geez Dee! Your forum is doing fifty times more business than all the other Kelly Forums combined. Imagine what a bit of publicity could do. Trent claims half-a-million hits on his moribund Ned Kelly Forum with six active members. Brad's IronOutlaw claims four million... There has been zero activity on your favourite, the Ned Kelly Forum boards, for days. "Fred" killed off discussion there forever.

There is immense potential to create THE ultimate Kelly Forum for all right here. You could become famous! You will need much more bandwidth if you are going to allow Glenn and Kelvyn to continue to post here.



New Member

bill Avatar









































Post by bill on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:37pm

At least I address people by name when I reply,

I thought you were a smart fellow.
You say you are still trying to work out where the tent stood at the two huts site. ref page 2
You show this image - the URL of the image above.  

Glenn, where I wrote on that image 'Police Tent stood here' This is looking east from the road. North is to the left of that image , South is looking up the road - little hill.
On the next image in your post of map with Scenes , do you see that yellow tent marked to the west of the map near where it has W = west OK. The tent was pitched on that flat bit of ground approximately near the road.  

I will show the readers the picture of where you and Kelvyn were asked to stand. You are standing in the area where the police tent was pitched, in relationship to the ruins of a hut - fireplace and foot print drawn in. Are you now able to follow that ?

Picture -

Glenn, if you still cannot work out where the tent stood near the two huts, then I suggest you may as well just keep painting your house.

Brian, why do you refer to Mrs Denheld, my wife as akas Horrie? Carla has not posted since being banned from Trent's forum, and if she did she would use her own name - not a pseudonym.

Brian you are nothing more than a pseudo for either Glenn or Kelvyn, we can pick it a mile off !

If you are a real person with an open mind why not just give me a ring today so we can have a chat. You can find my phone number in the book. I will report on this forum whether you rang me or not on Monday.

Remember too, you on another forum said you wanted me to show you SBC, you never contacted me and I wonder why? If I don't hear from you today, or Sunday, it will be confirmed you are just a patsy for these CSI experts who can't even read a map, interpret images, make sense of history, yet try to influence the public with pseudo publications that are based on false beliefs. Brian, please look up patsy in the dictionary.



GuestGuest Avatar


Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:41pm

Bill’s site is too small, says Brendon. Const McIntyre said it was SMALL!

And don't be shy about those pics. We're all patiently waiting!



Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:55pm

Why are you so abusive to everyone Horrie? It that the way you welcome a new person to this forum? Dee has obviously got no control over you and gives you ‘carte blanche’ on this forum. Something here doesn’t add up.

You assure us you have been to SBC many times. Prove it.

Well Horrie can you prove you have been there? Your knowledge of the area appears limited and you have trouble grasping what Glenn and Kelvyn have graciously posted here to help you understand. I am still considering both sides and have no problem understanding the data submitted by both sides as I know the area well.

If you want photos of Fitzy, Pooflower and Sarah, I suggest you direct your request to them.



GuestGuest Avatar

Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:57pm

"Fred" on Ned Kelly Forum boards claimed Dee was Carla. His record for identifying people is very poor though.

Great photo Bill!   Surely Glenn and Kelvyn will get 'the picture' sooner or later?

It doesn't look as if the tent was on much of a slope either, as contended by someone or other, a day or two ago.


Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:09pm

Brendon, I have several aces to play on whether I have visited SBC or not. You will be gobsmacked by who can prove I've been there, which is why I'm going to keep you waiting a very long time. You will look like a complete clot!  Pooflower and "Sarah" are invisible in the real world and are not contactable as you well know. Fitzy can't provide an SBC pic. 
Which leaves you. Where's the proof you have been been to SBC many times?



New Member

bill Avatar



































































Post by bill on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:29pm

Notice Kelvyn does not mention he was wrong about the tramway along SBC.
The track he referred to was in fact the Bridle track on the western bank of the creek leading up to the two huts and beyond.

In his latest posting, Kelvyn is talking about The Sydney Mail sketch 'approved by McIntyre' because Mc had provided the essential information to the artist enabling him to execute the sketch.
The sketch note reads -"Being drawn from a rough sketch, made at our request by constable McIntyre"
The sketch by McIntyre may have been rough, but the final art work is very refined and graphically accurate.

Kelvyn then referrers to two maps McIntyre had drawn, one large map turned up only a few years ago 2010. This larger map only shows two logs laying around 100 degrees included angle with a tent placed in the lower south west corner of the map with North up. Still no creek, only notes, and he has one Mc ( himself)  miss placed on the wrong side of the log when he was supposed to be facing north when the other half of the police party returned.

Kelvyn then referrers to the Sydney Mail sketch as having been drawn 2 Nov - - - - no year, but goes on to say ' on the day after he (Mc) was admitted to the Police hospital in Richmond Melbourne.

Of this McIntyre map and sketch, Kelvyn in his post above writes - The map-

Quote- " the latter two would be included by McIntyre around
ten years later in his very detailed to scale diagram now on permanent display at the Victoria Police Museum, and reproduced in both the CSI Team’s report and my book.
From this an artist produced the sketch shown by W Denheld."

Oh boy, this must be the joke of the decade. Kelvyn, I don't know where you get your information from, perhaps from your own book? The" Sydney Mail" sketch shown on my map of SBC -

-was first published on 16 Nov 1878 - just 3 weeks after the event which makes it Primary Source material- and NOT AT ALL- ten years after the event as you falsely claim.

The CSI@SBC report does not even show this 'Sydney Mail sketch' or the SBC wide scene in the 'Australasian Sketcher', or the 'News Illustrated front cover', why not ? Because it does not help their cause for the Kelly tree site.

What is the value of a SBC report that excludes important Primary Source sketch material drawn at that time when state of the art photogrphic cameras were only just beginning to replace the artists work. Sketches had to be an accurate depiction of any scene.

Why Kelvyn would type out a transcript accompanying the Sydney Mail sketch in it entirety in a solid almost unreadable block is beyond me. Just read out the highlighted text is enough.

And yes, the artist has drawn two logs meeting up, but on careful examination of the Burman photos - shows the configuration was made up of three tree log parts. Three trees were felled to meet at one junction point. For all intentions the Sydney Mail sketch perfectly captures all the elements of the scene relative to each other.

Readers, please note this sketch does not sit well with the CSI Kelly tree scenario.
I will tell you why they want to ignore it,-

1, Because CSI team only want to use McIntyre's base map instead of a combination of all primary source materials. They blindly follow Linton Briggs's scenario.

2, They want the Burman photo to be looking North East -FROM near the Tent in the Sydney Mail sketch, yet the sketch' clearly shows the direction the Kellys are shooting the police - to the North, and from where the police came back to camp, this orientates the sketch. The view of the sketch is looking WEST.

3, If McIntyre was told to sit on a log facing North -as he did, then the Burman photo is looking South which is proven by the sun light shadow demonstration on page4 of this SBC thread.









Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:44pm

Horrie who cares about your ‘aces’, as that proves nothing other than you are full of hot air. I will certainly not be waiting as you have proved you haven’t studied are in detail. You shot yourself in the foot with your statement;

It doesn't look as if the tent was on much of a slope either, as contended by someone or other, a day or two ago.

This proves you have never been to the two rock piles (as someone hysterically called them), walked up that slope or seen the angle from side on! Photos can be deceptive, so there goes one of your aces!

I think that is enough proof that I have been there, because I know what you don’t!

Bill, the people in the Burman photo were ‘props’ and their positions cannot be taken as fact. There have been many attempts at explaining these figures and the consensus is they do not accurately depict anything other than props to sell copies of Burman’s photos.



Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 3:47pm

Brendon, please desist from disrupting everyone - including me.

I want to see what CSI and Bill have to say - not you or "Sarah".





Post by Dee on Mar 8, 2014 at 4:10pm

Bill your graphics are impressive. There has been commentary here that the place you have the tent is not flat and that no experienced bushman would ever put up a tent on a slope. So is it flat where Kelvyn and Glenn are standing or not? If its not flat what is your response to their belief that anyone knowing anything wouldn't put a tent there?

There has been an enormous concentration on Bills site so far, but as I said before, attacking it doesn't make a case for any other site. I want to see the case for the CSI site, descriptions of exactly where it is, how the photos fit it better and so on.


I am who I say I am




Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 5:35pm

Mr. Denheld,
Dream on dude.
You are not worthy of receiving a call from the likes of me.
Redeem yourself and set the record straight or forever more been known as a liar of history.
Bill, As usual you have the facts twisted in a blender yet once more. I say I am, who I say I am and I'm no pseudo for glen or kelvyn. I have never met the pair. Bill we shall meet one day soon and when we do I may extend my hand as a gesture of courtesy & respect. Until then remember this; I am, who I say I am
Dee, I agree. Bills graphics are impressive though not convincing. The formula does not work. 








Post by Dee on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:23pm

"I am who I say I am" - and Bill - in fact, everyone - a reminder : PLEASE be respectful of each other. There is never any need for personal attacks. We already have a resident troll, we don't want any more. Perhaps I am naive, but I have always believed that the main protagonists in the SBC debate are sincere and honourable men, dedicated to their passion about where things happened at SBC.
Play on



More to come in due course
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25