Friday, 13 October 2017

The Updated CSI@SBC Report : $50 wasted!


Five years ago, in 2012 , a team of four amateur historians issued a report describing how they tried to work out exactly where the Kelly gang murdered the Policemen at Stringybark Creek. The Report was called “CSI@SBC”, but the central arguments of their case were fatally flawed, as I showed in my review of the report HERE. 

The CSI team have recently released an updated version of this original Report. This is how they announced it on a Members Only Internet forum a few weeks ago:

An updated report (ISBN: 978-0-9873615-2-3) will be released August 20. This report has further information reviewed and evaluated since the release of the CSI team's 2012 report.
This updated report includes:
* determining the location of the body of Sergeant Kennedy in relation to the police camp site determined by the team.
* an analysis of the shooting of Constable Lonigan.
* The location of the remains of a hut near to the police camp site - described in paragraphs 5.13, and 7.17 of the 2012 report, to which the team ascribes the strong possibility that this is the shingle hut referred to by Ned has now been examined by Heritage Victoria representatives this year.
* Photographs taken by the team since that examination are included in this update report.
* The serendipitous finding of a Spencer rifle bullet to the south of the police camp site determined by the team is also discussed and its location analysed relative to the police camp site.

Since the release of the 2012 report the team has not engaged in debate with those who post their comments and often uninformed views in various sites on the internet.
The Team has allowed the appropriate authorities to undertake an examination of the team's work and the claim of having determined the correct location for the site of the police camp at Stringybark Creek.

The team's conclusions and recommendations made in the original report are as valid today as they were in 2012.

There are a number of thing about this announcement that are worth commenting on. Firstly their refusal to engage in debate ‘with those who post their comments and often uninformed views in various sites on the internet’ confirms what I’ve said before about these people, that they are pseudo-scientists. A hallmark of real scientists is that they welcome and participate in discussions about the validity or otherwise of their findings.  But my open critiques of their work went unchallenged – are they too afraid to defend them? Their silence speaks volumes.

Secondly, what happened to Lonigan and Kennedy are interesting but how and where they died has nothing to do with the aim of the CSI teams research which was supposed to be to ‘determine the true location of the camp site at Stringybark Creek’ (changed from ‘establish the authentic location’ in the 2012 Report). As I showed in my critiques of the first version of this Report, it already contains a lot of irrelevant material that has nothing to do with the stated aim of the investigation. I called it 'padding'. So the question has to be asked : what is the point of adding even more  irrelevant material to the Report?  Are they trying to promote themselves as authorities on everything to do with SBC, and thereby gain some sorely needed legitimacy for their original Report? Do they think that by bulking up the Report it looks more impressive because it has more pages? I think its time these amateurs explained what the purpose of all this padding is.

Thirdly, I thought it curious that they announced that what the CSI team believes is the remains of a hut “has now been examined by Heritage Victoria representatives this year” but they don’t say what Heritage Victoria concluded about it. This statement is repeated in the Report itself, accompanying some photos of 'two rock piles' and photos of an area 'cleared by Heritage Victoria' . Elsewhere they say somewhat cryptically that ‘The Team has allowed the appropriate authorities to undertake an examination of the team's work and the claim of having determined the correct location for the site of the police camp at Stringybark Creek’ but again, don’t say what these un-named ‘appropriate authorities’ concluded.  As for saying they 'allowed' these authorities to undertake an examination of their site - what the hell are they talking about? Its not THEIR site, they don't own Stringybark Creek, and they don't have any control over any part of it. They're delusional to think they 'allowed' anyone to examine their site, as if they could have refused them permission to do so if they had wanted to. Its all very silly, this cloak-and-dagger, secret-squirrel kind of stuff, exposing a near  paranoid desire to play their cards close to their chest, to hint at things rather than state them directly. Its clear however they want to create an impression that they ‘allowed’ the appropriate authorities to visit and examine their site, and by not saying anything else hope that people will draw the conclusion that in some way their site was legitimated by this visit. 

I decided to write to Heritage Victoria to see what they had to say about their visit and examination of the CSI site. This is what I wrote:

Dear Sir
I have before me a publication titled "CSI@SBC : Update July 2017"
It’s a privately published document that purports to have identified the site of the Police camp at Stringybark Creek in the Toombullup Ranges, the place were Ned Kelly murdered three policemen in 1878.

The authors state on page  94 "In 2017 the site of the remains of a hut described in paragraphs 5.13 and 7.17 of this Report has now been examined by Heritage Victoria representatives" I’ve not been able to find any reference to this site visit anywhere on your Web pages, but would like to know some detail about which of your representatives made the site visit and examination, and what their conclusions were. I expect a Report of some kind would be made of this inspection, so if it was available, I would be most interested in receiving a copy

Many thanks for our assistance

Their reply stunned me, and exposes the CSI teams claims to be false:

Good morning Dee,

There has been no formal inspection of this site undertaken by this office.
We have briefly visited the Stringybark Creek Site approximately twice this year, but did not undertake any archaeological survey. Both visits were opportunistic as we were in the area to visit other heritage properties.

This year there were some limited archaeological investigation within the area of registration.
The excavation was not undertaken by Heritage Victoria staff members. A report on the findings of this excavation will be made publically available when it is submitted. This report is not yet due and I am not aware of what the conclusions are, as the analysis is still ongoing.
I am happy to distribute a copy to you when it is submitted to us.

We did visit the site briefly during the excavation, but again this was not a formal inspection.

Kind regards,


(name withheld) 
Archaeologist.

Shall I spell it out? The CSI teams claim that their site ‘has now been examined by Heritage Victoria” is at best a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, at worst an outright lie. It didn’t happen. Two ‘brief’ ‘opportunistic’ visits are a very far cry from the impression the CSI Team are trying to create with their tricky use of words. This is a disgraceful way to behave. Their credibility has sunk to a new desperate low.

The 'limited archaeological investigation' mentioned by Heritage Victoria in their letter to me, I suspect was something carried out by Adam Ford as part of the forthcoming "Lawless" documentary which lists him as the production teams archaeologist. We will all find out later this month when the episode about Ned Kelly goes to air on Foxtel. However if the Documentary mentions the CSI rock pile at all, except to say theres no possibility it marks the site of the Police camp I will be stunned. For one thing, in 1878 the fireplaces were so close to the campsite they can be seen in the 1878 Burman photos of the site, yet the CSI stones are over a hundred yards away from the CSI teams nominated campsite. At Bill Denhelds two huts site, the substantial remains of fireplaces and huts are  exactly where you would expect to find them - within a few yards of the place where the police pitched their tent, a place they said was 'near'  a ruined hut. A few yards is 'near' - over a hundred yards away, through the bush is NOT 'near'. This claim sits alongside the many other ridiculous claims made by the CSI team, such as that two irregular and dissimilar blobs on tree trunks seen in photos taken many years apart are the same blob, and that the professional photographer Burman, in recreating the scene for his photos got it all  completely wrong. The fact he had been advised by Monk, who saw the dead bodies and was told directly by McIntyre exactly what happened and where makes this possibility, that Burman completely messed up, exceedingly unlikely. A case that rests on so many ridiculously unlikely propositions is no case at all.  And now they are trying to boost it by misrepresenting Heritage Victoria. 

Somehow I doubt that even NOW the CSI team will condescend to engage in debate ‘with those who post their comments and often uninformed views in various sites on the internet’  but with Heritage Victoria’s  confirmation that their claim is nonsense, they owe everyone a very comprehensive explanation.


67 comments:

  1. Dee you are certainly not telling the truth there.Kelvyn and Glenn in particular have debated this topic for many years and I and a lot of others on both sides can vouch for that.Bill Denheld was the main spokesman for the 2 fireplace site (deservedly so) and I along with others supported Bill.There was an equal quantity of the CSI teams evaluation of the site supporters too.There are many instances of robust debate between opposing parties.For those people that don't know, there is plenty of evidence on Bills Ironicon site still.To say that people are not game to debate the pros and cons of this matter is an utterly false statement.I will always continue to point out the predominantly false statements that are continually happening in the Kelly Story like it or lump it.A bit of honesty without the continual bickering goes a long way in seeking the truth and not the utter b/s that some carry on with.Regards Bob

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob , it was not my accusation but the CSI teams own admission, in that statement quoted above where they themselves said they wouldn't engage in debate. So I am merely responding to their own statement about my challenge, which was the first ever full frontal independent review of their document. Bills criticisms were of course wholly valid but being the proponent of an alternative site, readers may have been tempted to expect him to say what he said, and defend his site like he does, and attack the CSI team in the way that he does. But an independent voice like mine - they refused to respond. It was not 'utterly false' or 'BS' for me to ask if they were not game enough to respond.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The misguided CSI@SBC bunch seem like nice old codgers, but they are way off the mark. Mr McGarrigle may be an old supporter, but what would he know?

    Everyone with a brain knows Bill Denheld is spot on! Ask Prof Tim Flannery and hundreds of others.

    Pals sent me emails tonight that show Ned Kelly Central is run by sheltered workshop clerks functioning as Admins. What a delicious farce. Stop defaming Bill Denheld. Make shifty nutcase Fitzy permanently disappear. He is a waste of everybody's time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you ask Bill Denheld a simple question Horrie.Who knows more about the SBC location Horrie, you or me?I have many photos of the original 4 sites which were all prospective sites at the beginning.In answer to your question I know a lot more of the subject than you simple as that whether you like it or not.Everyone whether it is Dee,Bill,Bob,Horrie or Fitz have the right to their opinions not just a Jonnie come lately like you Horrie.I am not an expert but am entitled to an opinion whether it is right or wrong.Have a nice day Horrie,back to your Googling.

      Delete
    2. Bobby, nothing to say about what the CSI team said about debate? Doesn't surprise me, because as we know, you and your mate don't like debate only fairy stories. But I must say I am impressed that you now declare, like the truckie, that you know lots about SBC and more than Horrie. How do you know that?

      Delete
    3. Brian, the good thing is that Bob hasn't swallowed the CSI cool aid like the truckie and his few hangers on have. They're all on the wrong side of history, so I give Bob credit for sticking up for Bill - even though its the obvious thing to do. Its great to see Brett and Co also expressing their support for the Two Huts site on Ned Kelly Central, but as usual, instead of attempting to answer the criticism of the CSI case, the troll is resorting to name calling. What a pathetic loser!

      Delete
  4. Fitzy calling Bill Denheld a "snake oil salesman" on Ned Kelly Central is obviously highly defamatory.

    Remove it now, fools!

    Put Fitzy in the Dunce's corner where he belongs.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CSI@SBC
    Thought this was a pretty good explanation.
    Cant stop laughing @ Silly Buggers Circus
    Can you think of a better one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about-

      Carpet Snake Idiot , Stop Believing Crap. CSI,SBC

      Delete
  6. Would someone kindly tell Tate that I replied to Horries question about me as above.He asked what Robert McGarrigle would know and I simply replied to Horrie and has nothing to do with Tate at all.For those that may be interested Bill has kindly shown a photo of mine at Ned Kelly Central about 4 or 5 hours ago that explains what I said about the 4 locations as stated above.I have a lot more photos than this particular one showing the site with and without increased vegetation,also the other 3 sites as well..I made the statement that I know more than Horrie and I stick to that remark whether you like it or not Tate.I am not in the same league as Bill or Kelvyn and others by a long way but have spent many days and hours trying to find the correct site.I am not afraid to debate anything on my family hostory not like someone else we know isn't that right Tate.After all I am just a simple ex bank manager that is simply after the truth despite my limited ability as you and Horrie indicate.Thank you for letting me have my say.Regards Bob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby, you have accused Dee of "...not telling the truth there." and as has been pointed out. Dee was simply quoting what the CSI team have themselves said, that is, that they won't engage in debate. They have said they won't debate"with those who post their comments and often uninformed views in various sites on the internet". This is what Dee pointed out and you then accused him/her of "not telling the truth there'. Seems to me you owe Dee an apology. So where is the 'BS' there?

      Delete
    2. My Dad was a bank manager in India, Tokyo and Singapore - so I won't hold that against you Bob. But it seems a bit silly to discover whether you or I know more about SBC.

      I have repeatedly told how my wife and I were present at a Bill Denheld presentation at his Two Huts site, and how we were convinced it was the correct place after Bill showed his blown-up Burman photo, the topography of which could be clearly seen in the background.

      What I object to is your presence at the truckie's hate page against a book (for heavens sake) where you post derogatory comments against people here.

      But now you front up here (again) pretending to be normal and friendly. On the truckers hate site you are anything but.

      Should you really be swanning about here, Bob?

      Delete
    3. Dear Horrie I have been challenged by the likes of Tate to debate all things Kelly on this blog and now that I have decided to try and do so all I get is the ridicule from the likes of you.Yes I have been nasty towards both you and Tate on Fitzies site just in retaliation to your miserable comments towards me and ALL Kelly so called sympathisers. .If anyone here on Dees site would like to see the real Horrie in action please go and read his comments on Dees old Truth Forum as I have mentioned previously.The only entertainment that Horrie has provided is a good laugh with the Likes of Kelvyn and Glenn making Horrie a rather big fool of himself and nothing else. Don't feel like Robinson Cruso though Horrie because they did likewise to me on many occasions..Sorry Horrie but you were completely out of your depth and they ran rings around you.Remember those days Dee before you completely changed from being fair in your comments to be unfortinately a wee bit biased as you are now.I really felt sorry for you then as you had a lot to put up with .A lot of water has passed under the bridge since those days and we have all got older and crankier.As far as the CSI team goes if the authorities eventually pick their site I will be one of the first to hold out a hand and congratulate them as well as Fitzy. Naturally I will also congratulate Bill and his team if his site is picked but I am a a little bit biased towards Bills document.If Dee or you Horrie don't want me to comment on here thats fine and will accept the umpires decision.

      Delete
  7. Tate I will not be apologising for peoples untruths when they are simply that.The debate on the true location has been debated with members of the CSI team well after 2012.I was informed of Dees truth forum that went well into 2014 and may have been longer.Bill told me about this new site several years ago but I decided not to participate as it was going over a lot of ground already with the same people involved.Your good mate Horrie turned up here along with a Brian (was that you Tate) or maybe it was Brian Quinn discussing all things SBC.There were discussions to and fro from Bill,Kelvyn,Glenn Standing and many more.I am sure Dee will remember those days when it became well and truly bogged down.There are still about 10 or 11 pages of the old forum,blog whatever you want to call it still on Bills Ironicon site.To say that there has been no debate from the CSI team since 2012 is simply wrong.I wonder if anyone will apologise nto me for revealing the truth and not the b/s.Come on folkes lets debate fair and square or we might as well all give it away.I think underneath we are all simply trying to get at the truth,I know I am.....Regards Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bobby I'm not sure if you are thick, or simply trying to avoid the question. In this blog Dee says of the closed CSI forum "Firstly their refusal to engage in debate ‘with those who post their comments and often uninformed views in various sites on the internet’ confirms what I’ve said before about these people, that they are pseudo-scientists." Are you saying that this quote is wrong? If so, please provide a source.

      Delete
    2. How dumb can you get Tate there has never been a CSI Forum as you were told this before.There was KC2000 and Chucks Forumotion site which was predominantly about SBC but other topics as well.It was not a CSI run site but their members did participate in it along with a lot of others including Bill just like they did in Dees Truth Forum.On Dees Truth Forum it shows clearly some of the contents of the CSI original document (2011 and 2012) and was way after 2012 that the debate continued despite your assertion and Dees that it didn't.Your good friend Horrie will tell you all about that because Horrie participated in discussion with the CSI and Dee knows that as well.This of course is if there is only 1 Horrie and not 2 and only he knows about that.You are very good at twisting things around Tate especially with the changing of the subject.Go and read Dees old forum Tate but it maybe a bit beyond you to understand all its jargon.....regards Bob

      Delete
    3. OK you two, thats enough! You both agree that the evidence favours the Two Huts site, right?

      But yes, you are right Bob there had been discussion on my earlier Forums about SBC but at that stage I was still very new to the whole topic and didn't become familiar with the CSI Report till much later. On those Forums I was trying to facilitate discussion about SBC but it went round in circles. People were arguing about trivial points to do with the fact that different people used different words, and said slightly different things about it all, such things as what a spring was and so on. Effectively everyone was attacking Bill, but my critique of the CSI Report turned the guns around and onto the CSI team and at that point they refused to discuss it any longer. And they've admitted it in their announcement about the Update.

      Bob your appeal to folks to debate it fair and square needs to be directed at the CSI team. My challenge to their dodgy Report has been out there for over a year and they've ignored it, and now they've produced an Update designed to mislead. Their arguments are shonky and now Ive shown their tactics are also shonky.

      But lets not fight over something we agree on : Bills site is correct. Lets work together to see that DELWP and Heritage Victoria eventually see the merit in organising a full archaeological examination of it, get it recognised and the place properly respected as the site of the brave sacrifice of three good men.

      Delete
    4. You are right Dee and I shall refrain from any further bitchiness with Bob. And if he is serious about coming back to the blog to debate issues raised here, I will be happy in the future to participate.

      Delete
    5. Dee I have no idea why you persist on this anti CSI campaign and it will get you nowhere, believe me.We have been sparring for a long time and cannot even recall when it started.Both sides have very good reasons for claiming they know the correct spot and should be allowed to give their evidence.I changed my mind on the site only after several visits there.In the 1st instance my wife and I had to have a comfort stop as there was no toilet block,no carpark and very few facilities then. As Bill has stated people then thought the picnic area was the shootout site and so did I.There is a spot down near the creek in the picnic area that to me resembled the Burman photos.In my opinion the slope was there but there doesn't appear to have enough flat area to hold the logs as shown in the Burman shots.However as the picnic area had been made by man I just wonder if that could have been the area before the facilities were made.This area was NE of the current Kelly tree and a long distance from the 2 hut site.For what it is worth (probably nothing) I rate this as my 2nd preference behind Bills site.I can assure people on this site and also Fitzys site I have trampled over the SBC area for a long time ( as a lot of people have) and had the company of my uncle Bob Pretty who will be 91 next month and he like me is fixated in the subject,probably too much.If the proposed track for Kennedys death area as shown in the DELWP diagram the CSI area is well within reach but our preferred site (Bills site) is a long way south of the diagram.Living in NSW makes it very difficult to spend the time at SBC that I would like too but as I am getting too old now I will leave it to Peter and my younger generation.I will certainly be there for the 140th commemoration next year,which will be very interesting indeed.I think it will be the final chapter one way or another.....Regards Bob

      Delete
    6. Bob if you think Bill is right, and that the Police were murdered at the Two huts site, how are you going to feel if in the fullness of time people are directed to some other place and told this is where it happened? Aren't you going to think they're being misinformed, and that they are paying their respects and saying their prayers for the fallen in the wrong place? Wouldn't you prefer to know the exact place rather than the wrong place - which of course is whats been happening up there for decades?

      If it couldn't be determined where exactly the site was, then it wouldn't matter, as long as people were told we aren't sure exactly where this all happened - but after reading Bills material and the csI material I am convinced Bill has got it right. I think the authorities ought to show a bit of respect to the fallen police, do the necessary archaeological investigations and establish if Bill or the CSI team are right, or neither, announce that the exact site has been discovered and then make the appropriate corrections to the narratives and construct the necessary respectful commemorative installations up there. This would restore respect and dignity to the area.

      You say I am on a campaign - but thats exactly what the CSI tam are on as well, publishing their documents, and its revisions, "allowing' various authorities to inspect their site and generally engaging in a process designed to have their site recognised by the Authorities, with whom I am led to believe they have some personal connections. If they're successful, I believe they will have persuaded the authorities to recognise the wrong place. Their document is dreadfully weak, and now their tactics are being exposed as dodgy as well. I believe we owe it to the police to get it right this time.

      In the end if the authorities do the proper archaeological investigations and can't come up with an answer then everyone will accept it. But until they do, I believe someone needs to stick up for the Two Huts site and make sure the CSI team gets proper scrutiny. Otherwise we could end up with the embarrassment of another generation of visitors paying their respects in the wrong place.

      Delete
    7. Dee in this instance you are correct in what you have said but pushing up the creek without an oar is very difficult.The DSE and now the new mob just will not spend time,money and effort in finding the real spot.Deep down whether it is you Bill,Fitzy,Horrie,Kelvyn or whoever else will in the end be disappointed unfortunately.I do hope I am wrong but it should have been established a long time before this.Our heritage and Australian history is very important but for some unknown reason Governments both State and Federal of all persuasions just will not act and its not just the Kelly story either.You only have to look at how our Vietnam boys who were absolutely ridiculed in their homecoming especially by women in both Melbourne and Sydney.
      Although I am a supporter of Australia becoming a republic especially after whats coming out about Queen Lizzie today we here in Australia should be learning from the British how our heritage should be protected and respected like they do.
      It is very strange also that the people in Mansfield respected the 3 killed policemen and built a large memorial to the fallen in the middle of the main street shortly after but didn't record where the actual event took place. This is bloody crazy and now trying to find it nearly 140 years later.This would never have happened in Britain.
      Such is life in this crazy world that we live in,regards Bob

      Delete
    8. Yes its a crazy world all right! But I am not quite as pessimistic as you about the possibility that DELWP can be persuaded to take a different approach to its management of SBC. But change happens slowly at the best of times so we should be patient but persistent. They have already accepted that the Jones site on the east bank is wrong, that are NOT going to promote the CSI site in any way, because I am sure they will have seen the weakness in their case, but I have a suspicion that some unacknowledged allegiances to at least some of the members of the CSI team is preventing them from openly investigating the two huts site. However in time, those allegiances will be lost, and when new minds and fresh faces look at it again, things will change for the better. Hang in there Bob!

      Delete
    9. The site of the Eureka Stockade has been lost too. It certainly isn't the spot recommended in Ballarat. Even the angry miners weren't silly enough to it there where bullets could be fired into the stockade. I think it was on a hill close to the rail line.

      Delete
    10. There were Aboriginal stone villages in Western Victoria that showed sedentary rather than a nomadic existence. Evidence remains. But this is commemorated and celebrated nowhere today.

      Australia today is addicted to the dollar, and has allowed vast tracts of our history to disappear forever. Historians Michael Cannon and Ian MacFarlane have preserved the activities of the pioneering European settlers in Victoria - in the Historical Records of Victoria eight volume series - 1836-40. This has allowed us to know who the original settlers were and what they did. Two volumes deal with the indigenous people, who they were and what they did.

      Few major world cities like Melbourne can trace so much of their beginnings in such detail. We need hundreds more Cannons and MacFarlanes - and Morrisseys and Dawsons, Denhelds and thousand more Dees!

      Delete
    11. This is only a joke Horrie and not too serious.What you have said is fair enough and I agree with you.However Sydney is far better than poor old drab Melbourne.Port Phillip Bay is far inferior to our mighty Sydney Harbour and its history as well.You do have the "G" though so you win that one Horrie but we have the best Olympic games ever. Melbourne has even taken over as the crime capital of our wonderful country.
      The Vinegar Hill incident that happened up here doesn't get the publicity to what happened at Ballarat and is an incident that appears to be always brushed over for some reason.I wonder if they put Australian History in the education sphere would we get to learn more thoroughly about our history.Oh well we can all still discuss the polarising event of my cousins.
      Brian Tate if you get upset at what I say on Micks love site go on there and defend yourself.I cannot on a certain f/b page because I as everyone knows am banned.
      Heres a little exercise for both Dee and Brian please tell me when I have praised the actions of Ned and Dan at SBC.I think you will find I have never done so and have been more critical than anything.There you can ask anyone that I have been involved with on that subject.
      For Brian again. Erratic I maybe but will always point out blatant lies or nonsense as I did on the debate that hasn't happened after 2012.
      Obviously as you are not interested in a real debate without giving a fair hearing to people that disagree with you adios my friend.
      My final comment on this blog is simply that I am not out to make friends or enemies but just take part in my unfortunate family history that has happened.
      Thank you admin for letting me have a little say on this blog and hope you all keep in good health.
      Farewell to all,
      Regards Bob

      Delete
    12. Bob you are not banned from Ned Kelly The True Story Facebook page. I banned you along with a few others many months ago, but a little later I lifted the ban on your participation, but the others remain banned. Thats because they never make the slightest attempt to. do anything other than ridicule and abuse me. So feel free to Continue t contribute both there and here.

      Delete
  8. I see that the truckie with the hate page has sealed it up so hard noone will be able to visit. There is an unreadable 'prove you are not a robot" check. Then you have to log in. Soon Fitzy will be just talking to himself.

    His 14 thousand FB 'likers' won't like this.

    Oh, I forgot, they don't actually exist...

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's so sad that Dee's page has become a farce where people just attack each other constantly and mercilessly, without respect, and without actually addressing the relevant issue. There is only one way to sort out the SBC site issue. Get a time machine...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes anonymous, personal attacks seem to be part and parcel of discussions about Ned Kelly and they certainly started long before I came on the scene. Ask Sharon and Bill. Entire forums were destroyed, people were expelled or withdrew, discussions sabotaged and alliances wrecked for years before Dee was ever involved in any of it. I learned this truth only gradually, and is the reason I use the pseudonym Dee, which makes me a coward according to the Kelly sympathiser mob who even just this morning have repeated this accusation against me. The odd thing is there are innumerable fake FB profiles created by people who attack me, there are anonymous pro-kelly commentators and anonymous FB administrators - but somehow its only so-called "anti-kelly" people like me who are faceless gutless cowards if they insist on asserting their right to privacy. The horrendous vulgar and relentless vilification of Brian Tate, who inadvertently revealed his identity to these people should be a lesson to anyone who is thinking of revealing their own, if they have anything other than rabid pro-kelly ideas to contribute. They will also soon enough be showered with abuse, name calling and derision by a small loud-mouthed band of Kelly fanciers who think they have a monopoly on truth. The positive affect of this behaviour of course is that it turns people off the Kelly sympathiser and their point of view, because they reveal themselves as ignorant bullies.

      The list of crimes I am supposed to have committed is as long as your arm, but not one of them is true. Ive repeatedly answered them over the years and I Ama not going to repeat the denials yet again, but would point out that if you ask for the proof of any of these allegations it will NEVER be forthcoming. These vile accusations have all been made against me by a single individual who is obsessed with trying to silence me by whatever means he can, but having been unsuccessful at that he simply resorts to repeating lies and false accusations, one of the most recent ones being that for years I have been making accusations about people using copyrighted material. This is just a lie - I have never ever made such an allegation and I couldn't give a toss about what material someone else uses. But even if they were I am not going to run off like the teachers pet and tell someone to try to get them into trouble. The allegations made against me are never ever supported by anything resembling a fact or evidence but are repeated in the hope that if enough mud is flung about, some of it will stick.

      I try to ignore these immature tedious personal attacks on me and get on with the job of exposing these Kelly sympathisers for what they are, and pointing out the elements of the Kelly story that are myths, unhistorical or plain wrong. Please don't be put off by the personal attacks. Keep your anonymity but participate in the discussions.

      Delete
    2. You're right Dee. Keep 'em guessing! The truckie isn't a good guesser, but he is a frequent guesser. He has identified five or six people as being you. All wrong...

      The Ad campaign for the Foxtel/genepool "Lawless" series is heating up. Tonight I saw one which claimed they had found the SBC police murders site.

      If it was smart, Foxtel would pull this series to protect it's buggered history brand. The South Australia genepool team seem like the three blind mice. I think Mike Munro will need body armour after this krap goes to air next Tuesday.

      Genepool had every chance to do this right, but have screwed up badly. Let's watch it next Tuesday and start to undo their mistakes later next week.

      Alf says "GGgggrrrrrrr"

      Delete
  10. The CSI@SBC team's pronouncement "The serendipitous finding of a Spencer rifle bullet to the south of the police camp site determined by the team is also discussed and its location analysed relative to the police camp site". This is a monstrous falsehood.

    Everyone knows that Const. Scanlan who was carrying the Spencer rifle was shot dead while trying to unshoulder it. He could not have fired the shot allegedly found by the temam. Neither could Sergeant Kennedy fighting for his life while being chased by Ned. Lonigan was long dead, and McIntyre had escaped.

    The bullet found by CSI has nothing to do with SBC. A huge furphy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could have been fired by one of the gang testing the rifle later

      Delete
  11. Hello Cameron, I think we have conmunicated in the past. You were on NKForum, yes?
    Your comment Cameron, no Const Scanlan could only pulled the trigger even though some where it said a bullet passed through Ned's beard. Terry Scott the barber from Shepparton who found the bullet while detecting along SBC for gold, showed me the site and by my calculations was 30-40 metres north of the two huts site where the police had camped. This fits with recorded history when Const Scanlan was 30-40 metres behind Kennedy when the first shot was fired at Kennedy but missed. I posted this on- http://www.ironicon.com.au/sbc-dee-bate/page9.htm

    As Jim above points out, the claim by CSI document is a cashin to say the bullet discharged from near the Kelly tree and ended up exactly 30-40 yards north of the two huts. I say OMG, what a co incidence! Const Scanlan fired a shot from his rifle from near the CSI Kelly tree to land in the swampy ground hundreds of metres south without hitting any bushes or trees or spear grasses, it just missed everything and plopped into the mud. What an amazing co incidence. I am super impressed with these CSI claims. However I know these fellows, and they can't help themselves to cast doubt and cloud any historical truth simply to save their face in public forums. They are as shonky as !

    A pity about Bob. The problem as always, there are those that ned to be in the fold and those that ned to be loved. Bob has my highest respect, but these places like in nature, you either get eaten or you eat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bill,

      I think it was Dan who got a nick on the cheek at SBC, although there is no proof whatsoever that this actually occurred. Perhaps Ned belatedly realised that he had to create a scenario of police shooting at the gang even though this didn't happen.

      Delete
    2. PS: And one other thing about that bullet.
      Last year around the time I was in contact with Genepool about the pending documentary, I spoke to Terry Scott the Spencer bullet finder by phone and was quite taken aback when he told me he had NOT actually found the bullet where he said and showed me. He said he was mistaken because it was his brother in-law that had found it, but further UP the creek. I said that changes everything does it not? Yes he said, sorry.

      During Oct 2003, the official installation at SBC of the Police Memorial stone, I ran into Bob Bretherton of nearby Tolmie. Bob was an active member of a local historical firearms- Re Enactment Group. Bob told me he and his gang had often gone to SBC for the purpose of firing off of antique firearms. He had quite a collection apparently. He told me some would get all dressed up in police and civilian clothing of the times and apparently had a whale of a time.

      I am beginning to think since Terry changed his bullet story to me, perhaps the bullet he detected was not found early 1980s looking for gold, rather more recently after he had read my two huts webpage and about those gold workings near the two huts fireplaces. Was the bullet he detected discharged from one of Bob Brethertons re enactments. Who knows how many false musket balls and or antique shell cases may be laying around SBC picnic ground area. What may come next boggles the mind

      Delete
    3. Bill I might have to write up a whole post on that Bullet. I knew nothing about it, but. did wonder how a bullet that according to the CSI Mob had been fired through the bush could have ended up looking so perfect. So you're suggesting there are many possible explanations as to how that bullet came to be there, none of which have been mentioned by the CSI pseudo-scientists, of course. Intriguing stuff !!

      Delete
    4. Hello Bill - no it was not me on NKForum and not sure what that is. That is amazing that people went firing antique firearms around the Stringybark Creek park. I think a bit more respect would have been used and they would have gone somewhere else to do it.

      Delete
    5. Agree entirely Cameron. After all, 3 police officer were killed and another traumatised for life for simply doing their jobs. Respect is needed at this place, not blokes running around having 'a whale of a time'.

      Delete
    6. Hello Dave and Cameron,
      If you go to the link I provided earlier, or here-
      http://www.ironicon.com.au/sbc-dee-bate/page9.htm
      See halfway down the page Terry Scott's bullet story. Click on image to see readable text. While I was interviewed for the story so was Ian Jones, but don't quite know where 'Missed by a whisker' originates. And also whether Dan got nicked? SHARON, where are you?

      Delete
    7. Seems as if DELWP is determined to completely ruin Stringybark Creek with unwanted, wretched, misleading signage; ignore Bill Denheld's police camp site altogether - and mislead visitors with waffle and false directions.

      It also seems that police descendants - who should be directing this - aren't in favour and haven't been consulted.

      Cameron and Brian, of course respect is demanded at this sacred place. Well said!

      DELWP could build an Interpretation Centre way down the road where they can try to justify the massive expense of this project.

      From earlier posts, it seems the State government can publish warts 'n all histories of the beginnings of European settlement in Victoria, the 1842 public executions at Melbourne, the Eureka Stockade from the official documents etc., etc.

      But all of a sudden here is a government agency unwilling to tell the truth and scared of repercussions.

      Woeful.

      Delete
  12. In reply to Dee 15 Oct 11:20
    Re " organizing a full archaeological examination"

    Dee, we really don't need an archaeologists? We don't need to dig any holes looking a Vic Police uniform button or emblem badges, because there weren’t any. We just need a group interested people, scientists, photo forensic analysts, topographers, mapping historians, and generally anyone interested and experts in their field.

    Apart from the police camp site, the quest to find Kennedy's death site took off in 2004, 2009, 2010 and with Leo Kennedy in 2014. Taking every bit of Primary Source material into account, I am confident the correct place is on the East bank of SBC and not North West as DELWP are proposing. It's quite remarkable that after all this time the authorities are not able or willing to provide the necessary forum to verify the sites, even such as the Police camp site, which can easily be proven with photographic and on the ground evidence.

    Why then have the authorities stepped back from even trying to facilitate such a meeting? All very strange.
    What is not right though, they are spending taxpayer’s money without first having these sites properly verified?

    ReplyDelete
  13. By what I've read about this latest CSI report claim about "an archaeological excavation" Dee has exposed without Heritage Vic acknowledgement, perhaps because one Archae who is in the know can get away with it, and in secret, perhaps mischievously for the purpose of filming that docudrama in their hope any identified location proximity filmed will be accepted as fact ! Whoever undertook those excavations, will need their findings opened to scrutiny by all Stake Holders, readers and certainly the Press.

    If the authorities are complicate in pushing certain mistruths onto SBC history, it will be seen as another case of cronyism by those in authority including Heritage, by way of favouritism to their mates, to appease- Police, whose member’s lives were lost there so long ago. History needs to be correct and by all accounts things are being cooked for another decade of irrelevant debate.

    And, as for the Kennedy site, the North West scenario, LET IT BE KNOWN was put to bed back in 2010 in preference to North N.E of SBCreek. But why then is DELWP with their plans going to endorse such irrelevance North West scenarios? Apparently they take no notice of other historians unless they are in their fold. They are re-inventing the wheel all over again.

    Here are some facts about SBC to which they have taken no account of -

    We know McIntyre mounted Kennedy's horse, horse tracks were followed crossing 'the creek' from their police camp by Const James a week later. We know their encampment was on the West bank of SBC, The then Shire President of Mansfield, James Tompkins said that immediately north of the police camp was' particularly boggy ground' as is exactly north of the two huts today.
    That bogginess is why Const James was able to follow those horse tracks crossing the creek. Tompkins said " due to the unsuccessful attempts to find the body the day before" (to the North West), he suggested the party proceed in the direction of McIntyre-north crossing the Creek, and at about 1/2 mile, Tomkins heard Mr Sparrow call out- "Here is something. I, with the rest of the party went to him and saw the body of Sergeant Kennedy which I identified" . McIntyre wrote reference to the Sub Insp. Pewtress's telegram that - "Kennedy was found 'about a mile' North East of the camp" .

    So why are these DELWP plans for signage at SBC going to ignore all this primary source material and opt for a spurious location? seemingly because Leo thinks an official statement to the Coroners on the sergeants death, where Henry Sparrow and Const Orr stated North West, while Const Orr first said North East, but crossed out to NW, and is no definitive orientation?
    I expect at the time it did not matter directly where Kennedy was found, only that he was found. Tomkin was shire president, while Sparrow a overseer farm hand.

    See
    http://www.denheldid.com/twohuts/germanscreek.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dee,

    As you know I disagree with the quartered bullet theory, first invented by Ned supporters to exonerate the rest of the gang.

    Logic tells me Ned did not go to Stringybark Creek with a gun and quartered bullet. Why would he? The quartered bullet needed close contact with victims to be effective.

    It was AFTER he got to SBC, shot Lonigan, and captured the Mansfield Vicar's shotgun that he is supposed to have reloaded its cartidges with swan shot.

    There is no evidence that the Kelly Gang ever used quartered bullets.

    Ned was convinced his was an accurate rifle "that could shoot around corners".

    With all the gang's practice at German's Creek earlier, they were confidant shots, and could easily have hit Lonigan as McIntyre recorded.

    The "revolver bullet" recovered from Lonigan's inner thigh exhibited much different characteristics than the other wounds.

    We are back in Guessland because no tests on firing quartered bullets exist.

    Furthermore, it seems strange the Kelly Gang used quartered bullets at SBC and nowhere else. There is nill evidence they did.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Horrie I can't put my finger on it but I do recall somewhere reading a suggestion that a quartered bullt was used, but I have tried to be careful enough to suggest that what was used was something like a quartered bullet or swan drops or some other collection of multiple projectiles. Its incontestable that Kelly DID load his gun with something other than single bullets.

    But there simply CANNOT be any other explanation for Lonigans wounds, because of the following FACTS : - ALL were acquired while he was alive, and only ONE shot - McIntyre heard ONE shot, Kelly said he fired ONE shot and no others were fired into his body for the hour or so that McIntyre was held there by the gang.

    There is simply NO other possible explanation for Lonigans wounds - that they were made by Kelly firing something other than one bullet at a time - and furthermore, the pattern of them shows us exactly how Lonigan was standing in relation to the gang at the moment he was shot.

    As I say in the piece above the only difficulty remaining is Reynolds belief that what he found in Lonigans left thigh was an actual revolver bullet. He didn't describe it as such in the original report but at the RC said it was. Its virtually impossible to explain a revolver bullet in his thigh if you accept Reynolds view that all the wounds were created while he was alive, and that Kelly and McIntyre were right in saying only one shot was fired at Lonigan. So what are you left with - a not unreasonable suggestion that the Drs recollection was faulty, or perhaps misidentification of that original projectile - I don't recall him ever saying why he though it was an ordinary revolver bullet but did he say that it was in perfect shape, or that it was a blob if misshapen lead that he assumed was an ordinary revolver bullet, or explain his opinion in any way? The thing is if you are going to insist that it was an ordinary revolver bullet fired separately out of a revolver then you're going to have to propose a scenario where that happened.... I can't do it except by proposing that Reynolds was wrong when he said no wounds were created before death..and this brings you full circle back to having to accept that at some point Reynolds made a mistake - it was either in wrongly saying no wounds were created after death, OR that the projectile was an ordinary revolver bullet. One or the other was wrong, and I would suggest that as a fully trained doctor who probably did lots of autopsies, he is less likely to be wrong about the medical aspects of it than the police forensics in relation to what was a revolver bullet and what wasn't.

    You dismiss it all as guesswork but thats precisely what science is! Facts are uncovered and then theories created to explain them! The theory is a guess! But it is then subjected to scrutiny and to other testing if possible, and is either reinforced or modified or ultimately rejected when another bit of guess work produces an explanation with even better fit to the facts. So by all means create a theory ( guesswork ) that is a better fit to the facts than my theory, and that way we will get even closer to the truth of what happened but at preset I believe my theory is by far the best fit of all the ones Ive read so far!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oops I wrote "proposing that Reynolds was wrong when he said no wounds were created BEFORE death" but I obviously meant "AFTER death "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not having a go at you, Dee. I'm simply saying it wouldn't have been logical for Ned to turn his rifle into an inaccurate one.

      If a signal was given, four shots could have sounded like one...

      Delete
  17. Horrie I never thought you were having a go at me! And I am no ballistics expert but Would have thought if your gun was loaded with shot of some kind you would be more likely to hit something than if it had a single bullet, although I accept you could not be sure exactly where multiple projectiles would end up.

    So lets think more about your suggestion that four shots could have sounded like one 'if a signal was given'. Are you genuinely proposing that could have happened? It seems very unlikely to me that even if they had been given a signal to fire at once that they would have fired at EXACTLY the same split second, with such perfect co-ordination that to McIntyres ear it sounded as one...but who gave the signal? McIntyre was facing them all and didn't report anyone giving a signal...and if they did all fire on a pre-arranged signal Ned lied about it... and Lonigan would need still to have been out in the open and standing as drawn to sustain the injuries he did....have you an answer to any of these difficulties Horrie? Would you accept Ned fired 'swan drops or something of that kind' if not specifically a quartered bullet?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dee, firstly I concede that Ned could have loaded his powerful .577 Enfield with anything. There was a danger, if he did so, that the gun might have jammed or exploded.

      For the quartered bullet or "mixed load" theory to stand up, there should have been evidence of practice at the Kelly Germans Creek stronghold. It was noted trees there bore evidence of being used for target practice. Irregular holes (not round} would have stood out.

      In my army days at the rifle butts, wearing ear plugs, the signal to commence firing was by the drop of a hand. If such a signal was given at SBC, McIntyre may not have noticed it. McIntyre's focus would have been on Ned's gun, everything else being peripheral.

      I don't claim this is what happened. But it is as possible as the "mixed load".

      Ned did not replace the Mansfield vicar's birdshot shotgun cartridges - if he did - with swan drops until after Lonigan was dead. Swan drops, of course, are a different proposition to a quartered lead ball or a mix of objects including a conical revolver bullet - the trajectories of which would be impossible to compute.

      Nor am I a ballistics expert but consider myself well-read on the subject. My scores with FN and sub-machine gun would have earned me a marksman's badge and extra pay. Army policy then was to exclude humble Nashos like me.

      Delete
    2. Mike Munro was on telly tonight spruiking his Ned Kelly "Lawless" doco, and promising major revelations.

      I'm thinking I will be able to hear Bill and Carla's shrieks of indignation way out here in the bush!

      The Lawless archaeologist found nothing at Glenrowan earlier (in a Time Team episode). I'm not holding my breath that he found anything as SBC either.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Horrie. I would also concede it possible that at someones signal they all fired at exactly the same split second and that it sounded like one bang and not four. Almost anything is possible But in all seriousness how likely is that? Given we are talking about guns of different types, I would have thought the interval from signal to "bang" would be different for all of them because of the different way they worked, making the likelihood that four simultaneous 'bangs' made a sound that was indistinguishable from a single 'bang' from one gun exceedingly unlikely. And yes its also possible a signal could have been given that McIntyre didn't see, though it becomes problematic explaining how a signal that was so subtle that McIntyre didn't notice it could have easily been seen by men standing in a line side by side.

      Yes its true we don't know what Neds gun was initially loaded with, but we do know that he claimed only one shot was fired and it was from his gun, and we do know that he had swan drops with him, and that he loaded them into a different rifle later on.

      I would say your explanation relies on too many highly improbable events.

      Delete
    4. Gunfire up close is v e r y Loud with echoes sometimes.

      The "mixed objects" load relies on many suppositions also.

      Delete
  18. I have created a little webpage to show what will be pushed upon the viewer of Lawless tonight at 8.30 on the Foxtel history Channel.

    Click here
    Lawless - Police camp SBC site will be wrongly shown to be at the Picnic Ground Kelly tree area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well done, Bill! I support your assertion that if the Burman photos aren't the backdrop, it ain't the Police Camp site.

      I don't think the rest of the program will be much better...

      Delete
    2. Foxtel needs to have a VERY, very, very long, hard look at it "history" channel. It is full of rubbishy shows which desperately needed peer review.

      Tonight's "Lawless" account of Ned Kelly was indulgent, trivial, time-wasting nonsense - showcasing three Nongs posing as "experts" who proved that they weren't. There was lots of piffle and non-sequiturs (things that don't follow). I groaned often.

      The most excruciating moment (and there were many) was when a Sgt. Kennedy descendent took off his hat when shown where his Great Grandfather was murdered. The likelihood that the "Lawless" archeologist had found the right place was minimal. He had already completely misidentified the Police Camp site.

      Among the few positives was the acceptance of Ned's police mass murder plans at Glenrowan.

      Too bad Dr Russ Scott who was interviewed wasn't included. His would have been an authoritative, real expert, view on Ned's psychopathy.

      All-in-all a woeful, amateurish fail. 1/10.

      Delete
    3. Yes Horrie, it was almost unwatchable. What a pity. It was just a typical commercial beat-up with manufactured mysteries designed to be miraculously solved by the clever experts who ought to be really embarrassed by this effort.

      Delete
  19. "LAWLESS"= HOGWASH".

    Too much time spent on SBC views that could have better been spent on interviews with real experts like Bill Denheld.

    ReplyDelete
  20. L A W L E S S what a god awful grind. I was expecting better than that. It's 2017, for heaven's sake, not 1878!

    Get real!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The only thing I liked about "Lawless" is that the pro-Kelly grubs wouldn't like it.

    They're done for.

    Its all over folks!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Foxtel Lawless – Ned Kelly review. Seriously disappointing. The episode started with a clanger – “SBC - Outlawed Ned Kelly chases down a fourth policeman”. He wasn’t outlawed until after SBC, and it was mostly downhill from there. We heard that the Kellys “claimed to be the champions of the downtrodden and the poor”. That is a 20th century interpretation, never a claim by the Kellys who, as the program noted, stole a lot of stock (and a few mouldboards) from small selector farmers. It noted that SBC was located at an intersection of stock theft routes, as Morrissey pointed out long ago, and as well illustrated by one of the proposed DWELP SBC signs. The program did not visually illustrate this in any clear way. It asserted that Fitzpatrick frequented Mrs Kelly’s sly grog shanty to drink, and made advances to Kate. There is no support anywhere for the first assertion, and no evidence for the second except Ashmead’s purple prose, which I discussed in my “Redeeming Fitzpatrick” article (google to download it). I sent Genepool that article soon after the film project was announced, so for the program to say there was no conclusive evidence that Fitzpatrick was shot is bonkers. The program discussed the Burman photos and used drone laser mapping to map the area around Ford’s selected hut site, but failed to map the other key competing sites – Bill’s Two Huts site, and the CSI site (unless I have confused that with Ford’s site). As a result, it wasted the opportunity to use the technology to compare evidence for the competing theories. As far as I could see, it was simply a push to promote Ford’s selected site and show how clever they all were to claim to find something new; but this is hardly scientific. Having claimed the location, they then used a series of flags to map out the distances between the police and the gang as shown on McIntyre’s map. What we got was a series of confused shots of Ford walking around planting flags in the bush. For the purpose of getting a sense of the distances between each of those involved, it would have been far better to film that on a football oval. Some irrelevant distraction was provided by someone getting a nice Ned Kelly tattoo, but so what. From what has been said, Russ Scott, who wrote the “Ned Kelly – Psychopath” article was interviewed for the program, but it was not used, perhaps in a kow-tow to the Kelly lobby, as that article is a key part of understanding Kelly’s mental makeup and the events he triggered.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lawless, Part 2 - The program considered quartered/split bullets, and a test firing at I think they said 40 yards (the presentation was very quick), produced two bullet holes and a wadding hole on a wall from the one bullet. But with only one firing, which missed the simulated human target, we can’t know the effect it would have had on a body. The only thing I have read (re the late 18th century) suggested that a quartered bullet would split on impact, creating one messy big hole. There should have been a second firing to hit the target so we could see that result. At present it seems inconclusive; but they did argue that based on their result, there must have been a second gun involved. That too is inconclusive with only the one firing, as a different bullet might have produced 4 fragments; or again, it might have only produced one messy hole. We’ll never know, as they didn’t bother to do it twice so as to hit the simulated body target. They argued that Lonigan’s leg wound resulted from a close range shot, so there is another question involved in that. Kelly’s self-defense story was eliminated in respect of the gang waiting for half an hour to kill Scanlon and Kennedy on their return. The gang could have grabbed the camp’s weapons, ammunition and supplies. and gone bush in the interval. The second two killings at least were simply cold blooded murder, and chasing Kennedy half a mile through the bush was unquestionably a deliberate execution. Byard showed that the already wounded Kennedy died from a charge of heavy shot through the sternum. How the Kelly brigade could ever have thought otherwise is beyond me, but that bit of the program should eliminate any lingering doubts in anyone. The program suggested a link between the Kelly and the Whiteboys in Ireland, based on the last line of the Jerilderie Letter, “my orders must be obeyed”. Ian Jones only mentioned the Whiteboys in passing in “Fatal Friendship”, in relation to Joe Byrne’s grandfather. The last line of the letter, about orders, is in reference to the failure of the SBC police to obey his orders to bail up; McIntyre obeyed, and was unharmed (physically, at least). The theory was otherwise unsupported except by lurid graphics and references to threatening letters in a vigorous and violent Irish enforcement tradition, which was not shown to apply to NE Victoria. A long bow, methinks. The program showed the train derailment site at Glenrowan, but failed to explain the intent to stand on the culvert bank in armour and shoot any. The way it was presented, the train would crash and those in it would die, without any of the planned follow up shooting being mentioned. The end summary fell into the schoolbook hero/villain trap and trailed off inconclusively, except for a reminder that the police that were killed are the forgotten side of the Kelly story. Given the bulk of the program focus was on SBC, but everything except Ford’s preferred site was ignored, one and a half stars.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Have to agree with what others are saying. Lawless, after all its hype, was a real fizzer and very superficial. They tried to cover what is a very complex story in one 60 minute episode and failed miserably. As someone has already said, they would have been better getting a few people on 'the team' who know the Kelly story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike Monro should have left this alone. but he said "This is among some of the best stuff I've ever been involved in in 40 years of journalism."

      https://www.qt.com.au/news/mike-munros-ned-kelly-bombshell/3241369/

      What a goose! The Lawless program was pure waffle. Why the South Australian experts?

      What was Mike thinking?

      Delete
  25. While watching "Lawless" I was trying to figure out who was the dumbest expert. By half-time I thought it was the lady historian. Prof Byard is an expert on how Kelly tattoos can lead to an early demise, but he didn't know much about The Bushranger.

    In the end, I selected the archaeologist who hogged (fogged) the whole show. His sky-cam radar mapped topography, but could not not have uncovered an underground hut site (as was claimed and depicted), That would have required side-looking radar. They didn't have that.

    So where did the hut near the Lawless archaeologist's picnic ground hut site come from. We were shown it. But not where it was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The archaeologist is probably planning a book and wanted to keep his locations secret.

      Bill Denheld, whose police camp site is correct and verifiable, has posted all his information and references for all to see - for a decade or more. Its at his Two Huts website.

      The Australian newspaper thought the show was OK, but the feature writer was a bit higorant.

      I thought "Lawless" was sh*t!

      Lawless might join the list of TV series pulled after the first episode. Foxtel History is a joke.

      Delete
    2. Genepool has been taken over by a bigger organisation which should have sacked anyone associated with this Lawless codswallop. In turn Foxtel should have fired the lot of them. What a ghastly waste of time the program was.

      I was expecting something completely different. Real experts and not South Australian ring-ins; a real SBC investigation involving Bill; and fewer fills and crosses.

      A disaster overall.

      Delete

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.