Saturday, 28 October 2017

Ned Kelly Documentary : the Good the Bad and the Ugly


I think that everyone with more than a passing interest in the Kelly story will have been watching Foxtel’s History Channel  last Tuesday night at 8.30 pm to see the heavily promoted first episode of their new series, Lawless: the real bushrangers. This one was about Ned Kelly.

In the promos, Kelly followers were all warned that the documentary would change Kelly history for ever and that not everyone would be happy with their conclusions. None of us were sure if the documentary was going to bolster the view that Kelly was  a hero, or the idea that he was a villain.  It purported to be ground breaking, research based and scientifically validated, backed up by “Experts” and to have found answers to questions that had been asked for nearly 140 years. However, it was clear the focus would be on Stringybark Creek, the place where the gang murdered three policemen. My interest was in how they would account for Lonigans death, and in where they might decide it all happened. I’ve now watched the entire documentary three times. I would encourage anyone who has seen it once to see it a few more times because there is an immense amount of detail and a lot of ground covered in a very short time.

In brief, as expected, the hour long documentary concentrated on Stringybark Creek. The archaeologist claimed to have identified the exact site of the police camp and the police murders using some whizz-bang drone based 3D technology , the forensic pathologist claimed to have shown that Lonigan was shot by at least two people and that Kennedys death was an execution rather than a mercy killing, and the historian claimed that Irish criminal  gangs called the White boys may have influenced Ned. She also set the social scene that prevailed at the time saying that it was a time of unique opportunity for the working poor, following years of land and class tension. She said the poor ‘were working bloody hard to try and turn it (their selection) into something, and to lead an honourable if humble life, but that existence wasn’t for everyone’ referring obviously to the Kelly brothers preference for the easier life and greater rewards of a criminal lifestyle and stock theft.

This was all rather clinical and academic, so to add a bit of touchy-feely  human emotion to the story they contrived a meeting between an angry descendant of one of the murdered police, Leo Kennedy and a relaxed and comfortable Kelly descendant, Anthony Griffiths. It was no surprise that he trotted out the well-worn favourite of Kelly apologists, that none of this would have happened if the police hadn’t gone to the Kelly home to arrest Dan. Put another way, the silliness of this argument is too obvious: yes,  if the Police hadn’t gone about their duty and attempted to arrest criminal suspects, none of this would have happened! Actually none of this would have happened if the Kelly’s weren’t big time criminal stock thieves but law abiding citizens, like the huge majority of selectors in the North East, as Doug Morrissey has pointed out with actual research. What a pity Anthony Griffiths was allowed to get away with this silly excuse unchallenged. For more human interest they also filmed a Kelly fancier getting a Ned Kelly tattoo – this was the guy who used to call himself a Kelly historian but was described here as a ‘Kelly fan’. Every so often he sends me abusive texts on Facebook, none of which I have ever replied to. Nice to see what he looks like close up! His last message to me ended “See you soon” which was supposed to be a threat, but that was months ago. Funny how I ended up seeing him but he still hasn’t seen me!

I was pleased that the overall impression created by the documentary is that Ned Kelly was a violent murderer, because that’s the historical truth about him. I wonder if the ‘Kelly Fan” is still happy that he got his 15 seconds of fame by assisting them get that message across, because Kelly fanciers universally hated the documentary,  and on the History channels Facebook page, vented their rage :

·      “Fake stories about real people. History being invented by media isn't real history. Pathetic series, poorly researched and very one sided.
·      “I watched the first few minutes and thought ..... “What a load of crap !!!!!” The pursecution of the Kelly Family started with his father. Just more garbage for the ignorant to regurgitate”
·      “I turned it off when the show began at Stringy Bark Creek ...... oppression of the Kelly Family began in Ireland.”
·      What an absolute load of rubbish glad i didn't watch this rubbish nothing but witch hunt
·      Could see by advertising, main pic.....'Ned, standing over the unarmed cop, with gun at cops head' . That set the picture for bullshit. Biased, lm not watching it. I cannot tolerate liars...and this 'doco' ....fantasy by sounds of it...is not worth watching! Cunning barstards. Hope currupt cops grandson feels better .

(The spelling is all their own)

The Facebook Kelly devotees also trotted out all the usual myths about Kelly persecution, corrupt police, Fitzpatrick being drunk and raping Kate, and so on. The Kelly troll advanced a conspiracy theory about the Royal Commission that I hadn’t come across before, and confessed whats  long been suspected that he has only managed to read at most half of the book he has been attacking for four years or more. Half is probably a generous over-estimate, but one doesn’t expect rational behaviour or logical thought from people who think a violent police murderer and wannabe mass murderer is a hero.

However one does expect a much higher standard from people who promote themselves as ‘experts’ and professionals, but it wasn’t much better. The Lawless team produced a deeply flawed analysis that exposed their lack of a detailed knowledge of the subject matter, and sacrificed their professional integrity for the need to grandstand, to inflate their own egos and merely produce something that was entertaining and perhaps would be a commercial success. What anyone who is familiar with the subject would have known, but nobody else in Australia would have known, is that almost everything they claimed to have “discovered” had been well and truly ‘discovered’ and analysed and discussed and turned upside down and inside out long before these ‘experts’ appeared on the scene. This naked grandstanding and misrepresentation of the truth was truly sickening.

So, for example they claimed this was the first time since the murders that a Kelly descendant and a Kennedy descendant had met, face to face.  Here’s the facts : McIntyre, Kennedy, Hart, Kelly and Lloyd descendants met at SBC in 2001 at the unveiling there of the Police Memorial.(Ian Jones; A Short Life p 419)  I don’t blame Mike Munro for not knowing that, but perhaps if they had employed not just ‘experts’ but experts in the Kelly story they would have been spared making that embarrassing blunder.

They also created an impression that if she didn’t actually discover it, Keira Lindsey the historian was among the first to make use of the relatively recently discovered map of the area made by McIntyre: “Keira has something new to bring to the table” said Mike Munro breathlessly.  Here’s the facts:  this map has been widely published and used in many discussions about SBC for years. It’s in the first CSI Report from 2011, MacFarlanes 2012 book, and in Kelvyn Gills 2017 publication! Its nothing new at all to people who actually are familiar with the Kelly story. As for her ‘unique theory’ about the Whiteboy rebel gangs of Ireland – she was drawing a very long bow here indeed because as I discovered on Wikipedia the Whiteboys were a late 18th century phenomenon, a fact not mentioned in the documentary, and the only “link” she produced between them and Ned Kelly was an entirely contrived parallel between ‘threatening letters’ that they wrote, and the last few words of the Jerilderie Letter : “my orders must be obeyed” . This was an unconvincing performance but I wonder if we should  be keeping an eye out for Kiera Lindsays research publications on the topic? Somehow I think the whiteboys reference was just an opportunity for a few shots of the inside of the State Library of  Victoria, images that were expected to add gravitas and a hint of academic rigor to the documentary, and I suspect Dr Lindseys interest in the whiteboys finished once the filming was done.  I think I might email her to find out.

The documentary claims that ‘the Lidar technology has led Adam to an extraordinary find’ and Adam Ford announces triumphantly “the location of the Police camp hinged on us  finding archaeological remains of this hut – and we’ve done it” But here are the facts : firstly if I am not mistaken these hut remains had long ago been identified by the CSI team, and I suspect are the ones depicted in a photograph in their Updated Report, and identified in the map they drew in 2011. Bill Denheld has also seen these remains and discussed them on his web site.  There was never any need for a drone and Lidar technology to find these remains – that was just razzle-dazzle aimed at blinding the audience with “Science”. God only knows how many thousands they spent on the “Lidar” equipped drone but for fifty bucks they could have got a copy of the CSI report with a map that would take them straight to it!

As for whether or not they are  actually the remains of the hut depicted on the 1884 map – there is enormous well founded doubt that they are. The Lawless team should have known that a second surveyors Map produced the very next year, 1885, placed that hut in a very different position.  I noted in the documentary that at least one of the ‘stones’ had flat surfaces at right angles to each other, suggesting this fireplace, if that’s what it is, may well be of a much more modern era than 1884. Heritage Victoria are expecting to receive a full report of this archaeological dig, but as it has not yet been completed one wonders how Adam Ford, who calls himself an archaeologist, can be so confident. Frankly I doubt the report will ever appear anywhere.  Its apparent Ford was convinced of his find the moment the tiniest bit of a fireplace emerged from under the dirt : this looks so much like cowboy archaeology and tunnel vision rather than balanced careful scientific research, but they claimed that the SBC site “had never had a full scientific examination until now”. I will wait till I have read the report of their Dig, the one expected by Heritage Victoria to see how justified Fords confidence is, but to describe what they did there as a ‘full scientific examination’ was nowhere near accurate. It was hype. And if the report ever emerges I bet it wont be anywhere near as dogmatic about that site as Ford was on the documentary.

Given the very real uncertainty about the identification of the Hut, very real uncertainty remains about Adam Fords boast that ‘we can now assert for the first time ever that this location here ( pointing to the picnic area)  is the site of the shootout and the killing of police on the 26th October 1878” There are at least three fatal flaws in Adam Fords chosen site : firstly, in the Burman Photo that he is familiar with, you can see the posts of the ruined hut only a few yards away, just to the right of the logs that McIntyre and Lonigan were standing beside when bailed up. When Adam Ford strides across the grass pretending to be Lonigan retreating, counting the steps as he goes, he should be almost right on top of the ruined hut, but in fact from what I could determine from the documentary the Ford Hut is 15 or 20 or more yards away. Secondly,  from the Burman photos we know that if you were standing at the hut and looking at the camp site and the logs you would be facing south or south west, but as you will see in the graphic in the documentary, they have the camp site northeast from the Hut. 180 degrees out! The other obvious flaw is that as Ford himself pointed out when rejecting the traditional sites claim to be the correct one, there is no slope as seen in the Burman photo. If one place is rejected because there’s no slope, wouldn’t you have to reject every site that doesn’t have a slope?  Hoisted by his own petard one might say!


In the next part of the documentary they explore Ned Kellys accounts of the killing of Lonigan and Kennedy. Shooting the quartered bullet  from the rifle at the pig carcase was a great idea. It showed exactly what Ive been saying for a long time, that Lonigan was killed when Kelly fired a load of shot or some sort of multiple projectiles at him. They may have thought they were revealing something never before considered when they also fired a revolver into the carcase at point blank range, in an attempt to understand if the wound in Lonigans left thigh was self inflicted. They did indeed show that the injury and the powder burns didn't match what was described at Lonigans autopsy in 1878, and so discounted that theory, but all that information had been put together and the same conclusion reached by Ian MacFarlane in his book written in 2012 - yet another 'revelation' that was actually old news. 

However the forensic pathologist  blundered in saying that there must have been at least two 'shooters'. He said this because he didn't consider the real possibility that the Doctor who did the autopsy might have been mistaken when he said he removed an ordinary revolver bullet from Lonigans thigh. It quite easily could have been another one of the pieces of lead fired in that one devastating blast from Ned Kellys rifle. The trouble with saying there were at least two shooters is that you then have to go on and answer the next logical questions about them, namely who were they and when did they fire this revolver at Lonigan? This leads into an almost impossible mess of speculations and propositions, the only remotely possible solution being that whoever fired that revolver did it at EXACTLY the same time as Ned fired his rifle. It needs to be EXACTLY the same time because McIntyre only reported ever hearing ONE shot. The Lawless team couldn’t work it out, so  concluded with “Lonigans thigh wound remains a mystery”. I solved that mystery last year, and explained it again HERE with some great artwork created with a drone and a laser by Bill Denheld! ( well, actually he used paper and a pencil!)

I tried to explain all this to the Genepool producers of Lawless late last year, and they seem to have accepted most of what I said but unfortunately didn't think it all the way through.

This highlights what I think might prove to be a really serious problem with this series : the 'experts' are so taken with their own genius that they were not willing to listen to people who, when it came to Stringybark Creek, actually WERE experts. They should have consulted Ian MacFarlane and Bill Denheld and the CSI team, Doug Morrisey and Grantlee Kieza. These are people who have spent years and years up there, they know every stream and rock and mine shaft like the backs of their hands, they have thought about all the possible sites for the shoot out, and argued amongst themselves for years - but these Lawless 'experts' rocked up, did a two week tour, made a few clever props, launched their drone for a fly over, filmed a fireplace and shot through. What a shame they didn't have the decency to show respect to the actual SBC experts -  have the humility to let them speak, to listen to their arguments and their insights, to put aside their own need to be centre stage and thereby make a much better documentary. The only recognised Kelly authority mentioned in  the credits is the inevitable Ian Jones. As a result it seems what they've done is please almost nobody who knows anything at all about the place, and fool everyone else with their false claims to have made all sorts of sensational discoveries with their fancy gadgets.

These documentary makers have not identified the site of the Police murders. They didn't quite solve the mystery of Lonigans wounds. They did however graphically remind everyone who watched it that Ned Kelly was indeed "a clear eyed killer". That at least is a step in the right direction. 

27 comments:

  1. Well done to Bill Denheld on his updated version of the SBC location on his ironicon.com.au website.Bill rightly gives credit to The CSI team for the discovery of a fireplace near the SBC picnic area.This correctly was the CSI discovery and the claim to fame by Genepool and Lawless is totally incorrect.The drone/helicopter did not discover this particular fireplace at all but fascinated all their viewers as it did I.I am sure you will all enjoy what has been put on Bills site and has only been updated recently....regards Bob

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unlike the claim on Lawless, there was no autopsy of Sgt Kennedy as his body was in an advanced state of decomposition. The Kelly Gang Unmasked book reveals gruesome details of four wounds and, according to the Mansfield Police occurrence book, the horrible fact that his corpse had been robbed of a gold watch and locket.

    Dee, I agree Lawless was pathetic research. Genepool got in touch with several Kelly experts but ignored their advice and leads.

    Viewers got dudded by fools from South Australia who didn't know what they were talking about.

    I wish I hadn't seen this rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The real problem with TV History programs, such as Foxtel History, is that academics struggling for recognition can come up with program ideas even though they lack relevant knowledge or experience. If the idea has promise, they can get included in a TV program. Its like funding and can be included in CVs, etc.

    SA Uni Senior Lecturer Dr Kiera Lindsey of Lawless has already cashed in on her "experience" with the Lawless series.:

    https://au.linkedin.com/in/dr-kiera-lindsey-186322b

    She has few published works, certainly none about Ned Kelly or his gang. Her contribution to the show was minimal.

    She is attractive, but this is hardly a plus when dealing with understanding a controversial national icon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Foxtel History reran Lawless at 10.30 this morning. Made the mistake of watching. Noticed lots more small mistakes.

    The archeolgist's police camp site didn't have the Burman background. Bill's does. I very much doubt he found the place where Sgt. Kennedy was despatched.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Neil et all, I have added a few more images to-
    http://www.ironicon.com.au/lawless-ned-kelly-site-wrong-oct-2017.htm which, may surprise a few.
    For those who have not seen my reply to the Lawless Mike/Adam show on History Channel, I have added 9 more photos to the previous 7. Watch out as time goes on I might add a few more.

    Now that the CSI@SBC scenario has been ripped off by Lawless Adam Ford, the CSI team can't be too happy.

    As flawed as both scenarios are, one hanging onto an unrelated Kelly tree, the other onto the spurious picnic ground, both tied to ONE pile of rocks between them.

    Neither groups can say they have a genuine pre 1878 structure to anchor their location.

    I've done a few calculations, -
    At the site of the Two Huts up SBC road, we can easily place 3 logs each 10 or 12 M long, in a configuration as in the Burman photos. We can be encompass it all by with a 15 x15 M square piece of land. = 225 square metres.

    By comparison, the CSI teams report, they need an area of about 20 x 40 M, = 800 square metres to encompass their rock pile with the logs as in McIntyre's map.

    The Lawless Adam Ford needs an area 20 x 50 M, or 1000 square metres. In other words an area big enough for a village of huts, but up until now he might not even have a hut to hang his hat on.

    From what I have been told, DELWP plan to remove all the BBQs from the picnic ground to make room for the police memorials in time for the 140th anniversary of the police killed there . Perhaps they will then finish off that CSI pile of rocks, the subject of the Lawless Ford archaeological dig, and restore that site as the original BBQ@SBC that was started during the 1970's but were never finished, as I believe someone higher up then decided to create the current picnic ground further north, which was finished several years later.

    No doubt the CSI team will have all gathered together to figure out their next move as not to do so, shows little conviction on their part, but perhaps Fitzy can now take over as spokesperson for CSI representing their site where nothing ever happened

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your's is a very powerful presentation Bill

      Delete
  6. Keep up your great input and feedback Bill. You know you are right. Prof Tim Flannery, John Doyle, Ian Macfarlane, Bob McGarrigle, Dee and scores of others know you are absolutely spot on. They've all seen the 1878 Burman background to your police camp site. It ain't half obvious, is it!

    You have suffered endless attacks from pro-Kelly fanatics and bullies over many years, even though you are a greater sympathiser than them yourself.

    Many years ago I visited the BBQ area at SBC and examined the tree with the Kelly helmet embedded in it. I imagined I was in the right spot.

    The Lawless archeologist (cough, splutter, gasp) proved I was wrong.

    I won't be watching the rest of this series. The Ned Kelly opener was mistake-ridden, abominable nonsense.

    Do them very slow, Bill!

    DELWP needs to keep its grubby, ignorant hands a million miles away from this sacred place. I hope they have sent their "consultant" his final cheque and separation notice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sure Bill will confirm this Horrie.Bill originally did not question that the current site was correct just as I did.I thought this site had been proven by the authorities and was beyond doubt that it was.When Bill found the 2 fireplaces at the 2 hut site I reconsidered too well after Bill and Garys discovery.It took me 2 visits to SBC before I found Bills site with my brother Terry.This is when Sheila Hutchison helped me on I think it was Bruce Johnsons KC2000 forum.As I said to Bill the other day I wish I had kept a diary and kept a record of all this Kelly stuff especially SBC.Unfortunately I did not and that disappoints me.
      I will never criticise the CSI team as a lot of people have done on here because they have done an enormous amount of good work in proving the police campsite is on the west and not the eastern bank site.They like Bill believe they have located the correct spot and good luck to them they have the right to their opinion too.CSI like Bill have both proven that the Lawless site is simply incorrect.All the real and creditable researchers deserve a lot of credit in trying to help in particular the police descendants families find the correct location.
      In the end it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong there are a lot of people out there on both sides what we should be thanking and not criticising..Regards Bob

      Delete
    2. As you know, Bob, you have to walk past the CSI's Kelly tree to get to Bill's two huts site.

      At the CSI site, no matter where you look, there is no Burman background anywhere.

      I too have been at one of Bill's presentations at his two huts site. And there in the background, for all to see, was Burman's contemporary photographic backdrop.

      I don't understand, Bob, why you say "In the end it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong".

      Of course it matters!

      I am critical of CSI because they picked the wrong place. So did Lawless.

      Why credit people who got it all wrong? That's d a f t...

      Delete
    3. Hi Horrie .Maybe a use of the wrong words by me I guess.
      In the past week I have been in contact with both Bill by telephone and Kelvyn by email as I have lost his business card that came with his book.I thanked both parties for all the work they have done over the past 10 years and I have been involved with both sides in debate and not bigotry and biased views.(some would probably disagree with that statement too)
      I have copies of both their documents and certainly do not regard the CSI sites book a waste of money,far from it.The history of McIntyre,his statements and drawings are great value in themselves. The history of the 3 Kelly trees and to me the most important aspect of all is the history of the Cuddon and Beautiful Mansfield photos.Far greater minds than I have changed their minds on the proper campsite of the police and undoubtedly will in the future
      In my opinion the 2 photos that I have just mentioned either prove or disprove the campsite.The CSI site 50yards south of the Kelly tree is definitely the same area as the Mansfield and Cuddon photos.If these photos are really the police campsite the CSI team are correct and we are wrong.Its my opinion those 2 photos are not the campsite because both show a decline down to the creek and the slope is on the other side of it.The creek is not in the Burman photos,there is no decline and the ground before the slope is flat.I just cannot by the life of me fit the two photos into the Burman shots at all.I have stated this for many years and contradicts the CSI but I like any human being could dtill be wrong.
      I am sure Horrie if you went to SBC with CSI team like me you may come away with a different view just as a well known identity has already done so.
      A quick question are Horrie and Horrie plus Alf the same person or is there 2 Horries?....regards Bob

      Delete
    4. So just who were the DELWP people involved with the identification of the site? I assume it has to be Heritage Victoria as the overarching department when it comes to heritage and historic sites. I would be very curious to know if it is the same person who watched while the wholesale destruction of the siege site at Glenrowan was carried out.

      Delete
    5. Robert, Just lets be honest, we all know the police camp can only be at one place.

      In 2009, at the time of our SBC investigations, we were a team to solve a problem, and had 'they' then been prepared to take into account the photographic evidence, and on the ground orientation, and at the offset, stick to our agreement that nothing would be published without the team's full and total agreement, then I'm sure given time, we would have settled on a site. End of argument.

      Eight years on, the CSI@SBC team have themselves to blame for the way they were screwed by the authorities and 'Lawless' Adam Ford. The CSI document I found it astonishingly short of rigour and at the time could not put my name to it.

      During the SBC onsite investigations which went for four days, Gary Dean only turned up once for one hour, Linton Briggs for one day, but I did not fall for his 'Kelly tree scenario'. Its hard to know why Gary stuck to being a team member of CSI when he had said to me I was probably right about the two huts fireplaces.
      Please lets not suffer and apologise for any more fools.

      Delete
  7. I cannot believe Foxtel History hasn't pulled the error-ridden Lawless series. Garbage in, garbage out. GIGO. The next episode is tomorrow.

    Doing myself a favour - Won't be viewing myself.

    Once burnt, twice shy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Captain Moonlite archival records are at the end of the boxes of the "Kelly Collection" at Public Record Office Victoria. Maybe Lawless's Dr Keira Lindsey managed to find them there? Didn't watch Lawless tonight, so don't know.

      Suppose I'll have to watch the "encore" to find out if she muffed it.

      Groan.

      Delete
    2. Don't think Foxtel History will be pulling the Lawless series. Their programs are low-end, cheap stuff. They don't care about mistakes, its only history.

      Delete
  8. If Mike Munro was such a great yesteryear journo, why didn't he realise the South Australian "experts" were such a bunch of duds?

    You've got to wear it Mike. Lawless was a creepy non-show. Genepool fooled you completely.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dee, since constables Lonigan and Scanlon got four wounds - and so did Sgt Kennedy, do you contend Ned was only firing quartered bullets. You haven't said as much, but I was just wondering. Sgt Kennedy got a coup de grace later in the one-sided, so-called shootout. His other three wounds could have been revolver shots which Ned was then firing. But that still leaves Lonigan an Scanlon.

    Any thoughts?

    In the Lawless show (at VicPol forensic lab) all the quarters and wad missed the target pig. Only two quarters and a hole made by the wad turned up in the rear wall. The other two quarters vanished. As you know Dee, I think quartered bullets would be volatile and could spin off anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Saw on the net tonight a Lawless photo taken at Stringybark Creek showing the copper from the Forensic lab firing at a gelatin "body" (so beloved on Mythbusters). There were so many things missing on the Lawless "Ned Kelly" show, including some of their own creations.

    But there were plenty of Lawless photos of the "stars" of the show lounging and posing around SBC. This was disrespectful, in my opinion.

    Few favourable reviews on the net, but plenty of Foxtel bumf. Ratings have plummeted. Tough t*tties!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I challenge Bill Denheld to prove the two huts site without the Burman photograph

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean, make it up without using the actual evidence that supports it? What planet are you on

      Delete
    2. I challenge anyone that thinks the site was somewhere else to prove it with the Burman photograph!

      Delete
    3. Peter, you're dead right. There can't be any other Burman backdrops. There is only one. Its at Bill Denheld's Two Huts site.

      But Fitzy is trying to weasel a way around this fundametal problem: "Ned Kelly - Unmasking "The Kelly Gang Unmasked book" says 'Funny you should say these [Burman] photos resemble Bill’s site Bob. Only here the slope is steeper like the Burman photos and at Bill’s site it is a long gradual slope. I sure I read somewhere what type of method of photography Burman most likely used. Not sure where it was though Bob'.

      Yeah, right Fitzy. What a load of old cobblers! You and your hate site are a joke.

      Delete
    4. By reading some FB pages, I would have thought Fitzy and his CSI confederates - would try counter the hiding they got from Lawless Adam Ford. Instead they are hung out to dry and congratulating themselves to coming last in their 10 year marathon.
      http://www.ironicon.com.au/burman-photo-analysis.htm

      Delete
    5. Fitzy's long and gradual slope is in his imagination. The advantage of Bill's police camp site is that in the backround the Burman photos can be clearly seen. Of course the Burman photos aren't identical with what can be seen in the background today. There have been changes. But the majority of major features and topography fit exactly.

      Fitzy, as usual, is mucking around and fiddling with facts he doesn't really understand. He's good at that. Don't worry about "what type of method of photography Burman most likely used" or the focal length of his lens. If you can see the Burman photos in the background at Bill Denheld's Two Huts site, you can be certain you are at the original police camp site and Kelly Gang murder crime scene.

      After a visit to Specsavers, Fitzy should go back to the two huts site and have another look.

      Delete
    6. Fitzy is still avoiding his copyright obligations by using the stolen photo of Ned all dolled up the day before his execution. I strongly object to this theft of Victorian history that does not belong to Fitzy - who stole it.

      He should submit a request to use it, and pay whatever is required to use it on his hate site. I doubt if he will be given permission to use it on a nasty hate blog.

      I will be contacting SLV and PROV on Monday to find out why they should not prosecute this copyright thief.

      Delete
  12. @ElijahUpjohn One week to go and extra claret ordered #MelbourneGaol

    ReplyDelete
  13. On his misleading blog, that fathead Fitzy is trying to figure out Lonigan's thigh wound to disprove Lawless's Prof Byard's conclusion there were two shooters of Lonigan.

    The lazy slacko says "Dr. Reynolds said the thigh bullet was “small, as of a revolver”, not that it was a revolver bullet! No other bullets were retrieved from Lonigan’s body, so no comparison could be made with what caused the other wounds. With a larger bullet that is quartered, wouldn’t those quarters be smaller, ‘as of a revolver’! Very sloppy research! The ballistic demonstration was pure armature [sic] hour".

    This is total nonsense,

    Fitzy has utterly confused the earlier FitzPatrick wrist wound (which was never examined by Dr Reynolds, but was examined and treated by Benalla doctor John Nicholson) with the conical revolver bullet recovered from Lonigan's thigh by Dr Reynolds, identified as a revolver bullet, presented in court, and seen there by McIntyre.

    Therefore, Dr Reynolds never made the statement "the thigh bullet was “small, as of a revolver” as claimed by Fitzy.

    The guy is a dunderhead, former truckie and UFO believer.

    Duh!

    ReplyDelete

1. Moderation is back on. I haven’t got time to be constantly monitoring what comments are made and deleting the mindless rubbish that Kelly sympathisers have been posting lately. Please post polite sensible comments, avoid personal abuse and please use the same name whenever you Post, even if its a made-up name.


2. Do you want to provide an active Link in your Comment? The simplest way that I can suggest is to click HEREand follow the simple instructions. This site creates the Tag that you then copy and insert into your Comment.