In his 1986 book ‘The Peoples Force’ Robert Haldane included a controversial theory about the police search party that went looking for the Kellys at Stringybark creek. He claimed that the police were ‘disguised as diggers’ – meaning that police actively took steps to hide their identity and appear to be ‘diggers’ – miners – to anyone they might come across. Kelly cult extremists have always claimed that it was underhand and devious for police to disguise themselves, and they point to this practice as support for their routine disparagement of police as corrupt and as being worse than the criminals themselves. They claim that being in disguise meant the police were up to no good, that they were out to kill the Kellys if they could find them.
In fact, even a superficial examination of this popular claim about police being in disguise, and of disguise as being in some way unethical and as proof the police were planning murder, shows that it is nonsense. Have none of these Kelly cult fanatics ever heard of undercover police? Wiretaps? Covert surveillance? If police WERE undercover, they were doing what police have often done – and still do – when trying to track down criminals. If police happened to be disguised, nothing sinister needs to be read into it – its a perfectly legitimate policing tactic on occasion. Only paranoid police haters see something sinister in the need for police to sometimes be in disguise, to be ‘under cover’.
The crazy part about this whole ‘disguise’ thing and the Kelly story is that it didn’t even happen! Haldane doesn’t back up his claim about police being in disguise with any evidence, he doesn’t say anything about how he knew police were in disguise as diggers, and he doesn’t say what measures police had taken to disguise themselves. All he does is repeat a generic claim, a baseless speculation that various people have made over the years in response to the fact that police were not in uniform. I would imagine if you were going to deliberately disguise yourself as a digger, you would make sure things that miners use like shovels and picks, pans and sluice boxes were on display…but nobody, as far as I know has ever reported that the police carried shovels, picks, pans and sluice boxes up to Stringybark creek, or for that matter anything other than the things police would ordinarily take on a search.
The references Haldane provides for the chapter in which he makes those claims are large general reference works and none of them are specifically linked to that particular claim.
So, how should anyone interested in understanding the truth about what happened at SBC respond to this claim that police were in disguise?
One thing you could do is what Kelly apologist Stuart Rowsell did: just instantly accept that it must be true. It’s funny that he did that, because he used to make a big song and dance about not accepting claims that were not supported by evidence. This is what he wrote in 2024: “Anyone can have an opinion … i just want to see that opinion backed with evidence – i am sick of opinions dressed as facts. I always try and attach my opinion with evidence – but others don’t – they just say ‘trust me’ … i am sick of that BS …. i get you we have discussed this 1000 times – how many more times do we discuss this shit!!???? All i want is the discussion backed with verifiable evidence and not a ‘trust me’ bollocks …”. Actually, as this example shows, he only adopts that posture of wanting evidence when it suits him.
If Rowsell had been bothered to do what I did, and actually look for the evidence to support that claim he wouldn’t have been quite so eager to use it in support of his attempt to persuade us that Ned Kelly didnt know it was police at SBC until after he bailed them up and murdered Lonigan. Rowsell says Kelly couldn’t have known they were police because Robert Haldane said in 1986 that they were disguised as diggers.
The problem is that in the same sentence that Haldane makes that claim about police being disguised as diggers, he also wrote that the police were armed with “Spencer rifles and double-barrelled shotguns”. He doesn’t say how many rifles and shotguns, but he clearly means they had at least two of each….and as everyone should know, Haldane got that wrong: police had ONE spencer rifle and ONE shotgun, both weapons having been borrowed for the search. On that same page (p91) Haldane also says Fitzpatrick disobeyed instructions in going to the Kelly shanty at Greta to arrest Dan – not true, he went with the express approval of Whelan, his superior. Haldane also implies Fitzpatrick erred in not having taken an arrest warrant – also not true. Haldane later says Scanlan ‘engaged the outlaws in gunfire’ and that McIntyre escaped on foot, two more details that we know are not true.
On the evidence then, it would be more than fair to say that Haldane was not well informed about the detail of the outbreak, and so, at the very least his assertion about police being in disguise should be regarded suspiciously. In fact, as there is NO evidence to support that claim, it would be more than reasonable to reject it. Kelly fanatics like Rowsell on the other hand will cling to it, because they prefer conspiracy theory explanations rather than facts and evidence like normal people do. As for plucking those three words – “disguised as diggers” from out of the midst of a paragraph full of errors, and other claims Rowsell vehemently disagrees with : this is shamefully dishonest and cynical. He would know that very few if any of his readers would have Haldanes book to fact check him.
What we know about the police is that they were not wearing their uniforms – but it was common practice when out in the bush on patrol to wear ordinary clothes. There is no need, and no evidence to support a claim that there was something sinister about police not wearing a police uniform while on a search in rugged bush country. They were not in disguise, they were just doing what they always did: wearing normal clothes.
From my readings it was evident that Detective Ward roamed kelly country in disguise. I’m certain he hinted this. Rowsells speculative theory on the matter in nonsense and baseless.
Jon
Hi David, I’m guessing you’re using Haldane’s The People’s Force second edn 1995 re page 91 on SBC, which is the edition I have. You’re right, Haldane is full of errors about both SBC and the Fitzpatrick incident. I drafted a rewrite about the Fitzpatrick incident for him while he was working on his third edition but Haldane dropped the only contact email I had for him via a country newspaper and he never got my stuff. His buddy for information on the Fitzpatrick incident was Doug Morrissey, who as you know refused to change his mind about Fitzpatrick being a bad apple while he was writing his Kelly trilogy despite the ton of evidence I produced in my Redeeming Fitzpatrick article. The result is ongoing nonsense provided to readers of obsolete material who know no better.
As for SBC, Haldane went totally of the rails in a dozen places as you have pointed out above. His write up is unreferenced other than vaguely to unspecified PROV documents and there is of course no evidence in any of the Kelly files for “Spencer rifles and double-barrelled shotguns” plural because it’s rubbish. He mentions McQuilton in his bibliography, who was a close follower of Jones and followed him in several clangers, most notably about the number of armed Kelly sypmpathisers claimed to be at Glenrowan. As I showed in my Republic Myth book, McQuilton’s “army” is actually only one armed man seen by anyone all night, when you analyse his references. A classic bungle.
Plainclothes work and even disguises were not uncommon for detectives; see the fascinating biography of Detective John Christie by Casteau, and John Lahey’s Damn you John Christie.
But at SBC the police were wearing ordinary bush clothes as was common when bush policing. Just look at the photos of the police at Glenrowan; no uniforms anywhere. But plently on the wall mural on Kate’s Cottage at Glenrowan. I mentioned tis to them while the mural was stil halfway painted. They said they knew that as lots of people had been telling them, but the artist was doing his thing anyway.
Haldane was full of it in his section that covers the Kelly gang. No historical research worth mentioning at all; except that he did explain what a Diary of Duty and Occurances was (p. 110). It logged police and police horse movements from each police station. Unfortunately the one coverign teh period of teh Fitzpatrick incident is one of hundreds of such records that have been lost over the decades, or we be able to check his movements on 15 April 1878 and further confirm his statements which are remarkably consistent if anyone bothers to look.
The oft-repeated claim that Ned didn’t know they were police is easily disposed of out of his own mouth : he wrote (or dictated) that he had identified the horseshoe prints as police horseshoes BEFORE he ambushed the police party!
Shameless plug alert : the latest instalment of my Glenrowan Tactical Breakdown series is now up on YouTube. I think the title is “Glenrowan Tactical Breakdown episode 5; the night battle.”
But peace reigns here on the infamous Palmer River goldfields of old, where I’m relaxing beside the campfire….
Hi Tomas, another outstanding Kelly video from you that people really need to watch as it debunks a lot of stuff in about 50 minutes with some great animations including of Monty Webb cartoons that should appeal to all manner of Kelly enthusiasts. For everyone’s convenience the URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKCaxPqgeg
This video tackles many myths about Glenrowan, some in passing, but a couple of highlights are the close examination of how Ned Kelly most likely escaped from the Inn into the bush while some 14 police were still in the process of trying to surround the Inn in the dark; why the Qld blacktrackers were stationed in a culvert facing the Inn and why this was an excellent position; a clearly explained debunk of the tale that Sgt Steele knowingly fired at a woman carrying a child; and a whole lot more.
Tomas (aka The Jaguar Knight) uses a large number of photos and etchings of the day to make his points, so he has put forward good evidence for his arguments. One of several controversies tackled is whether Ned Kelly himself might have intentionally shot Martin Cherry in the outbuilding behind the Inn where he was found later. A sketch done at the time by W. Theril of the building shows the outbuilding front-on in the background and lends weight to Tomas’s reconstruction of the scene. That sketch is at roughly 45:35 on the video timeline, labelled ‘Outhouse where Martin Cherry slowly died’.
Anyone interested in what happened at Glenrowan will not want to miss this hour of power!
There has been some discussion about whether a Father Tierney also heard Ned Kelly’s confession at Glenrowan in addition to Father Gibney. The Tierney reference is in the South Australian Advertiser 1880-07-03 Saturday 3 July 1880 p 6 at https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/30803738# and gives the Age 29 June as its source.
Father Gibney is generally acknowledged to have been the one who heard Kelly’s coinfession, e.g. the Glen Innes Examiner and General Advertiser 1880-07-20 Tues 20 July 1880, 2 and 4, at https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217784370/23888182#
Reading the two articles together, it seems there were two clergymen present, as the Glen Innes Examiner reported that “Father Gibney was a total stranger, knowing not a soul of the hundreds that were there, and none of them knew him. He was, however, introduced by one of the medical gentlemen to a Church of England minister, who was there. They spoke freely together for about 20 minutes discussing the situation. Father Gibney told him that he felt very much the position that he was in; that these men were likely to die as they had lived, without a chance of repentance; also, that he had been partly deterred from asking them to surrender by what Ned Kelly had said, but that he was not satisfied. The Church of England clergyman replied that he would not advise any one to go, as it was the duty of the police, who undertook any such risks when they were engaged in the service. ”
I suspect from reading these and a couple of other articles that only Father Gibney heard Kelly’s confession. I’m not sure from these articles who assisted with geting Martin Cherry out of the rear outbuilding, but again it appears from that article to have been Gibney, and not some other clergymnan, who adimistered the last rite to Cherry: “Father Gibney was told that Cherry and the other confinees had been repeatedly engaged in prayer, and he (the rev. father) was so satisfied that he died penitent, that he had no hesitation in administering the last sacraments to him.” I suspect that the other clergyman, who may have been Tierney but I haven’t looked into it, had only a spectator’s role. TBC.
Looking at those two articles again, I suspect that the reporter who wired that Father Tierney heard Ned’s confession had confused his name with that of Father Gibney. The other things attributed to Tierney in one article were stated as being done by Gibney in the other; and there is no doubt that it was Gibney who went into the Inn and helped drag out Byrne’s body.
I think we are simply dealing with a mistake by a reporter, using Tierney instead of Gibney in one wired report. Comments welcome after people have read the source articles.
Weired type of presentation but is effective.
Correction to your presentation and my take on the outhouse.
anon 101
Attachment
Great photo and yes that does look like the thunderbox out the back..
Damn, I have to admit that one escaped my notice and sure looks like a toilet, although it would be a strange arrangement to have to go through a stable to use the loo in the horse paddock…? Another possibility is that it’s a storage for horsey things, but it does make a mess of my nifty models !!
Tomas
I’m sure there is no need to go through the stables for a dump. I suggest you re-examine the photos again. I’m sure you missed something.
Attachment
Oh I’m reexamining it, that’s for sure! Sorry I forgot to thank you for this excellent information – just knowing that there was a third structure on the premises is great, although it makes only a cosmetic change to my scenario for how Cherry came to be lying wounded in the outhouse, and to the route of Ned’s escape, which would still be through the stable (note that O’Connor calls it a stable on his mud map, unlike the various persons who called it a kitchen). I’ll reshoot the segment and re-upload the video, obviously after making another crappy model too, in light of this discovery. Although this is the best resolution of the picture I’ve ever seen, I can’t immediately see how hotel guests would get from our side of the stable to the tiny structure on the other side without either going through the big one or climbing a fence, but I’ll nut it out carefully yet. Thanks again !
Pardon my ignorance Tomas.
My understanding is Cherry was removed from the detached building opposite the Inn. A breezeway separated the two.
Note sure where your getting your information from that Cherry was found in the thunderbox. The only source I know of where it mentioned “outhouse” can be found at The old limerick journal – autumn 1990
‘In the outhouse or kitchen, immediately behind the main building, Martin Chery, who was one of the prisoners made by the gang, and who was so severely wounded that he could not leave the house when the other prisoners left, was found still living.’
Further we have Martin Cherry inquest.
Take note of Sadlier’s Bracken and Dixon Testimony. Also, RC Q. 2869 and 7281
O’connors mudmap is not to be relied upon. The arrangments and positioning of the men is about the only thing that can be trusted. He has the Gatehouse on the wrong side of the track.
Tomas, the answer your looking for might be in the form of a ‘gate.’ The gate will be difficult to detect, with the images we have. Therefore I suggest you visit the State library and study the images close up. Might be a waste of time but at least you’ve explored another avenue.
All the best
😉
Hi Anon, did you not notice Bracken in the Inquest into Cherry stating that the building he was found in “remains unburnt to this day” (or words to that effect)? That eliminates the one connected to the pub. Sadleir said something similar in the RC, and one other officer too, but I’m separated from my files by the fact that I’m cruising the Outback somewhere. The idea that he was found in the double structure of the Ann Jones Inn is a myth that should never have gotten off the ground in the first place. I explored it in a deep dive in my “Glenrowan Tactical Breakdown episode 3; the hostages.” Of course, the tiny outhouse that you pointed out in the first photo you attached as unburnt too as much as the bigger structure that I modelled. Which one of those two they found him in makes only a cosmetic difference to my theory, it still provides a way that he could have been shot there by the Gang BEFORE the police ever fired a shot, and thinking about it some more since we last corresponded, why wouldn’t the gracious host want to have TWO loos, one for her family and one for the guests, just like every family run accommodation on planet Earth? I suspect that tiny one is for the family, and one that was accessible by a shorter plod (in the stable) for the guests? Anyway, the open road beckons, cheers!
Hi Tomas, the photo uploaded by Anon labelled The Shithouse Behind The Stables has been bugging me, and not because I’m busting for a dump. Rather, it’s because it seems to be near the far end of a line of tents, which I’m guessing were the labourers’ tents parallel to the railway line as indicated in the sketch of Glenrowan 1880 at the front of Ian Jones’ Short Life book.
The same sketch shows the Inn and the detached kitchen behind it, both burned to the shithouse in the denouement (as the French say); and there is another outbuilding on the hotel block up the back as also seen in your video reconstruction of events. It will be this building or stable or whatever it was, that Cherry was found in.
To have a view of the little building in that photo you have to be standing some distance in front of the far right tent, and the tents are in a row parallel to the front of the Inn, both in the photo and in Jones’ illustration. What’s puzzling is that the stable where Cherry was found should be in an outbuilding in a line from the Inn to the back of its block, as in Jones’ sketch. It should not be way off to the right of the Inn near the workers tents as it looks in the shithouse photo.
It also seems to have a different rook structure. The one labelled shithouse behind the stables has two parallel beams holding down the bark roof, whereas the other photo labelled Another Angle of the Shithouse has much more uneven bandage on its visible side, and there are no tents anywhere to be seen. Perhaps there were two small bark huts; one ip the back of the Inn yard as located in Jones’ sketch; and another over near tg the right of the workers tents that was irrelevant to the story and unnoticed in Jones’ illustration??
Or I may be just misinterpreting the photos.
Hi Stuart! Although it doesn’t change my hypothesis that the Outlaws murdered Cherry on their way back from their scouting expedition (because the issue here is murder, not whether it happened in a stable or a dunny), still I will have to re-shoot that models based scene and re-upload, since the presence of an extra building is just too significant to overlook. Butt I ask anyone to shoot down this logic with logic : Mrs Jones would not want her children (let alone herself) and the hotel guests (who might be pretty rough stuff) using the same dunny, and the presence of TWO dunnies, one for family and one for patrons, would be entirely unsurprising. With the higher res photo available now, I now doubt my own earlier conclusion that there were two big doors on the bigger outhouse, since it now looks to me that the dark panel on the left of that face slightly overlaps one of these “doors,” (photo titled “shithouse behind stables), and being shorter than those two panels, an arrangement more logical for a door than for a wall (although they could conceivably also be THREE doors…! ) I’ll work on these factors as I prepare the revised scenario, although the essence of it remains unchanged : murder in the dark out the back, whichever of the stable or the tiny shack, or the toilet that I still think was in the bigger outhouse alongside a stable, it may have been.
Finally, folks, you have no idea how surreal it is to speed around the Outback constantly fretting over… erm… photos of toilets.
Hi Tomas, you’re a long way from Glenrowan then! There’s a great free iPhone app called Flush, with a green icon and an image of a roll of dunny paper on it, that gives locations and sometimes open hours for public toilets all over the country depending on people uploading the info. I’ve used it in a few towns from Coleraine to Warrnambool to Corowa and it’s been quite handy. I suppose in the outback though you could just dig a quick hole with a trenching tool…
Hahaha, no I meant that most people on a holiday in the Outback are thinking about natural wonders and stuff, whereas people of our ilk can be distinguished by pondering the most arcane pieces of useless knowledge even at times like THIS ! I’ll leave Barcaldine soon, butt only after dropping in on the venerated relic, The Tree of Knowledge, and taking a revised, updated, realistic version of the Oath 😉 Cheers!
Is that the famous Cunoath that Buddah swore under the Banyan tree when a monkey did its business from on high?
Tomas,
S/C Kelly reported July 8 1880
‘I beg to report I have made carful inquiries, etc, etc. I find that through any light on the matter is John Larkins on of the prisoners who the outlaws had locked up on Jones Hotel at Glenrowan. Larkin states that he and Cherry got into the Kitchen at the rear of the hotel there were two little bedrooms attached to the kitchen on the west side the deceased was lying on a bed that was on the floor
About 6am Cherry called Larkins and said I am shot come here and cover me’
Larkins has no doubt the deceased was shot in the west end of the kitchen by police.
Wm. Sandycook, also states that he was a short time in the kitchen referred to and the only persons he saw were the deceased Cherry and Larkins
Source: PROV VPRS:
Worthy article: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/68746113
Martin Cherry who was one of the prisoners of the gang, and who was so severely wounded that he could not leave the house when the other prisoners left.
Source: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/161912882
I was made aware that deceased was lying wounded in the back yard kitchen. I then endeavored to avoid the firing into this kitchen. By J. Sadlier, magisterial inquiry. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/240935264
Hugh Bracken, deposed: I was made a prisoner by the Kelly gang on Sunday night last at half-past 10 o’clock. I know the deceased. He was a repairer on the railway line. He was also made a prisoner. He was at Mrs. Jones’s hotel when I arrived, and was with the others. He was all right about 1 o’clock on Monday morning. I made my escape after 2 o’clock am. I saw the police approach the house within three minutes after my escape. I had given them notice that the Kellys were in the hotel. They were fired on from the hotel. The police returned the fire, and continued the attack till it was all over. I next saw the deceased when he was taken out of the building. He was then alive. He was taken out of the hut at the back of the hotel. The fire had not reached that place. Deceased was not affected by the fire. He died shortly afterwards. The hut he was taken from still stands unburnt.
Thomas Dixon, deposed: I have seen the body of Martin Cherry and identify him. I was present at the burning of the house. I went to the hut as soon as the priest came out. I heard there was a man wounded in the hut. With others I helped to bring him out. I said, ” Martin, how are you?” He said, ” Oh, you know me.” When we were bringing him out he said, ” Oh, don’t hurt me.” I searched further, and on coming out found deceased dying.
John Sadlier, deposed: I had charge of the attacking party of police on Monday morning at Glenrowan. The firing continued at intervals both from the hotel and by the police. It was not until the captives had made their escape from the hotel that I was made aware that deceased was lying wounded in the back kitchen. I then endeavoured to avoid firing into this kitchen.
In firing the main building, it was arranged that deceased was to be rescued before the fire could reach him. I rushed up to the kitchen myself first.
Saw Dixon and others lift out the body of deceased, who was then alive. He died in a few minutes. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/43152733
“Indeed, the firing at this time by all accounts seems to have been indiscriminate, the blacks particularly being industrious in potting away at the premises. The prisoners in a state of terror, arranged to hold out a white handkerchief, at which several shots were immediately fired, a proceeding highly reprehensible, as the most untutored savage is supposed to respect the signal of surrender. The order was given to fire high, but not before one of Mrs. Jones’s children and a man named Martin Cherry were wounded, the latter fatally.” https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/11528277
The fire speedily gained a hold upon the building, and in a very short time the flames were playing right up to the roof. But still the outlaws made no sign, and the police and spectators began to ask each other wonderingly: “Are they dead? or, have they escaped? or, do they mean to stay there till they’re roasted?” And at this moment a startling cry was raised — “Old Martin Cherry is still in the house!” Such was the case. As the fire rapidly spread, and it was seen that the whole building would soon be enveloped in flames, the excitement among the crowd increased.
And at this juncture Father Gibney stepped forward and expressed his determination of saving Cherry if the old man was still alive. Holding the crucifix aloft, and amid the cheers of the crowd, the brave priest walked rapidly up to the door of the burning building, and was soon lost to view amidst the dense smoke. A moment later the whole structure appeared to burst into a blaze, masses of flame rushing out from the sides and the roof simultaneously. A shout of terror went up from the crowd, and a simultaneous movement was made towards the burning pile. Several policemen and others ran to the rear of the house, and rushed into the building through the back door; and shortly afterwards they emerged with Father Gibney in their midst, bearing in their arms the old man Cherry, who was in a dying condition. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/62185638
It is very probable that Father Gibney referred to in the above telegram from ‘West Australia is the brave Roman Catholic priest who made his name famous because of the cool bravery he displayed on the occasion of the capture of the Kelly gang of outlaws at Glenrowan. One who was present on the occasion furnishes the following particulars of Father Gibney’s conduct:
‘I remember Father Gibney well. He arrived at Glenrowan by train before Mrs. Jones’s Glenrowan Inn was burned down.’ From inquiries made I learned that he was a travelling priest from West Australia. He took much interest in what was going on, and interviewed Kate Kelly and Mrs. Skillion (sisters of the outlaws) on the Glenrowan railway platform, and urged to send a message to the hotel, asking the outlaws to throw down their arms and gave themselves up to the police. The women, however, like Ned Kelly, who was at that time a prisoner in the station, scouted the idea, averring that the gang would never be taken alive. Subsequently Superintendent Sadler consented under pressure to permit Senior-constable Johnston to set fire to the hotel. At that juncture I was standing near to Father Gibney, and he spoke of the fact of there being an innocent and wounded man (Martin Cherry) in the building, and he formed the heroic resolution of going to his rescue. Senior-constable Johnson had set fire to the end of the house, and the several hundred spectators who were then present, evidently awe stricken, gazed silently on the scene, when suddenly the tall and erect form of Father Gibney stalked from their midst and appeared on the open ground in front of the then smouldering hotel. ‘Stand,’ ‘ Go back,’ were the stern orders of the armed police, but Father Gibney heeded them not and looking neither to the right nor the left he marched erect and firmly to the doorway of the hotel. The scene at this stage was tremendously sensational, as the act of Father Gibney stepping over the threshold appeared to be the signal for the whole roof to belch out name. I confess to feeling at that moment more concern for the brave priest than for the wounded man Cherry, and ran to the back of the house. There I discovered what neither Father Gibney nor myself had known previously that the police had very properly made provision to prevent harm being done to poor Martin Cherry, and before the priest had passed through the fiery scene four stalwart men had rushed into the back storeroom and carried Cherry away unscathed by fire. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/114080247
Further reading
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/282810991
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/114083735
I’ll attach the above in an pdf format. This platform will not allow more than one attachment per post.
Attachment
Thats a convincing line up of quotes 101. and the floor plans of the skillion are not ones Ive seen before.
The only contrary opinion seems to be Brackens so I think we might have to conclude he was the one who was mistaken….
No, Bracken was NOT the only one who said it was in the mystery structure : so did O’Connor and Johnston at the RC. Their sworn testimonies should be privileged above newspaper reminiscence stories of hearsay anecdotes, which is what the various line items in that pdf are.
I posted a point-by-point rebuttal of every one of the quotes in that reply by 101, one of which transforms when the context is restored before and after it, and one of which (the Bracken quote), actually backs up my argument, ending as it does in “still unburnt to this day.”
Did my lengthy rebuttal exceed a maximum length, David ? How about I do it again broken into two ?
Ok thanks Tomas I like your offer. Ive just been realising how important this topic is – the question of who killed Martin Cherry…police always blamed for it, and his death always included in the hyperbole about police brutality and reckless shooting and all the rest of it.
Heres what I would like you to do : make your case into a formal Blog Post ( around 1500 words? ) with title such as The Kelly Gang Killed Martin Cherry, or Did the Police Kill Martin Cherry…send it to me at studybox98@gmail.com and we will resume the discussion there ATM its liable to get lost in this Post about Police disguise.
I think we can probably reach a definitive conclusion on this, and maybe change the narrative significantly…
David, I went back and had another read and so it appears. Point taken Tomas.
Brackens, statement in my opinion is somewhat questionable. In his statement, he stated the following.
‘In my escape shortly after 2am I saw the police approach the building “immediately” after my escape’.
Hmm ‘immediately’ me think not – more so moments later.
Bracken’s recollections although questionable should be read with an open mind – some credit is due to the bloke who was ill and gave his all.
I guess we can now eliminate the “stables” from the equation based on Brackens final entry. He, gave us an excellent account as follows.
“He was then alive – the building was a hut used as a kitchen at the back of the hotel the fire had not reached the hut and the deceased was not affected by the fire” (by all accounts)
It makes sense that Bracken was for one reason or another distracted when providing his evidence by suggesting the “hut” (kitchen) is now standing unburnt.
Sorry, Anon 101, I only just noticed this comment, and I’ll have to move on from the free wi-fi in Barcaldine very soon.
Bracken’s words
“the building was a hut used as a kitchen at the back of the hotel ”
= go-either-way description, given that no two persons seemed to agree on the mystery structure’s actual use….
“at the back of the hotel ”
= go-either-way, since both the family’s side of the breezeway AND the mystery structure can be described as “at the back of the hotel.”
“the deceased was not affected by the fire”
= go-either-way….
Why would Bracken “be distracted” while giving evidence at the sedate magisterial enquiry into Cherry’s death? Especially given that his claim (the unburnt thingy) completely tallies with O’Connor’s account at the RC, and that’s only considering first-hand sources, there’s also things like the ex-hostage who told the rescuers to relocate their efforts
[ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217784370/23888184 ]
“One of the men who had been bailed up in the
house came running up breathlessly, saying,
” Here’s where Cherry is,” pointing to a little
back place. Cherry was sensible when found,
but when carried out became unconscious.”
I must have bored you and David and Dave with this stuff more than once each, butt it’s a little hard to keep track of, my apologies !
I just noticed a message from David suggesting I make a formal blog post about the whole issue, and I’ll be doing that, but the open road beckons now, cheers!
Ooops, one more thing before I do all that – what is the provenance of the floor plan map you ran in your major post ? Cheers!
No, Bracken’s is NOT the only contrary opinion, here’s another one, and unlike every one of those references used to place MC’s location in the hotel, it is unequivocal :
( RC Minutes, p. 455) “When we fired the building we
were aware that only the two outlaws were in it alone, not as otherwise stated a lot of innocent men.
I may state, in conclusion, that the house where “Cherry,”
the wounded man, lay was another building,
and was standing intact when we left the ground. [ … ]
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) STANHOPE O’CONNOR”
Just as I’m the only one who appears to have noticed these individuals
( quoted on this thread as if proof of the body being NOT in the dunny! )
as unequivocally shooting that idea down in the same passage, so too I appear to be the only one who noticed, in that article attached by Stuart higher up this thread ( https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217784370/23888184 ) , the following unequivocal snippet :
“One of the men who had been bailed up in the
house came running up breathlessly, saying,
“Here’s where Cherry is,” pointing to a little
back place. Cherry was sensible when found,
but when carried out became unconscious.”
Folks, who wants to be brave and assert that the family’s half of the main building was “a little back place”? This backs up my contention, not the received-wisdom one.
Besides the resolute sworn statements of Bracken and O’Connor, there are clues barely noticeable, such as
Why did Fr Gibney express puzzlement AT THE TIME over where Cherry had been found?
“In fact one of my impressions at the moment was that this man was one of the party of the bodies that I met inside, and that he had life in him, and he was taken out, and I said to myself—“Is it possible I did not observe that, because I was certain they were dead?”
Keep in mind that Cherry was the age of all three put together of those outlaws he had seen dead in the Inn, so Gibney here is a man truly scratching his head over developments! But it’s easy to solve that puzzle : Cherry was NOT in the Inn.
By contrast, the items quoted by Anon 101 in the pdf are at best, low-grade, unsworn, published as entertainment, mostly long after the events, and often from the rumour mill of the crowd of spectators and the hostages who had been incapable of getting the full picture while face down in one room or another in the dark.
For an insight into the quality of info obtained from that mass, observe S/C Kelly’s testimony :
8472. Do you know that Cherry was wounded inside after the rest of the people were left?—I heard the prisoners say. I was with Mr. Sadleir when he questioned them, after they came out. And the two
McCormacks and Delaneys we examined, the two of them, and they pointed out where those two were lying down.
8473. What two?—Dan Kelly and Steve Hart.
8474. The question I ask is: did the people detained by the Kellys, when they came out, tell you that Martin Cherry was lying wounded in the premises?
—I believe they did, but I am not certain.
8475. Can you say whether your officer knew, from any information given him in your presence, that Martin Cherry was in the house and the outlaws?
—I could not say, I heard he was in the back kitchen.
8476. Who told you that?—I do not know.
8477. At what time in the day did you hear that?—About two o’clock, I think.
8478. When you heard he was in the back kitchen, did you hear whether he was wounded or not?
—I did not.”
Now shouldn’t we be privileging the resolute and specific sworn testimony of Bracken and O’Connor over that crowd’s vague rumour mill…?
Gascoigne [Q. 9560 ff] clearly having Sadleir help to go and get Cherry out, after stating “Yes, and stood between the kitchen and the back
building, and no man could enter the house without my knowing it.”
So what can “the back building” be, since it is being DISTINGUISHED FROM the kitchen…? This is at the least, clear proof that they used confusing terms for the mystery structure.
There are many other such references that are couched in frustratingly unclear terms, such as by Barry :
“7721. Did you also know then that Cherry was in an outbuilding?
—I heard so, that he was in a detached kitchen at the back.”
Yet another term that could refer to either structure.
But already we have to find a way to wish away clear, sworn, specific testimonies, in order to go on clinging to the received-wisdom version….
PDF
Attachment Tomas-Cherry.pdf
Part 2….
It is very probable that Father Gibney referred to in the above telegram from ‘West Australia is
the brave Roman Catholic priest who made his name famous because of the cool bravery he
displayed on the occasion of the capture of the Kelly gang of outlaws at Glenrowan. One who
was present on the occasion furnishes the following particulars of Father Gibney’s conduct:
‘I remember Father Gibney well. He arrived at Glenrowan by train before Mrs. Jones’s
Glenrowan Inn was burned down.’ From inquiries made I learned that he was a travelling priest
from West Australia. He took much interest in what was going on, and interviewed Kate Kelly
and Mrs. Skillion (sisters of the outlaws) on the Glenrowan railway platform, and urged to send a
message to the hotel, asking the outlaws to throw down their arms and gave themselves up to
the police. The women, however, like Ned Kelly, who was at that time a prisoner in the station,
scouted the idea, averring that the gang would never be taken alive. Subsequently Superintendent
Sadler consented under pressure to permit Senior-constable Johnston to set fire to the hotel. At
that juncture I was standing near to Father Gibney, and he spoke of the fact of there being an
innocent and wounded man (Martin Cherry) in the building, and he formed the heroic resolution
of going to his rescue. Senior-constable Johnson had set fire to the end of the house, and the
several hundred spectators who were then present, evidently awe stricken, gazed silently on the
scene, when suddenly the tall and erect form of Father Gibney stalked from their midst and
appeared on the open ground in front of the then smouldering hotel. ‘Stand,’ ‘ Go back,’ were
the stern orders of the armed police, but Father Gibney heeded them not and looking neither to
the right nor the left he marched erect and firmly to the doorway of the hotel. The scene at this
stage was tremendously sensational, as the act of Father Gibney stepping over the threshold
appeared to be the signal for the whole roof to belch out name. I confess to feeling at that
moment more concern for the brave priest than for the wounded man Cherry, and ran to the
back of the house. There I discovered what neither Father Gibney nor myself had known
previously that the police had very properly made provision to prevent harm being done to poor
Martin Cherry, and before the priest had passed through the fiery scene four stalwart men had
rushed into the back storeroom and carried Cherry away unscathed by fire.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/114080247
>>>> “the back storeroom…” ? Is there any reason this CANNOT be the structure which I modelled, as described by yet another person who didn’t actually know what its function was (and we don’t either) ?
Why distinguish it from the hotel itself, if not to imply that it’s a different structure…? Observe “and ran to the back of the house. [clear reference to the siamese-twin structure of pub and family quarters – TF ]
There I discovered what neither Father Gibney nor myself had known
previously that the police had very properly made provision to prevent harm being done to poor Martin Cherry, [that’s the big clue – the “provision” the police “had made” involved knowing that he was not there at all , instead, located in “the back storeroom” – TF]
and before the priest had passed through the fiery scene four stalwart men had
rushed into the back storeroom.”
None of this says clearly that “the back storeroom” was the same structure that Mrs Jones lived in.
In any event, this is NOT sworn evidence like Bracken and O’Connor gave : it is yet another journalistic “slow news cycle” effort at getting some “legs” out of something that had happened four years earlier…!
<<<<
That's EVERY single item in that pdf rebutted.
Cherry was clearly attested to be in the structure that I modelled (whether it was the toilet or not is beside the point, the point being murder), and every other reference is too vague to be conclusive. We are obligated to preference the former evidences over the latter.
So how did he come to be there (which he was) if he was shot during the battle in the main double-building…? He must have been there BEFORE the crossfire began, logically. And he must be the only murder victim on this planet to be buried with a statuette of his murderer tacked onto his graveside by the authorities….
TF
Hi Tomas, I think you’re right here; the back store room is clearly something other than the narrow skillion kitchen. The word outhouse in my 1959 Chambers Dictionary gives it as a separate building subsidiary to a main building; so not indicating a toilet which is just Australian slang for a dunny (The Dinkum Dictionary) derived fairly obviously from free standing backyard dunnies. The drawing someone uploaded of the Inn which labels the skillion behind the Inn as the place where Cherry was found, adds to the confusion but from this discussion is wrong. Photos of the Inn after the fire show that both Inn and million were burned to the ground. But Bracken’s report and other evidence shows that the outbuilding in which Cherry was found was still standing after the fire. It was a completely separate building from the Inn.
Thanks for that, Stuart, although I wonder just what they would call it – and all this is presuming they knew what its function was anyway – which we don’t even now !
Do we know the provenance of that floor plan map that was in Anon 101’s list of quotes ?
And maybe you’d be the right one to ask this – is there a list of all the hostages? I’d sure like to know more about this “John Larkins” who assured S/Con Kelly that Cherry was shot in the skillion? The name doesn’t ring a bell, although it looks exactly like the sort of “play him like a harp” treatment that the intimidated citizenry of Glenrowan had earlier treated Bracken to (as I broke down in my Episode 3 at length – they even left Bracken with the info that a Con. Maloney had been stuck up in the Inn that fateful night!)
Thanks!
Hi Tomas, I don’t know what the outbuilding was called but someone might come up with a source that names it. Anon 101 can hopefully provide the source of the sketch plan of the house that he or she uploaded, or someone else might know.
All known prisoners held in the Inn are listed and described in Judith Douthie’s fantastic 2007 book “I was at the Kelly Gang Round-Up” from NCS Publishing. It seems to be out of print but you might find a copy online. John Larkin is in it, and most of the section on him is Larkin’s description of the Glenrowan seige reprinted from O&M 14 August 1880 which should be on Trove. Douthie says that Larkin had been boarding at the Reardons at the time of the seige and was taken prisoner with the reest of the family.
Stuart, I’m neither male or female. I identify as non-binary 😉
Tomas,
Stuart Dawson is correct – Judith Douthie’s book is worth sourcing. Also, The daily telegraph June 1880 published a list of hostages. (not online)
Attachment Oat-bags.pdf
Thanks Anon 101. Would you happen to have a printed source reference you could sharevfor the sketch of the Inn which you uploaded on 13/8, please?
Pleasure Stuart.
The Herald. 19 Dec 1930. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/242763550
I’ve listed the source on the Oat-bags.pdf file
PS. The hostages list can also be found at Kelvyn Gills The definitive record Vol 2. p.1063. Happy to scan if required.
So it is being run fully half a century after Cherry’s body was found – why should we privilege that above the testimony of Bracken and O’Connor that it was found in a different building altogether…?
Thanks Anon 101, much appreciated for the sketch source. I note that it is a 1930 article not a contemporary source, so it is hard to say whether the illustrator based it on something from the time or drew it partly as a reconstruction. Given that the skillion part also burned down as seen in photos after the fire, it can’t be where Cherry was dragged from as a couple of witnesses state that building was still standing later.
I have Kelvyn Gill’s Definitive Record, a magnificent labour of love and well worth buying if he’s still selling copies but that list is not the Inn hostages but Sadleir’s 1879 list of persons from the criminal classes holding selections in secluded parts of NE Vic. As far as I know Judith Douthie is the only person to have researched and identified all traceable prisoners held by the Kelly gang in the Inn during the seige. I’m not aware of any other names having been identified since she published that.
P.p.s. – could I trouble you to do that please ( I mean, scan the Kelvyn Gills piece with the hostages list)? I have not found Douthie’s book after much searching, so I would much appreciate that…?
Hi Tomas, I can get you the correct list of hostages from Gill. Page 1063 that was given is the Sadlier selectors list. However Anon 101 was right, they just gave the wrong page number, which I 1065 to 1067. I’ll scan them and upload today sometime.
Hi all, here is the Glenrowan hostages list from Gill
Attachment Glenrowan-hostages-list-from-Gill.pdf
Thanks for that attachment – but it is consistent with my point that no one stated plainly that they had SEEN Cherry shot ( “It must have been at this time that poor Martin Sherry was shot. “) and by saying that he was sitting, it is directly contradicted by the finding by Dr Nicholson, who examined Cherry’s body, that he was definitely lying down when shot. (btw it also contradicts Larkins’ claim to S/C Kelly that there was only ONE man with Cherry at the time). All this is consistent with a citizenry living under Kelly Sympathiser intimidation, only a week after the cataclysm, falling over themselves to tell investigating cops : “Yeah police dunnit, NOT Ned ! ” Persons who don’t want to get what Curnow and Rawlins are getting, and investigating cops who are still in the flush of that same spirit that Sadleir exhibited in relinquishing outlaw bodies to the relatives and sympathisers rather than inflame tensions…. Bracken and Kelly seem pretty credulous, yet their approach is consistent with trying to cauterise the wound and move on….
On the other hand, we have sworn testimonies that Cherry was taken out of a different building altogether…. Which side should we privilege above the other…?
P.s., I’ve been scouring the net for Douthie’s book, so far ringing up a zero….
Cherry was in the skillion not a toilet when finally rescued. Prisoners described his condition and trying he help him and where he was situated and it was definitely in the skillion which had not yet started to burn but it did eventually burn. He died shortly thereafter. No mention of a dunny. I can assure you he was taken from the skillion.
No, at the inquest into Cherry’s death, Constable Bracken stated plainly that the building he was taken from stands unburnt to this day. Zero chance that anyone would describe the skillion like that! Get the RC minutes, enter search word Cherry, and read all 140 or so references (it will toggle though them at a click) : if you can find a person who said explicitly that it was the building connected to the Inn by a breezeway AND was a witness, then I’ll go back to Back of Burke backwards bareback. Yes, several flung around go-either-way vague phrases like “the detached kitchen,” or “the outhouse or kitchen, immediately behind the main building,” yet always the words used COULD refer to that stable/outhouse that didn’t burn. Add to this the fact that Bracken (Inquest) and Sadleir (RC) say clearly that it was the building I’ve settled on, and that Const. Johnston also told the Commission that Cherry was NOT in the building they think it was, and the fact that no one ever gave his name to SEEING Cherry get shot, and it all adds up to : he was in the outhouse, whether that was the big outhouse or the tiny one that Anon 101 has pointed out in this thread (both did not burn down). There are mentions also of the arson strategy including, in its conception, going in to get Cherry before the fire could reach that building…. Can you imagine how insane that plan would be if they actually thought he was in the back half of the main [double-]building…?! Especially since they did not know the Outlaws wouldn’t be alive and shooting them down ? You’re right to say “no mention of a dunny,” BUTT the use of the term “outhouse” by several has “toilet” implicit in it.
Theres such a big space between the skillion and the shed/outhouse I find it hard to imagine how anyone would confuse the two…
Lots still to think about on this one atm Tomas
Simple, they thought the mystery building was a kitchen TOO…!
They weren’t confusing the two, rather, they were using confusing terms when they related it later.
They use such vague terms as “”in the back yard kitchen” (could be either, couldn’t it?), or “the hut,” (why call the main building that, when you have just called it “the kitchen” or “the hotel” in the last sentence?), or “the back store room” (when you have just been calling the hotel “the hotel”)….
Even we, today, don’t know what it’s function was, and Adam Ford couldn’t give a toss when he had the full impedimenta of formal excavation set up about sixty feet away, so we should cut the people of 1880 a little slack on not ascertaining its function while they had far more pressing matters to attend to before nightfall.
I should add too, in response to “Prisoners described his condition and trying he help him and where he was situated,” that these in no way stand up to scrutiny. I gave it deep dive in part 3 of this series ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ7W7TLs3ls&t=255s , starting from about the ten minute mark) and show why each one of these persons is not fair dinkum.
As for his condition, he should have well and truly killed by the radiant heat if he really was in the skillion AND removed before it could burn down, but besides that, we have explicit and unequivocal testimonies for him being in the mystery building, and only vague stuff for him being in the main double-structure (besides various improbabilities about that scenario, like no one actually seeing him during the siege, or bothering to do anything about him during the 1000 hr mass amnesty incident, and Sadleir’s certainty that he was not in that main double-structure, despite the myth that he was callous in the extreme to burn it with Cherry in it).
And finally : so just WHY did Bracken say the building “remains unburnt to this day”?
As any detective will tell you, you will know the truth by the fact that it stands up to scrutiny.
I was working on a tour for a group recently and every account had Cherry in the skillion. It was just too dangerous to move him was the opinion of the eyewitness accounts of those trying to help him. He was given last rights as he was taken out and died shortly thereafter. I’ve followed his story for many years and despite was Bracken may or may not have said the overwhelming evidence was that he was in the skillion. There was a lot of talk about how shameful it was that the police set fire to the Inn knowing full well that Martin was still inside as everyone had told them that he was alive yet they went ahead. There is no doubt at all. In fact zero doubt and no need to go looking. If someone wants to believe in alternative history that’s false that’s up to them. Glenrowan is my specialty if I may call it that and has been since 2000 odd. Rather than cling to one source may I suggest looking at more and see what was said about why and where he was after everyone else had escaped.
“….and every account had Cherry in the skillion.”
Just like EVERY ACCOUNT has Ned Kelly getting a green sash for rescuing Shelton,
just like EVERY ACCOUNT has Ned as a boxing winner against Wild Wright….
Not more compelling than the sworn and specific testimonies of Bracken and O’Connor, and some other exceptions to that blanket assertion that “every account had Cherry in the skillion ,” such as this one :
[ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217784370/23888184 ]
“One of the men who had been bailed up in the
house came running up breathlessly, saying,
“Here’s where Cherry is,” pointing to a little
back place. Cherry was sensible when found,
but when carried out became unconscious.”
That clearly backs up the identification of the “dunny” over the Inn’s twinned half.
I say with the greatest respect that your comment slides into “article of faith” territory, wit way too much use of absolutes, but I suggest you reconsider, since I’m not “clinging to one source,” for example, try this one :
( RC Minutes, p. 455) “When we fired the building we
were aware that only the two outlaws were in it alone, not as otherwise stated a lot of innocent men.
I may state, in conclusion, that the house where “Cherry,”
the wounded man, lay was another building,
and was standing intact when we left the ground. [ … ]
I have the honor to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) STANHOPE O’CONNOR”
And I do apologise if I’ve written any of this repeatedly to the same person : I’m replying to several at once, some of whom used the same list of quotes, and that could happen.
Thanks folks.
This is absolute madness!
I can’t believe anyone can seriously believe that the Outlaws killed Martin.
For a start he wasn’t dead, he was mortally wounded. Regardless he was in the skillion and it did burn! If it hadn’t it would still be standing in the photos!
I can’t believe Stuart you would fall for this one.
All the prisoners described where he was. The police and Gibney also described where he was. No mention of an out house. This is truly amazing to read. I won’t even waste another minute on this post if people think it has merit. Thank goodness Joe still sees reason.
Wound someone who then goes on to die from the wound, and the charges against you are modified to “murder” accordingly.
“Regardless he was in the skillion and it did burn! If it hadn’t it would still be standing in the photos!” That is both an article of faith AND a circular argument rolled into one. I suggest we should be privileging clear testimony that it was in another building over that…!
I recounted above Gibney’s words showing his palpable puzzlement over persons suddenly bringing Cherry into the paddock, demonstrating that Gibney DID NOT state clearly that Cherry was in the skillion. As for “The police … also described where he was”, well, YES, Bracken and O’Connor were police, and they stated plain as print that he was in a building that never burned. They may not have mentioned an “outhouse,” but simple process elimination says that they absolutely meant the outhouse. And NOT “all of the prisoners described where he was” as being the skillion I have recounted above the words of the one who pointed out “a little back place” and ushered the would-be rescuers towards it….
” [ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/217784370/23888184 ]
“One of the men who had been bailed up in the
house came running up breathlessly, saying,
“Here’s where Cherry is,” pointing to a little
back place. Cherry was sensible when found,
but when carried out became unconscious.”
That is EVERY clause in your comment contradicted by the source material.
This received-wisdom narrative is crumbling.
I’ll put together that blog post laying out the cases for the received narrative,
and for the revisionist one, and we should approach this as we approached the green sash narrative, the boxing epic narrative, the skyrockets narrative… and if the revisionist case holds water, then we should consider what pandora’s box it opens too. And you may just become the most cutting-edge of guides for tour groups if it proves persuasive…!
Hi Dave, first, there was a lot of confusion and conflicting stories told by various hostages/ prisoners to journos and others afterwards. Second, Tomas has found three statements by persons who were present and involved; two from police and one from an unnamed man who ran up and told the police that Cherry was alive in a place at the back; clearly not the Inn and skillion which were burned or still burning down, but another unburned outbuilding of some sort.
Given the long line of historically blaming the police for Cherry’s death I think it is quite reasonable to give Tomas time and encouragement to see if he has cracked another Kelly myth of if the outback has got to him 😂
It looks like he has succeeded in showing that Cherry was in some separate rear building away from the Inn which wasn’t burned. We can see in the sketch of Glenrowan at the front of Jones’s book that there was some sort of building up the back; I’d guess a stable but waiting to see what Tomas says in future posts.
As to who wounded Cherry, let’s see what happens. It used to be that everyone universally blamed a police bullet for Metcalf’s eye injury and subsequent death. Then Ian MacFarlane threw a spanner into that assumption in his 2012 Kelly Gang Unmasked. Then I followed up with my Metcalf article showing how Ned Kelly had accidentally shot Metcalf in the face while fiddling with a captured revolver, with witnesses statement obtained by the police. I also showed how Jones had selectively misquoted source documents to wrongly keep blaming the police for his injury.
So as with all historical questions, my view is track down everything that’s ever been written about something, throw it up in the air then see how it falls out with a fresh look. I think Tomas has got something intriguing on the go here. It would be a hoot if he showed either that the police almost certainly or even absolutely can’t be held responsible for Cherry’s death. So many knickers would be in twists! And if he came up with something that suggests that Ned Kelly or one of the gang plausibly was responsible for Metcalf’s fatal injury, well, history would have to be corrected again.
The reason I have an open mind about it is because only 7 years ago almost to the month, most people accepted the Kelly Republic myth and now only a minority fringe and certainly no informed people still do. So it’s wait and see for me!! All good fun, and a perfectly harmless hobby. Plus Tomas makes really entertaining videos!
Stuart, if it’s “entertaining” you want, then just wait ’til the one-on-one showdown between Ned and Sgt Steele that must happen in the next video… You. Have. Been. Warned….
Now I’m on the edge of my seat…. Lights dimming in the home theatre in my mock up Glenrowan man cave…. Home brew bubbling in the corner…. Playing repeats of my video clips from the Animatron dog at the bar scene…
Hi Tomas, here are the two pages about Larkin in Judith Douthie’s book. As these pages show, it is well written.
Here is the NLA page for it, https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/3960547
Here is the NLA link to libraries that have a copy, https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/32045946?keyword=ANL%20AND%20%28isbn%3A9780958016285%29%20AND%20title%3A%22I%20was%20at%20the%20Kelly%20Gang%20round-up%20%2F%22
Attachment John-Larkin-from-Douthie.pdf
Here’s a pic from Tomas’s Part 3 video about Glenrowan about 22 minutes in, which shows the outbuilding in which Cherry was found, The video discusses this interesting stuff from about 20 minute in.
The vieo is here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ7W7TLs3ls&t=255s
Attachment
Stuart,
“that list is not the Inn hostages but Sadleir’s 1879 list.”
Incorrect Sturat. I’m not referening to Sadleirs list – thats an other list altogether. The list I refer to is as follows …
Appendix F
Hostages at the Siege of Glenrowan.
The list has 67 hostages. Pls note I hope to add a further three (3) names to the list -BUT first much work is needed to tie them to the siege before I go public.
Tomas, I apologise. Due to copyright I don’t feel comfortable uploading the file – pls contact Admin as he’ll pass on my FB details. I’ll PM Dee to authorise sharing my info with you or be it Stuart. I’ll be happy to read out the names of the hostages.
Hi Anon 101 and Tomas, I scanned and uploaded the list from Gill at 1:03pm today; if you search for my posts you’ll see it in this messy thread. Scanning a couple of pages of something which is clearly done for legitimate research purposes is not a breach of copyright. We had to do copyright law training for staff at VUT when I worked there years ago. As you will see in my posts I gave due acknowledgement, praise and promotion to Kelvyn’s book. If you search this blog for it you’ll see that I have given it numerous plugs over several years. This is yet another reason why people should find it useful. I don’t know if he’s still selling copies of it but it really is worth grabbing for Kelly enthusiasts.
Hi Stuart, thank you. I never understood where I stood with copying and re-producing copyright work. Yes I noticed you uploaded the file. Good work.
As much as I enjoyed this discussion about the ‘shithouse’ its best I bail out. I have nothing worthy to add.
All the best with your research Tomas – I’m sure there is irrefutable evidence to back your claim that Cherry met his death in the shithouse 😉
Hi Anon and others, here is the copyright law about copying for research and study for audiovisual materials,
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s103c.html
There’s a similar section there somewhere there for printed material. The object is to not deprive the author of credit or royalties for their labours.
Part of the law though is hostile to creators. If I get an article published in an academic journal they often require signing over copyright to them, at least in the form that the article appears in the journal. I have to ask permission to reproduce or reuse my own work (that they got for free) as they want the royalties from licensing their publications to academic libraries. Nearly all academic publishing is tied up by taxpayer funded university departments, or commercial journals housed in universities paid for by taxpayers, and the stocking fees are paid by taxpayer funded university and public libraries. It’s a giant racket with a a circular funding loop that amounts to a tax on knowledge that was all paid for by the taxpayer at every step but who can’t access it for free unless they have access through a university, i.e., staff or student.
I believe in free access to knowledge. That’s why I looked for journals that allowed me to reproduce and circulate my own historical papers with the only condition being that I acknowledged the journal as the source. That’s why all my Kelly stuff can be found and shared online free, as long as the format isn’t changed so it always includes the journal publication details. Logically I want this info on them anyway so they can be quoted easily!
I have never got any money for any of my Kelly or other historical articles and was never paid uni staff when I wrote them. It was all done as an honorary postgraduate for free, just for fun. All I got was a library card and a uni email address, and the pricks cancelled that when they cut me off because I wouldn’t agree to the new conditions that honorary status required getting two refereed publications per year in one of their priority research areas (which are all left wing shit), i.e., become a free unpaid labourer for some twat with a taxpayer funded research grant. The uni system is so inbred and corrupt it’s unbelievable.
That’s why I put out the Republic Myth book for free. It’s far too short for a commercial publisher to look at, but miles too long for any academic journal (that’s another story about academic control) and I wouldn’t have got a cent for my trouble anyway, so why not just bung it up as a copyright-free locked PDF mini book and let anyone redistribute it as long as they did it for free? So I did.
No worries, thanks very much – I must be pretty close to getting it now, and that’s an essential prerequisite for my drawing up a blog post. Cheers !
Ooops BBM. One of Chopper Read’s paintings features Kelly with a woman’s breasts. He explained that “it relates to the fact that I think Kelly was a homosexual. … I’m not really a fan of his. I’m tired of people calling me the modern-day Ned Kelly.” Richard Jinman, “Who’s going to tell Chopper his paintings are awful?”, Sydney Morning Herald 4 February 2006, https://www.smh.com.au/national/whos-going-to-tell-chopper-his-paintings-are-awful-20060204-gdmwln.html
Attachment
Those Victorians SURE do crime bigger and louder and flashier than the rest…!
Hi Tomas, what about the Ben Hall gang from your side of the Murray who the Kelly flunkies tried to imitate? The Ben Hall movie is pretty good by the way (except for one small boy who gets far too much screen time so is probably a relative of someone in the production.)
Oooohhhh no-o-o-o, I just like NSW for its historical significance, I’m a Queenslander !! You know, that magical zone a bushranger needs only to escape to successfully, in order to be free as a bird forever…!! I will eventually marshall my travel films into a mini-docu about the last of all bushrangers, the Kenniff clan of the Qld Outback…! And of course, fix the boo-boos that Mike Munro made in “Lawless”….
Hi Tomas, Qld always has been by far the most entrepreneurial state. I’ve taken iPhone footage of most of the sites in the Ned Kelly Tourist Route and have secret movie maker ambitions to do a subversive remake of the NKTR video that shows how at least three quarters of what the official NKTR video says is well outdated fictional nonsense. It would be a narrated remake following the same general presentation sequence the NKTR video uses, but with my own expose footage and my totally different narrative that tears shreds off the NKTR script.
It would show for example how Red Kelly’s grave stone and surround at Avenel is probably in the wrong place; how the Avenel school that Kelly and one of his sisters briefly attended is in a different location to what the NKTR says, and how the Green Sash in the Benalla Costume Museum was never given to Young Ned when he was a boy. All sorts of things to annoy Kelly nuts with, and all fully historically referenced.
The whole thing could be done as a roughly ten minute finished video but my technical skills are amateur and slow so it might stay as a bright idea for a while. Maybe next year; but it would be funny to see the comments if I did it and put it on YouTube!
What a sterling idea !! I’d love to know what moviemaking / video editing program you’d use, since my clanking wheezing old Windows Movie Maker for Windows 11 actually stopped being supported by Windows five years ago, but I’m a terminal luddite….
And you could probably cut loose on what they’ve done to Stringybark Creek…! I mean, having the epic deep dives by Mr Denheld to work from…. There’s always that Ned the lumberjack photo viewing peepshow too…!
Hi Tomas, it’s Sony Vegas Movie Studio 9 for Windows which came out around 2009. They’re probably up to version 50 by now! If you’re doing all your YouTube stuff on Windows Movie Maker you’re in genius league. I couldn’t get my head around it.
It took me two or three days to bung a 2 minute sequence about office safety together years ago which interested roughly nobody… I wouldn’t go near SBC except to say the Dept Infrastructure signage is hopelessly wrong.
As for the “woodcutter Ned” photo fantasy, pshaw if I may say so! That was dissected on this very blog ages ago and inspired months of acrimony from Kelly nuts after a RMIT professor gave a 15 minute talk at the then Kelly Vault in Beechworth when it was displayed there. He did not write anything about it, then or later. It was a talk only, and an opinion that the woodcutter’s photo likeness was maybe 70% chance of being Ned with some qualifications. The clothing is the wrong era, etc. He wasn’t considering any of that, just the facial likeness. The Kelly nuts keep saying he said it was Ned for sure, but he never said that. It was a highly qualified percentage opinion, not a conclusion. I know this because I corresponded with him. That’s why I know the Kelly nuts are just nuts!
The Woodcutter photo is in fact Ned.
Laugh all you like, I have seen the evidence myself and it’s him 100% and I am not a Kelly nut.
Hi Dave, it will remain divided opinions I think. I agree there is a physical resemblance but that can be explained by the other Kelly descendants alternative identification. Given that and the likely later clothing date I’m not persuaded. But hey, it’s Saturday, time to relax and not stress about it. Cheers!
When the last prisoners left they saw Martin and he was not in the bloody outhouse for goodness sakes! Do you people really think that he then mortally wounded managed to crawl unnoticed across to the dunny? This is sheer madness. Talk about conspiracy theories. I can’t believe David that you of all people are falling for this. Common sense alone tells us that this is a joke! Forget for a second who may or may not have claimed what later in the RC. ALL the prisoners tell us about Martin and how he was shot and what they tried to do to help him and where they left him. Do you really think he would be better off inside a tiny dunny where he could not lay down? I feel like I’m in an episode of the Twilight Zone here. All the attacks on Stuart at BBM for his theories pale in comparison to this one!
Hi Dave, I am not sure that Ive fallen for this yet…Ive been super busy with other stuff and not able to closely follow the arguments but I think this week my schedule is less busy and I’ll be able to review where its at. Thanks for staying interested – I think we all have a common interest in getting it right and by continuing to look at it and discuss our agreements and disagreements like adults – as we have been – then I think the answer will eventually become clear.
But there are definitely some confusing statements out there : here for example is what is written about the Outhouse (#2) in the famous “Birds Eye View of Glenrowan” in the Illustrated News three weeks after the siege:
“A very comprehensive view is given by our artist of the pretty township of Glenrowan a place that will always retain historical interest because of the lawless performances of the Kelly outlaws and the tragic end that most of them came to there. The town is situated in a gap in Futter’s Ranges, and is 136 miles distant from Melbourne.
The figured reference to the picture shows several interesting features, amongst them Jones’s hotel, where Byrne, Dan Kelly and Hart were killed, the outhouse, where Martin Cherry, the platelayer, was found after the hotel was fired; the tree where Ned Kelly was
captured, and several others. The picture will materially assist our readers in understanding the particulars of the attack on the outlaws”
Attachment
Very interesting find there, David, and as if to anticipate the squirming of the received-wisdom diehards, this map actually DOESN’T EVEN HAVE the skillion structure he’s usually assumed to have been in, and therefore can’t be referring to that…!
I am back in Brisbane now, but my work on that blog post is being held up by trying to get Judith Dousie’s book, by hook or by crook.
I’m attaching another contemporary article that backs up my case unequivocally, Maitland Mercury and Hunter River General Advertiser, 15-July-1880 page 4 .
Cheers !
Attachment
Hi Dave, I see you’re doubling down on the absolutes, despite the clear glaring exceptions to the received wisdom – and attached is a newspaper coverage of the siege from Maitland, which states as plain as a pikestaff that Cherry was removed from a building that remained standing when all was over, i.e., the building I modelled.
“Old Cherry was known to the police to be in the kitchen and safe from their fire; so that the report that he was taken out of the building is inaccurate. The kitchen in point of fact was left standing when police left the scene.”
Not only is that unequivocal, but please note that it’s yet another one (I see David contributed another further down) in which a contemporary habit is discernible, of calling the mystery structure by the SAME words used ((we had thought) for the twinned structure joined to the pub by a breezeway, i.e. “kitchen,” “outhouse,” further casting doubts on the received wisdom version. Very likely “the back yard kitchen” and “the back detached kitchen” spoken of by others could ALSO be the mystery structure. This applies to nearly all of the supposed witness accounts of Cherry being lying wounded in the skillion…. Those who said it unequivocally, however, have big question marks over their motives.
These evidences are stacking up, but although I am working on a blog post as promised, I can’t complete it until I have Judith Douthie’s book.
Some things you said here can be rebutted for now though :
** “Do you people really think that he then mortally wounded managed to crawl unnoticed across to the dunny? ”
Absolutely NOT A CHANCE in hell ! That’s my whole point ! I went into a deep dive about this in episode 3 of the series. He must have shot in the outhouse, and the only persons who claimed to see him shot in the Jones hotel were probably trying to play the investigators Bracken and (as you quoted a few days ago) S/C Kelly to establish their own “I side with the Gang, not the traps” credentials at a time of sustained sympathiser intimidation. Indeed, one of these witnesses also claimed to overhear Ned returning into the pub… yeah….
Their claims are contradicted by the medical evidence that he was lying down, not sitting, let alone by the sworn testimonies that he was taken from a distant building.
** “Forget for a second who may or may not have claimed what later in the RC….”
The identifications of Cherry’s location as the dunny/stable/thingummy were speaking LONG BEFORE the RC ever happened. Bracken for example testified “The hut he was taken from still stands unburnt” just FIVE DAYS after the event !
And Stanhope O’Connor wrote his unequivocal identification on the 19th July 1880, again long before the RC ever happened, to wit : “When we fired the building we
were aware that only the two outlaws were in it alone, not as otherwise stated a lot of innocent men. I may state, in conclusion, that the house where “Cherry,” the wounded man, lay was another building, and was standing intact when we left the ground.”
And that Gen Innes newspaper that said
“One of the men who had been bailed up in the
house came running up breathlessly, saying,
“Here’s where Cherry is,” pointing to a little
back place. Cherry was sensible when found,
but when carried out became unconscious”
… was on 20th July 1880, again long before the RC, and only 3 weeks after the battle.
AND there’s a hostage breaking ranks from their supposed consensus…!
The article I quoted from the Maitland Mercury above was 15th July 1880, again, dispensing with your objection about “Forget for a second who may or may not have claimed what later in the RC….”
Dave, a “conspiracy theory” is a theory that lacks evidence.
Mine ain’t that, then.
** “Do you really think he would be better off inside a tiny dunny where he could not lay down?”
That outhouse has PLENTY of room for lying down. You could park a bus in it.
But I stress that I don’t accept he was ever moved to it in an already wounded state – the case for him being shot in the skillion is too full of holes to be taken as a given.
Again, I’m working on that blog post, but delayed by trying to get Douthie’s book.
Cheers!
Attachment
Hi Tomas, I scanned and uploaded the 2 pages about John Larkin from Judith Douthie’s book for you a few days ago. Was there something else specific you need to see? Or are you just wanting to read the whole thing?
Dave, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. How the bloody hell does a bloke lay down in a space measuring 4×4? (approx) mind you I have not accounted for the toilet bowl.
We have the likes of Larkins and another WITHIN the same structure – Why didnt they take the opportunity to escape under the cover of darkness? (referring to Larkin & Co) be it twds the Warby’s or the police lines? The Shithouse was within the police lines. The likes of Steele, Sadleir, Johnston, Kelly etc would have challenged any movements to or from. …. and we know this as fact!
Further, we have NO account from any witnesses that Cherry lay wounded and/or found in a structure measuring 4×4. approximately 30 or so yards NNE from the Inn Jones. However, over @ the RC, TROV, PROV we have Primary intel that Cherry lay wounded in a detached building. A breezway measuring approx 3-4 feet separated the two structures.
Over the last few nights I put together a list of witnessess with a view to find any evidence to back up the shithouse claim – I FAILED. All evidence is pointing twds the detached kitchen directly behind the Inn Jones.
David, (Dee) the ‘birds eye view’ – is nothing more than a dummy’s guide. Many errors can be found …
to name a few
A. Location of the stationmaster Gatehouse/residence wrong side of the track (4)
B. failed to show the detached kitchen
C. Ned capture site (11)
I’m keen to hear your final opinion on the subject.
Hi all, if you look at the sketch of Glenrowan that David uploaded, the building up behind the Inn is labelled Number 2 in the sketch and described in the legend as “ Outhouse”. Clearly it is not a 4×4 dunny! It is a much bigger outbuilding than that.
Hi Stuart
Pls refer to the Burman image – 11/Aug/2025
It clearly shows and what is refered to as the Stables. Behind the stables is a 4×4 (approx) dumphouse.
Ps … the Birds Eye view is inaccurate and should NOT be relied upon. It’s a dummies guide reporting the scene to its readers – an artist impression. 😉
Anon 101 aka Joey Shogun
Thanks Joey, it will be the stables we are presumably talking about then, referred to by some as an outhouse?
Cheers Stuart, lok’n fwd to hearing back from you and Tomas in terms of your findings. 😉
Hi Joey, thanks but I’m not looking into it, just contributing to the discussion as best I can here and there. This is Tomas’s show and I’m completely open minded as to what might turn up to confirm or overturn the longstanding narrative of Max Brown and others.
Hi Stuart, understood.
I value your input.
Hi Anon,
TWO unburnt structures after the Inn burned to the ground.
Not just that tiny one.
No need to keep fixated on the tiny one of the two –
please try the bigger one of the two, which is logically what the witnesses were referring to as “unburnt” or “still standing” after the fire.
Then perhaps tackle these witnesses’ statements…?
The fact that you discovered the extra tiny place is good, but dwelling on it, and only it , is illogical now – especially since you’re basing so much of your case on how a man couldn’t lie down in the tiny one. Hello… the big one right next to it can fit HORSES, right…?
What use the bigger unburnt structure had in happier times is a merely cosmetic detail : you have witnesses Bracken and O’Connor directly shooting down your case, would you now please take this issue on…? Cheers!
Some people are barking up a wrong tree or two here !
Let me explain, now first of all, YES, Anon, you introduced me to the tiny outhouse in some pics, BUT … why have you so decisively ruled out that the several persons who said Cherry was found in an outhouse “that still stands unburnt” COULDN’T have been talking about the BIG structure NEXT TO it that you could probably park a bus inside….?
I’d love to know how you worked that out please?
As I said at the time, it makes only a cosmetic difference to my hypothesis whether he was found in that tiny thing or in the big structure beside it, the point is, we have hard testimony from multiple persons that he was found in a structure that didn’t burn, NOT in the twinned structure of the pub.
The argument that “We have the likes of Larkins and another WITHIN the same structure – Why didnt they take the opportunity to escape under the cover of darkness?” is a total non-argument, because no one ever said that they WERE found in that structure (unlike Martin Cherry, who was). I definitely neer said it, indeed, it is only the slam dunk that you think it is IF you make the firm, unequivocal accounts of him being found in the unburnt structure DISAPPEAR somehow. No one has done any such thing in this thread yet.
Sure, the quoted hostages talked big about how they knew for sure he had been shot in the pub, but it is unwise to rule out that they were big-dicking themselves about their level of involvement in EVERY drama that happened, despite being pinned down by crossfire lying on the floor in just one of the numerous rooms – let us not forget that a story became quite canonical that Martin Cherry bravely carried the wounded Jack Jones around … yet it was later completely contradicted by Ann Jones herself, insisting that she and her daughter carried Jack, “there was no help.” That story came from an anonymous (not you!) letter writer to the Benalla Standard, whose claim that police had come to Glenrowan threatening him to toe the line about the Cherry shooting demonstrably marks him out as a fantasist, since the reality is that Bracken and Kelly investigated the Cherry shooting with exemplary goodwill, and produced reports that quoted the “you traps dunnit, not Ned, eh!” interviewees without the slightest reproach to them…! Some of those were Kelly simps (like Cornelius Moloney), others were living in the shadow of sympathiser intimidation, and hey – here they are talking to cops…! It was a time of both heavy intimidation of the locals by sympathisers, AND police setting out to cauterize the wound and move past the crisis. This is what I want to see in Judith’s book : the accounts of every last one of the hostages of what happened, to work out whether they were exaggerating too, or whether their accounts are better than those of the persons who resolutely named the location as the outhouse.
In order to be better evidence than the “still unburnt” advocates, they will need to be naming the location without any of these annoying go-either-way words like “kitchen” (Anon 101, some persons DID call “the shithouse” a “kitchen,” a matter I have mentioned several times in this thread without ANYONE addressing it) or “detached building out the back,” because I have given examples of people unequivocally referring to “the shithouse” in those terms. They will also preferably not be pussyfooting around with hearsay, but actually saying that they witnessed it personally, AND then I have to scrutinise the rest of their account to see whether it is compromised with drivel like “I heard Ned come back into the pub and talk with the others.”
In other words, there are readers here contributing the accounts of the hostages WITHOUT subjecting them to a critical evaluation – and not even touching the matter of clear testimony that it was an unburnt structure. Please do address it. The closest anyone has come to doing that was you, Anon 101, with that vague half a line about how maybe “Bracken got distracted,” not exactly a counter argument that will set the world on fire, was it..? So please, someone address these clear cases of locating Cherry in the unburnt structure.
Likewise, Anon101, I say with respect that you have dodged the actual issue in the “bird’s eye view” contribution by David : it is not the quality of the sketching, but rather, of the text run beside it, which stated clearly that “the outhouse, where Martin Cherry, the platelayer, was found after the hotel was fired.” If you won’t tackle it head on, then would you please at least explain how the author had such a thought even cross his mind at all…? Strange, isn’t it…?
Regarding the “However, over @ the RC, TROV, PROV we have Primary intel that Cherry lay wounded in a detached building” would you please provide that? And I don’t mean the list you provided two weeks ago in which you actually ran Bracken’s “the hut he was taken from stands unburnt to this day” without apparently having read it first, only to distance yourself from it once I pointed out that telling inclusion, no, I mean is there something that isn’t either go-either-way or fully backing up my hypothesis? That’s the way we roll on this blog, stumping up the evidence for all to see and evaluate. We need to know why we should privilege the account of one person over another.
Regarding “Over the last few nights I put together a list of witnessess with a view to find any evidence to back up the shithouse claim – I FAILED. All evidence is pointing twds the detached kitchen directly behind the Inn Jones.” well small wonder that you failed, if you don’t regard either Bracken, or O’Connor, as witnesses. They were, and they were unequivocal. And besides them, and the several newspaper accounts provided in other posts above on this thread that equally unequivocally pin it down as an unburnt structure, reading the accounts of the others shows that they tend to use frustratingly vague terms, whether about which structure it was, or about whether they actually saw the rescuing party go into the skillion and also come out of it carrying Cherry – no one ever says THAT clearly, rather, the continuity of it is presumed in the mind of the reader. Then there’s the circumstantial details, like Sadleir’s certainty, after the 10 a.m. mass amnesty, that his men could now pour torrents of hit lead into the pub without hitting Cherry (logically, this can be explained if he knew Cherry to be in the faraway outhouse, due to the hostages telling him). Let’s face it, pouring bullets into the pub was, from many angles, ALSO MEANS pouring bullets into its twin structure too, right…? But NOT a risk of hitting a man known to be in the faraway outhouse, right…? Also logically, Sadleir couldn’t have been stupid enough to have a plan of burning the pub, yet running into the skillion to rescue the wounded man BEFORE the fire could take to that structure too, and GAMBLING that the Outlaws wouldn’t be alive and shooting at the rescue party, right folks…? If Sadleir were THAT stupid, he would never have known which end of his pipe to apply the match to.
It all falls neatly into place when you privilege the “unburnt to this day” witnesses over the “I was face down in one room terrified, BUTT I saw everything” witnesses. I will study every one of the latter when I have the Douthie book, or those PROV, etc., documents that you mentioned, Anon101, and with intellectual honesty firmly in the forefront of my mind, I will examine whether their stories are reliable, and if so, how we should weigh them against the witnesses who contradicted them unequivocally. The way to spot The Truth, in any matter, is to look for the version that stands up to scrutiny, and so far the ONLY speed bumps in the “unburnt to this day” version, is that a couple of hostages told S/C Kelly that they saw Cherry get shot in the skillion. Some were anonymous, just like this one in that Glen Innes newspaper who totally backs up MY hypothesis – ““One of the men who had been bailed up in the
house came running up breathlessly, saying,
“Here’s where Cherry is,” pointing to a little
back place. Cherry was sensible when found,
but when carried out became unconscious”
and I want to nut out carefully who among these persons can make the resolute testimonies to an “unburnt” location disappear….
That’s what I want to evaluate carefully, as well as read any other chance comments by other hostages that may be in the Douthie book.
And if the “unburnt” school of witnesses is stronger, then the horrible implications of that location are that he must have been in there BEFORE the battle started, opening up the real likelihood that the Gang shot him before the police even knew the Gang were there (since we would have to account for the hostages in the Inn telling Sadleir and Rawlins at 10.00 a.m. that they knew Cherry had been wounded. Let us all be no more afraid of such a revision than we were to the traditional “police fire shot George Metcalf” before we listened to the arguments based on evidence….
Hi Tomas, don’t stress too much about needing to read Douthie’s book. It does not contain accounts of the siege by all the prisoners caught up in the Inn. Rather it is short biographies about them. For example the section about Piazzi the railway foreman who was held in the Inn has nothing about that but discusses when he was roused in his tent by Kelly who wanted labourers to pull up the train line. There is no first person account. The sections vary a lot in length depending on what Judith could track down about them. It would of course be good if you could find it maybe in a library and skim through it but it is largely not what you’re looking for in the way of statements about what happened during the siege by those held prisoner.
Thanks Stuart, I’m glad to hear that I may be overestimating what an Aladdin’s Cave of anecdotes I envision that book being…!
We have here a circumstance in which oral history has a real value, as a tracer of attitudes and sympathies. And the little clues that pass through in this medium : like a reminiscences story in a newspaper in the 1930s or so, in which a hostage survivor mentioned the roundup of the railway labourers and heard someone roaring at “Kate !” to comply. Does this mean that the mystery woman in the tent with Piazzi was named “Kate”…? Anecdotes like that await the curious bookworm….
Above all, it’s to see just HOW stridently the hostages maintained their claims over the decades, for example, when Bracken investigated the Cherry shooting, he recorded the shooting witnesses’ names (some of them Kelly simps) with the remark “but none of them seen the occurrence.” I need to know to what extent people backpedalled or otherwise on their claims, especially since those several persons are ALL that the received-wisdom case (as I call the “Cherry was in the skillion” version) has going for it, THE ONLY speed bump that stands in the way of the compelling evidences that it was he unburnt structure. But yes, I may be expecting a different kind of book from what it is ! But being well informed is not negotiable when doing what I’m doing here. Cheers!
Hi Tomas,
Therefore, if I’m barking up the wrong tree! You’re certainly leaning on the wrong tree!
Tomas why have you so ‘decisively ruled out’ the eyewitness accounts of which are many who said specifically Cherry was found in an ‘outhouse’ / hut / detached Kitchen / back room. Pls refer to Sadlier if you haven’t already.
The Big structure you refer too where you state “you probably park a bus inside” is nothing more than a misquoted/identified structure by means of poetic licence by the artist and the likes.
Quote.
we have hard testimony from multiple persons that he was found in a structure that didn’t burn
unquote.
Absolutely correct. So why is it you’re refusing to accept facts? Yes indeed, whilst the Inn was up in smoke Martin Cherry lay wounded in a detached structure only feet away from the Jones Inn. Whilst cherry occupied the detached kitchen/residence it was yet NOT touched by fire – based on ‘hard’ evidence.
I ask you how did Cherry end up where he did?
You misunderstood my point Tomas …
Quote
Why didnt they take the opportunity to escape under the cover of darkness?” is a total non-argument, because no one ever said that they WERE found in that structure (unlike Martin Cherry, who was)
Unquote …
Bloody oath no one ever said Cherry occupied the location you refer to as the “stables” my point of escaping under the cover of darkness is this …. And very much a valid argument.
Had anyone moved across from A to B no matter who it was; would have been accosted by the police whom had the immediate area covered by this time – Remember the two men who assisted Cherry and then retreated back to their original position surely, they would not have gone unnoticed
We have hard evidence that the police took cover behind trees as close as 15 or so yards from the back and sides of the Inn.
Respectfully I don’t think I or anyone have anything further to add. All evidence appears to be whitewashed in place of the dummies guide to Glenrowan (referring to bird’s eye view sketch) and/or the misquote from several witnesses
Tomas, pls touch base with me when your next in Melbourne.
Cheerio from me.
Anon I think we should all agree the dunny was NOT the place where Cherry might have been if he wasnt in the Skillion – I think we are trying to decde if he was in that larger structure in the back corner.
What puzzles me is that there were people at the time who thought Cherry was in therein the Outhouse (#2 in the Birdseye view) Why would that be? Why would people think that?
And there were people who said the building he was taken from was NOT burned down…how come? where did they get that idea from?
Why was it not universally agreed he was in the Skillion – the bit across the breezeway ?
These observations are why we have to think seriously about where Cherry was. Its not clear to me yet…
David, roger that! Thx.
I don’t understand why so much importance is based on that sketch – its nothing more than a dummies guide to Glenrowan with a multitude of inaccuracies. I have highlighted a few.
quote
And there were people who said the building he was taken from was NOT burned down…how come? where did they get that idea from?
unquote ..
I see your point. The building Martin Cherry was rescued from whilst the Inn was ablaze went untouched during his occupation – refer to Superintendent Sadlier.
Respectfully, allow me make this clear.
At the time of the siege Mrs. Jones from all accounts operated a business – directly behind this business was her residence/kitchen; separated by a 3-4 ft breezeway.
quote ..
Why was it not universally agreed he was in the Skillion – the bit across the breezeway ?
unquote…
Dave, again by all witness accounts it was reported that Cherry lay wounded and later rescued from the Skillion/hut/kitchen/outbuilding/detached kitchen, etc. Unless I’m missing something pls let me know.
I value the word of witnesses over a dummies guide to Glenrowan – How could the artist fail to include the detached building? place the Gatehouse on the wrong side of the tracks? Me thinks the skectch was NOT done on the spot – he simply stuffed up and failed to record the crime scene accurately.
Further …
Back in 2008 Adam Ford from dig international. Set up a large open tent roughly on the site of the “Stables” – he and team were acutely aware of the location. I also vaguely recall the conversation where he pointed out the location of the dunny … directly behind the tent which stood on the site of Mrs. Jones stables. I’m not sure if I kept any literature to this effect. Maybe Dave White might have.
Attachment
Hi Anon 101, I see you’re STILL doubling-down on barking up the wrong tree – the reason David introduced the Bird’s-eye View sketch is NOT because he believes in its infallible graphics (which I debunked in episode 3 of my video series), it’s because a text was run with it that punches a huge ugly hole in the received-wisdom case : ““the outhouse, where Martin Cherry, the platelayer, was found after the hotel was fired.”
You have done nothing to address this issue. Please do…?
Likewise this “by all witness accounts it was reported that Cherry lay wounded and later rescued from the Skillion/hut/kitchen/outbuilding/detached kitchen, etc. Unless I’m missing something pls let me know.”
You bet you’re “missing something” – the statement that “all witness accounts” place him in [insert pile of terms used] backs up MY hypothesis, because those are ALSO the terms they were using when they referred to that unburnt structure. They called it a kitchen, or a detached kitchen, etc., as I have given specific examples of above several times.
Bracken and O’Connor are definite witness names that break with your supposed consensus on Cherry being in the Inn.
Are you EVER going to tackle their testimony, or just dance around it forever…?
And that’s besides the various reporters who emphatically gave the Cherry location as still unburnt.
If a case has to be made with evasion and irrelevances, than it couldn’t be a case worth making.
Again, would you or anyone else please shoot down the following hard testimonies…?
Bracken : “the hut he was taken from stands unburnt to this day.”
O’Connor : “I may state, in conclusion, that the house where “Cherry,” the wounded man, lay was another building, and was standing intact when we left the ground.”
Now please take a break from irrelevances and tackle THESE two unequivocal statements head on…?
Thanks folks
Hi all, what Tomas is suggesting is not that the wounded Cherry made it to a tiny dunny with or without help. What I think he is proposing is that Cherry was carried to a rear outbuilding during a break in the firing before the police had been able to advance enough to have firepower coverage of the rear yard. Not an outhouse as in dunny but a rear outbuilding that can be seen in photos and in the Glenrowan sketch.
Hi Stuart, no, I want to make it clear to all here that I DO NOT think Cherry was carried to that outhouse from the pub, at least, it could not possibly be feasible during the battle. Not even during the lull when the police started fanning out.
My hypothesis is that he was shot BEFORE the police ever knew the Gang were still in town, because anyone carrying him wounded to that stable/outhouse/ toilet/”detached kitchen” would surely keep going and leap for joy that he had succeeded in escaping!
We know all the persons who made good their escape during the battle, and none of them were carrying Cherry, yet logically also, no one would dump him off, then turn around and go back into the earthly hell of Ann Jones Inn. They would have called out to the cops for help and to cease shooting. Yet also, the hostages had to know he had been shot, somehow, despite him being faraway – and that is as simple as the Gang telling them, after doing the deed themselves, and if so… it dovetails nicely with Joe Byrne rampaging around the pub in a rage looking to get Bracken, and with (a weaker piece of evidence, admittedly) the journo McWhirter writing that a shot clearly rang out from the Inn while the police were milling around on the train platform.
I wrote a fairly brobdignagian reply to Anon 101 higher up this thread a few minutes ago too, and to answer your other query, yes, I got your two pages from J.Douthie, thanks! and it’s interesting that Larkin is presumed to be the guy who wrote to the Benalla Standard with that letter than I likened toa fantasist’s account, but I want her book so I can catch every chance remark by every hostage who ever gave accounts.
Cheers! TF
Tomas, please go to https://www.facebook.com/UnmaskingThekellyGangUnmasked/posts/pfbid0ggnbqvm1ajgbJmTtS7QTgZ9dRz3eJxKnu8uJTTw2cTv5nKrxJ98xPXbVNBxMS6dtl
for a comprehensive explanation of where you have mistakenly confused where Martin Cherry was found. It may not be complementary, although it completely debunks you hypothesis.
I will be surprised if David posts this as he hates that site, but clearly those here need to see the truth.
Cheers, from One who knows.
Yes I do hate that site . Thats because its run by a vile abusive and arrogant but unread kelly nutjob who is also a cowardly bully who uses a VPN server to conceal his identity. Right Mick?
Unlike him I am not afraid of debate in the open, and until now its been respectful and worthwhile. However this dim witted, abusive condescending and insulting contribution has lowered the quality of the debate and will get the treatment it deserves. What Fitzsimons doesnt get in relation to THIS debate is that we have genuine conflicting testimonies about where Cherry was found, and its an entirely legitimate activity to delve into them further to see if the received wisdom is actually backed up by the historical evidence.
Its an entirely legitimate and worthwhile thing to do because as even the Toad would know, over the last 15 years careful scrutiny of much of he ‘received wisdom’ has shown it to be bullshit – such as the republic claims, such as the Metcalf injury claims, such as the Boxing ned photo claims, such as the self defence at SBC claims, such as the claims about Fitzpatrick, such as the claims about the award of a green sash to Kelly for saving Dick Shelton….and so on.
Thanks for that, I like a good giggle…!
I gather these … erm… persons DON’T know that they are actually IN my video, from the 48:17 mark and for the ensuing three minutes…?
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyKCaxPqgeg&t=1343s )
Hey Tomas, that bit of video reminds me of when I went to a Ned Kelly function a few years back. Pots of beer toasts “to Ned!”. Some guy with Ned stickers all over his ute and a reproduction Ned helmet on the top. Classic!
I’ll have to ask that particular Rhodes scholar just where to buy a Ned helmet too, since I could only ever find one with a big long hole in it 🙁
I just love that he assassinates the aerodynamics of his ute by having THAT thing on top of it !!
Superintendent Sadleir forwarding a report from Const: Graham (2312) @ Glenrowan
Dated 17/8/80
Attachment
Hi Joey, thanks for noting that with the photos. I found the VPRO reference via Kelvyn Gill’s book. Sadleir’s report is VPRS 4967, Unit 3, Item 60 if anyone wants to see the full original.
So, Anon 101, what do you make of that ?
Tomas,
I wasn’t going to entertain you any further. However, I felt it absolutely necessary before folks start jumping to conclusions. First and foremost, Martin Cherry was NEVER FOUND in the stables … let’s get that straight.
Pls refer to Fitzy’s (from FB unmasked page) debunk list attached to this thread – Mind you that is a small list compared to what I’ve compiled – at last count 8+pages!
“So, what do I make of that” you ask?
Obviously, we have two dead bodies, Bryne and Cherry.
I’ll like to think perhaps Const: Graham was referring to Cherry – I doubt they would have shown any compassion for Bryne. It’s NOT clear where they lay Cherry down – thou it would have been well clear of the burning Inn … be it to the east or west side. Therefore, somewhere from point of extraction and Fr. Gibney administering the last rites to Cherry someone tore down the ‘stable door’ and used it as a makeshift stretcher to carry Cherry’s lifeless body back to the station. (refer to Sadleir’s various reports)
Note: Cherry was NOT removed from the stables as you are implying.
Good luck. Lok’n fwd to reading your paper.
Hi Joey, if you have a longer list that includes everything on the other list, would it be OK to upload it here? This WordPress blog will take PDFs and Word DOC docs, but not Word DOCX docs; it has to be the old .doc file save format.
Hi Anon 101,
you cut Graham off in mid-sentence – so what, please, was the rest of it (i.e. the context) ? We need to know whether the rest of it sheds light on whether the door was used to remove a body FROM the stable.
Hi Tomas, Joey didn’t cut Graham off in mid sentence! He screenshot the only sentence in that report about it. It’s just a list of damaged or destroyed property. Here is the whole text, from Kelvyn Gill’s book. I gather it’s out of print (2012; it was privately printed and sold) but weell worth grabing secondhand if you see it around. A huge A4 thesis-size hardbound volume. “Edward (Ned) Kelly, The Historical Record 1820-1893”.
Attachment
Byrne’s body was liftewd out of the Inn by constables Dwyer and Armstrong. Dwyer took him “by the shoulders and Armstrong by the feet, and lifted him out. … We dropped Byrne [outside] and went back to the passage.” RC, somewhere between Q 9539-9547.
Armstrong said that he and Dwyer carried out Byrne and that he took the armour off; the armour was on Byrne where he lay.” RC, somewhere in Q 12249-12256.
I only read those extracts about Byrne in Gill’s book, but the Royal Commission is a free download if you haven’t already got it.
David Mortimer’s account in the Age 30 June is speculative about when and how Cherry died. I’ll abbreviate: After Byrne was shot and died, Dan and Steve were talking about what to do. Even when morning broke we dared not venture out. It must have been at this time that poor Martin Sherry was shot. He was sitting on the floor of the kitchen at the time. There were two other men with him but they were protected by bags of oats, behind which they were sitting. During the morning Dan told them Ned had been shot. After that one of our company held a white handkerchief out of the door, and we all ran out. Poor Sherry could not move, and he was left behind.”
Reading this again, it is all hearsay. Mortimer did not witness what happened in the kitchen, hence his statement that ” It must have been at this time that poor Martin Sherry was shot.” He has no idea. It is a deduction made on a confused night. It has been relayed to him as he wasn’t with or in sight of Cherry when Cherry was shot. Another account has Cherry lying, not sitting, when he was shot. We are only dealing with rumours here.
McWhirter of the Age, 30 June?: “A long and tedious interval followed after the initial conflict when Hare was shot in the wrist.”
Argus 29 June: “after the house had been burned down, the two bodies were removed from the embers. … the discovery of teh armour near them and other circumstances render it impossible to be doubted that those were ofd Dan Kelly and Steve Hart. … In the outhouse or kitchen immediately behind the main building the old man Martim Cherry, who was one of the prisoners of the gang, and who was so severely wounded that he could not leave the house when the other prisoners left, was found still living, but in articulo mortis from a wound in the groin. He was promptly removed to a short distance from the burning hotel and laid on the ground, when Father Gibney administereed to him the last sacrament.” This is from McWirter’s rushed news report.
The stationmaster’s nearrative: [Stanistreet]: Just before the special train arrived I was ordered by Hart to follow him over to Jones’s… I went into the back kitchen and found there Mrs Jones with her daughter and two younger children. There was also a man there named McNeil. By this time the tain had arrived and firing was going on furiously and we all took shelter about the chimney.”
Robert Gibbon’s narrative: Not long after the police arrived the firing commenced. There misy have been about 40 in the house at the time. Mrs Jones’ eldest daughter got shot in the side of the head and her eldest son in the thigh. We all lay down on the floor for safety as the buillets were rattling on the house. We were packed so close that we had to lie on our sides, and lay in that position until we came out about 10 o’clock.” I note that Gibbon did not see Mrs Jones’ daughter or son shot as they were in the kitchen out the back when the firing started as we know from Stanistreet; or at least it’s not clear yet.
Hi Anon, that report from Graham just SCREAMS “Cherry was removed from this here structure,” far more than it suggests Joe Byrne…! Thanks for yet another item towards reinforcing my hypothesis!
Hey Tomas Funes you’re a funny bugger …
Tomas, in reply to: “Thanks for yet another item towards reinforcing my hypothesis!”
Rest assured I seen you coming a mile away – thus is why I shared little intel – Yes there is much more!
So far YOU have NOT provided us with nor presented anything of worth twds this discussion – you have failed miserably. It seems you’re in damage control and have been for the last 2 weeks HA HA. 😉
Tomas, concede defeat and be done with it – you don’t have a leg to stand on.
So in other words, you’re STILL shying away from saying ANYTHING about the clear statements of Bracken and O’Connor that Cherry was removed a structure “still unburnt” or “still standing when we left”..
So, are you EVER going to deal with those,
or are you just going to evade it and continue falsely claiming that “EVERY account” places him in the Inn/Skillion…?
And considering the unpleasant personal tone you’re taking lately (probably because constant evasion of my challenge about Bracken & O’Connor is getting embarrassing), the question has to be put : WHY did you say you want me to meet you personally in Melbourne…?
A word in Joeys defence if I may Tomas.
Ive met him and he is a decent and honourable bloke, he is passionate about the Outbreak, hes not a Kelly fanatic and I am certain his offer to meet you was not in any way meant to sound sinister. He took me and a few others on a really fascinating tour of Ned related places around Williamstown, and showed us the exact spot where the remains of Sacramento, the hulk that Ned Kelly did time in – are now buried.
Thx David, I appreciate you having my back.
Mate I appreciate the way you have treated me with courtesy and respect.
That other individual who wouldn’t accept my offer to meet has no clue what sort of person I am.
Mate, I’ll apologise if I don’t enage any further – nothing against you.
Thanks for that clarification David, at the back of my mind is always the fact that a hardcore Kelly-nutter – going by the handles of “knife,” “scarto,” and probably also “the dead kennedys,” used to urge me to meet him so that he could show some convincing reports of 1870s police corruption and brutality that he somehow couldn’t just place up on the net. He was also a highly toxic individual who would denounce me as a traitor – usually with oblique references to the traitor Sherritt – over my defection after 30+ years as a Kelly lover. That has to be in my mind at all times when someone is asking me to meet up, and indeed, I was starting to wonder whether I was dealing with the same individual. I am relieved to read that Joe ISN’T anything of the sort, but I do ask readers here to understand that I’ve got the “once bitten, twice shy” reflex. Cheers!
Oh yes, totally understand – I remember ‘knife’ and ‘scarto’ – truly vile people – or as you suggest likely the one person changing his profile. Insane unbalanced violent Kelly fanatic/s who tore into Brad Williams at every opportunity on You Tube . He was terminally ill for all of that time, so didnt pull his punches.
But how interesting to hear you confess to having been a ‘kelly lover’ for 30 years. One day you will have to tell us how you escaped the cult…
Tomas, Tomas, Tomas, (sigh!)
My offer to meet you was genuine – nothing sinister. I was lok’n fwd to your reply – perhaps even a phone call. If I had other intentions as your implying I sure as hell won’t advertise it. You got the wrong idea of me 😉
Now on that note – Many thx to David Mac I appreciate the kind words. And your absolutely correct.
Tomas, me evading? WTF are you on about. I didnt realise I was being challenged.
With all due respect to Dave Mac and followers – this discussion has turned to absolute shit – further its NOT a discussion it’s all about Tomas’s hypothesis and to hell with the rest of us – However, your more than happy to extract intel from me. A great source of intel has been shared by the likes of Fitzy, White and myself BUT its been rejected and manipulated to suit your hypothesis. Your not investigating your playing with history. All this to save you from humiliation / red face.
Quote
“Hi Stuart, my point is that there is NO reason to rush to conclusion that the dead body removed on that torn off door MUST be Joe Byrne – as Anon 101 actually does above!”
Unquote
Tomas- once again you’re twisting and bullshitting the facts – pls see attached.
Tomas, pls dont talk to me, mention my name from hereon I refuse to engage with you – You fuked up what could have been an ideal platform for me to share my many works with the TTS gang.
Attachment
Hi Anon 101,
“Tomas, me evading? WTF are you on about. I didnt realise I was being challenged.”
Well, it must be at least 4 times I’ve said to you over and over : Bracken and O’Connor stated clearly that Cherry was removed from a building still unburnt, therefore your “ALL accounts put him in the Inn” claim is wrong, please address those two big holes in that claim.
Still not responding to that [polite] challenge, I gather…?
Thanks for putting my mind at ease about your intentions, – – – – – – – , at the back of my mind is always the fact that a hardcore Kelly-nutter – going by the handles of “knife,” “scarto,” and probably also “the dead kennedys,” used to urge me to meet him so that he could show some convincing reports of 1870s police corruption and brutality that he somehow couldn’t just place up on the net. He was also a highly toxic individual who would denounce me as a traitor – usually with oblique references to the traitor Sherritt – over my defection after 30+ years as a Kelly lover. That has to be in my mind at all times when someone is asking me to meet up, and indeed, I was starting to wonder whether I was dealing with the same individual. I am relieved to read that you AREN’T anything of the sort, but I do ask readers here to understand that I’ve got the “once bitten, twice shy” reflex.
I did indeed read you wrong on just what the evidence of the torn-off door implies, although note that you DID conclude with “Note: Cherry was NOT removed from the stables as you are implying,” without having quoted any logic to arrive at that conclusion other than the usual article-of-faith treatment. Until you tackle head-on the fact that named witnesses said he WAS removed from there, then simply reciting an article of faith won’t cut it. Your constant non-addressing of that, from the very start, marks the REAL point at which “this discussion has turned to absolute shit” as you say. But I’m happy to know I’ve suspected you wrongly, cheers!
Hi Tomas, it’s sensible to be cautious. I’ve had two Kelly nuts threaten online in a not very veiled way to punch me if they met me and one scoured Monash university information to try and find my office on campus back when I was an adjunct there a few years ago (I didn’t have one). He posted about it. Both are well known in Kellyland.
Hi Tomas, is that because Byrne’s body was dragged out of the burning Inn and Cherry was retrieved badly injured from a building (possibly a stable) that was not burned in the aftermath? Are you suggesting that Cherry was carried out of an unburned outbuilding on one of its doors from where he was discovered? I can’t recall anything that said how Cherry was brought to where he was given last rites. Was that in something you have seen or is it a hypothesis that needs further investigation?
Hi Stuart, my point is that there is NO reason to rush to conclusion that the dead body removed on that torn off door MUST be Joe Byrne – as Anon 101 actually does above! – because there is no reason it cannot refer to Martin Cherry instead, who, after all, was well attested as being removed from RIGHT NEXT TO that door…! (in response to the quoted accounts of both sworn-in witnesses and newspaper reporters that Cherry was removed from there, we will most likely go on getting nothing but crickets chirping out of Anon 101, despite repeated requests to comment on them).
So the answer is, “a hypothesis that needs further investigation.”
Byrne was removed down the breezeway and placed in the lawn awaiting the next step, while Cherry breathed his last on the grass out there. If it were up to me to carry them to the train, I would use Ann Jones’ table (also still unburnt) out the front of the Inn to carry one of them, and the ripped out door of the stable / outhouse / toilet to convey the other one. Joe Byrne having rigour mortis (and it would be desirable to move the armour too), I would be ok with using the good solid table under him, Cherry being right next to the door of the unburnt structure, I would use the said door to move HIM. By the way – I detailed in the photos in my video that Jones’ remaining table (coloured in purple) was located at the railway fence gate a short time after the Big Day. I wonder if it had been used to move a body to the train…?
But descriptions of just HOW the dead men were conveyed to the train are lacking – although anyone contributing mentions of it in the source material would be much appreciated!
It’s go-either-way for the reasons I set out above, but declaring it to be Joe Byrne, and NOT Martin Cherry, is a reckless leap to conclusion, worthy of the standards of source criticism and source evaluation that prevail on BBM rather than here. The fact is that a door – located RIGHT NEXT TO where Cherry was attested as being carried from – was “removed to convey a dead body on” obviously can’t be divorced from Cherry without further snippets of info. There really aren’t any further snippets, except go-either-way stuff, like the fact that Ann’s table got carried to the railway gate, or that Byrne’s body in a Benalla lockup was sketched NOT lying on a door – these prove nothing outright, but I mention them only for the sake of completeness, there being precious few clues. For completeness is the right way to figure out whether the narrative told since 1880 has barked up a wrong tree like so many others did, or not.
As for how Cherry came to be wounded, thanks for those snippets you quoted – I think I used all of them in my deep dive in the Episode 3 video – and further to the Mortimer account being non-first hand, Constable Bracken’s report from returning to interview people about Cherry (PROV “Police report on the killing of Martin Cherry”), stated clearly of the four witnesses (Arthur Hill, Cornelius Maloney, David Mortimer and Patrick Delaney), “and they all state that Sherry [sic], as far as they know, was shot by the police, but none of them seen [sic] the occurrence.” Ri-i-i-i-ight….. (By contrast, the witnesses to Cherry being found in the Stable are resolute and unequivocal about it, including this very same man Bracken!)
My hypothesis is that they (apart from actual Kelly sympathisers Moloney and Hill ! ) were motivated by fear of the intimidation then being practised by Kelly sympathisers, and whoa – I’m talking to a TRAP !! Better get a reputation for going in to bat for The Gang right now !! The traps shot ‘im, NOT Saint Ned !!
For the sake of amassing every clue, I want to say, regarding the fact that Ann Jones HAD indeed laid in stores of oats — quoted by Anon in this thread like it was a giant slam-dunk — oats were exalted in those days as the ideal nutrition to feed tired horses ( https://equinewellnessmagazine.com/foods-evolution/
and, just after our period, but related “Prairie Farmer, 6 March 1897 IIIF issue link Issue PDF” ), and might very well have been stored in the STABLE rather than the skillion – i.e. precisely where I claim Cherry was more likely shot…. Mortimer’s hearsay account of Cherry being shot while sitting behind oat sacks (despite Dr Nicholson telling Inspector Montiford that Cherry was def. lying down when shot) could just be a Chinese-whispers version of a tale told to the hostages by Joe and/or Ned following their encounter with Cherry in that stable, and so could Larkin’s account (related to S/C Kelly), and I would observe also the suspiciously small number of persons taking refuge for dear life in the most protective part of the hotel ( two!!), and that Sandercock’s account must be balanced against Bracken’s investigation reporting back “I may add that Sandy Cook [sic] is from home [sic] but informed his employer that Sherry [sic] was shot by police.” Forensic content : zero. Eyewitness content : dubious and flawed. Now no matter how the sideshow freaks over at Biggest Bleating Milksop may misrepresent this here paragraph, I stress that I am only gathering EVERY relevant detail and angle for my big hypothesis.
In my promised deep dive, I will explore the actions of Sadleir as a tracer of the state of intel on the big day : let’s face it, after the hostages at 10.00 am told him about wounded Cherry, and resolving to take precautions to keep Cherry safe… he then ordered a cannon to blow the place to smithereens!! This alone should cast grave doubts on the notion that the hostages had convinced him Cherry was in the skillion of the double-building, but then, so should the fact that he arranged men to go and grab Cherry out quickly, despite believing that men rushing the pub would be fired on by still living Outlaws…. He couldn’t possibly have been planning on their charging up the breezeway with live Outlaws ready to slaughter them, and send them in so quickly that the skillion half wouldn’t have caught fire yet… but the faraway stable/outhouse, YES….
Cheers folks !
A brief digression back to a different topic, Kelly’s trial and Lonigan’s murder. This blog has run a couple of feature articles about it and the question of how many shots Kelly fired at Lonigan and the split or quartered bullets issue. In John Phillips’ Trial of Ned Kelly pp 82-83 he says Dr Reynolds’ evidence proved st least 3 bullets had hit Lonigan, whereas McIntyre swore only one shot was fired; and that Reynolds also stated that the wounds were inflicted before death.
Phillips said that Reynolds findings were in direct conflict with McIntyre’s statement that only one shit was fired and thus should have been used by Bindon to launch a trenchant attack on McIntyre’s credibility. Phillips is wrong here as in several other places. Despite devoting a whole book to Kelly’s trial he failed to read McIntyre’s 1901 True Narrative memoir. It is not listed in his bibliography and not referenced in his notes. It is here (and possibly elsewhere) that McIntyre writes that he possessed some of the bullets from the murdered men which looked like bullets cut into quarters. Had Phillips bothered to read this primary text, a memoir by McIntyre about his involvement with the pursuit and SBC, he would or should not have been so stridently wrong.
Phillips next reviews what Kelly told Stephens, that he fired two shots at Lonigan, and that Reynolds said he extracted a revolver bullet from Lonigan’s thigh. Phillips said this proves that a revolver bullet was fired into Lonigan’s thigh before he died; whereas McIntyre said that Kelly had killed Lonigan with only one shot from a rifle. Phillips then says that on the evidence before the jury the only person who could have drawn or fired a revolver before Lonigan’s death was Lonigan himself. Ergo the jury must allow the possibility that Lonigan shot himself while drawing or just after drawing his revolver. Gotcha McIntyre!
Not so fast, Judge Phillips! The thigh wound is not consistent with a revolver bullet from a large police revolver firing into a thigh from a foot or so away. Reynolds said the thigh bullet had travelled under the skin and round the thigh nearly to the inner side of the thigh. Hardly the behaviour of a big bullet fired close up. Second, McIntyre gave a statement at the City Police Court that he had three bullets handed to him at the inquest which he showed to Reynolds, who said he took the largest and one of the smaller ones from Scanlab and the other [small] one from Lonigan. So the notion that Lonigan shot himself is wrong and does nothing to discredit McIntyre’s evidence, given the split bullet problem.
Happy to be proved wrong about this claim I am going to make about myself, but I believe I was the FIRST person to draw the whole thing together by noticing Reynolds observation that all wounds were inflicted while Lonigan was alive…which was for only a very short time after the order was given to “Bail Up”. During that time only ONE shot was Fred- according to Kelly AND McIntyre…ergo that shot had to have been a discharge of multiple projectiles, one of which was taken from Lonigans thigh, and being smaller than a rifle bullet was mistakenly thought to be from a revolver.
Someone else pointed out that if Lonigan had shot himself in the thigh at point blank range there would have been a huge powder burn as well as a massive injury…
The lunatic conspiracy theorist Stuart Rowsell says that the reason McIntyre didnt report two gunshots was because they were fired at EXACTLY the same moment and he didnt notice the flash and smoke from TWO guns because he must have had his eyes shut. I kid you not….
Hi David, I think you highlighted that Lonigan’s wounds were all inflicted before death; and if Lonigan had shot himself in the thigh with his own revolver there would have been a great messy one way wound, not a bullet travelling under the skin around the inner thigh. Plus if Lonigan had fired his revolver even in that same instant, McIntyre would have heard it fire behind left of him even if he was still looking forward as he was to the approaching four men armed with various long guns.
It is not possible to consider McIntyre closing his eyes when he testified that he watched Kelly shift his aim from McIntyre to Lonigan’s direction and fire. All four men were roughly in a line as per his sketch map. If two shots were fired by the gang simultaneously he would have seen two flashes as his eyes were open watching them approach while calling ‘Bail up’ and saw Kelly fire. The proposition is laughable.
Bill’s excellent illustration of how the split bullets hit Lonigan while he was part turning (elsewhere on this blog) matches the description and demonstrates its plausibility.
Kelly seems to have told some people he fired one shot at Lonigan and told other people that he fired two; as his imagination turned it from the execution of in practice an unarmed man who had a revolver in a button down holster behind his back and couldn’t draw it, into a duel style “fair fight”. Dan Kelly reported that Lonigan had been reaching for his revolver when shot. He never had a chance to defend himself.
Anon, when you used the term “stretcher” it reminded me of something I read a long time ago about Cherry being brought out on a “low stretcher.” I need to try and search that out. You know how hard it is to refind things at times. Also, regarding the prisoners/captives, you will recall that as early as 2003 Dave White had an ever-expanding list and many of their statements back at his now defunct website. Much of that info was gotten long before we had Trove to use and before the RC was online. So easy nowadays to research versus what he and I came up doing. You yourself know all about doing the hard yards and piecing together puzzles. I do recall when Kel was gathering info for his compilation tome that he queried Dave regarding an aspect of the prisoner list on his website. One last thing, Tomas, I would love to see the article regarding someone at the tents roaring at a Kate to comply. Years ago I did a blog post that showed that the “strange woman from Benalla” was with Piazzi’s tentmate not with Piazzi. It would be great to at least have a possible first name for her.
Hiya Shaz,
interesting “low stretcher” keep lok’n shaz – Yeh if anyone can find it you will. I definately remember Dave having the list of names way back before stuff were digitised …. Oh, the micro-film days (sigh!)
Hey Shaz speaking of the mystery women …. how is it the boys didnt round her up or even mention of a mystery women by any of the prisoners /sympathiserts …. ever? yeh I agree if only we had a name to go on by – it would be a good start.
Hi Joey, as you know but other readers might not, Judith Douthie’s book also just calls her the strange woman from Benalla and says she was mentioned as among the captives by fellow captives James Reardon, Mrs Reardon, and Dennis Sullivan in later enquiries; but no one seems to have bothered to ask her or others what her name was. There were long hours of nothing happening during the siege. Surely some people must have introduced themselves to one another, crowded into the same space???
Yes Sharon people forget or don’t want to believe that we came up with the list before others did and did it the hard way. We certainly didn’t steal anyone’s research as was alleged and proven false though unfortunately never publicly denounced as I requested. Rather I was told to attack online but that’s not the way to do it. Well tbh I probably would these days. People can believe what they like I guess.
The Mercury 7 July 1800 p. 3 at https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/8985191 for what it’s worth has a stand-alone sentence, “Cherry was shot early in the morning, and his wound was dressed by some of his fellow prisoners.” This may or may not be hearsay but there are no names connected with it.
Thanks for that new snippet of info for the growing pile, Stuart! Yes, it certainly lacks any attribution, and a measure of how well this publication was informed about times for events and sequence of events can be had from the fact that they give Joe Byrne’s likely demise as “Some say he fell at daylight, others that it was about 9 o’clock in the morning”. That means there were guys claiming to have been “prisoners” who were claiming that Joe Byrne was still fighting on LONG AFTER Ned Kelly was so spectacularly captured outside…! It will have to join the many claims of Cherry’s fate that don’t stand up to scrutiny – I strongly suspect that there were persons in the area big-dicking themselves about how deeply involved in every drama they had been – but this report is distinctly different from the carbon-copy ones that proliferated across the newspapers of the several states, and I value that, thanks!
Anon, I am still trying to recall where I saw the article. Neither google or trove is showing a result. Regarding the strange woman from Benalla, in my article about it James Reardon refers to her as a strange woman from Benalla and said that when she and others tried to escape the inn they drew heavy fire from the drain. Davr, I remember that person talking that foolish crap. Have had folks say the same about me. It is pathetic and laughable as researching is my super power! I love to research, heck, I live to research! I would rather spend time doing that than partaking in idle and useless pleasures. One day I am gonna blow the lid off about a few things and people, but today is not that day. Maybe soon! Stuart, I think it was Larkins who tied a bed sheet over Cherry’s wound to help stop the bleeding.
Hiya Shaz, Stuart, Thx.
Re: mystery women – indeed your both spot on. Now that you both mentioned it I vaguely recall. Appreciated.
I have a copy of Judiths book BUT I’ve only read a few pages over the years. I should make more of an effort to read it – I prefer sourcing stuff behind the dusty draws from the likes of PROV, SLV and a few other go to places that hold Kelly papers.
Hopefull this is where I’ll find some intel on the mystery women and a few other prisoners that have never neen mentioned by scholars and Authors alike.
Stuart thats exactly my point … 60+ prisoners crowded all together and to this day she is referred to as a mystery women – it doesn’t add up. Ok I don’t recall James Reardon mentioning her name Shaz, nor Mrs Reardon, thou she named a handful of them … of those she remembered when asked. I’ll go back thru my files and find it. Oh, Shaz yup correct it was Larkin. …. lol in the detached kitchen!!! 😉
Joey
Hi Sharon and Joey (and special hello again to Sharon!), thanks for that ref to Larkin. In Douthie’s “I was at the Kelly gang roundup” book, her section on Larkin quotes an extract from the O&M 14 August 1880 attributed to Larkin, which includes saying that he ran to Cherry’s assistance after he was shot in the groin and and pulled a sheet off the bed and did his best to stop the bleeding by tying the sheet around the wound, which he describes as doing a “rough dressing”.
It says that “When the police arrived at Glenrowan they commenced to fire into the dwelling from all directions. The bullets came thick and fast like showers of hail.” In this shower of bullets Cherry got shot.
There’s something wrong here. When the police arrived they walked towards the Inn and didn’t shoot at anything until the gang opened up, then they returned fire. But weren’t they still all in a bunch near the front, and only slowly headed to surround the Inn? The timeline is out in that Larkin report.
Hi Sharon! I tried to find the old article from the 1940s or so, in which I read an eyewitness account of the Gang rounding up the railway workers, marching them off, and someone yelling instructions that included the name “Kate,” but I’m ringing up a zero in my vast collection of files. I attach a photo that I took from precisely that article, in the hope that someone may have a search line that yields better results than the ones I tried. Since there really shouldn’t be a woman known to be named Kate in the whole haul of hostages, then process elimination makes it seem to be our mystery tent lady….
As for Cherry being attended by Larkins in the hotel’s kitchen, I think he was big-noting himself after the event – it is, however, the closest thing to a solid claim of seeing Cherry shot inside the inn out of all the many more dubious pieces of hearsay that are around, since he filtered it through an investigating cop. My soon-to-be blog post on Cherry’s location will present every snippet, and weight them up in the balance…
Remember, the old article that has THAT attached sketch in it should also have the “Kate!” reference that we seek….
Cheers Sharon!
Attachment
I finally figured out where the article mentioning a “low stretcher” was. It was in a database of NZ papers that I rarely use. It was in the Otago Daily Times of July 1, 1910. It is like a letter to the editor. I give the URL below. I will note before my fellow sleuths take up the case, that I already see things that don’t jibe with other texts. We know it was constables Armstrong and Dwyer who carried out Joe’s body and it was not the letter-writer and “Mr. Dickson” who did so, despite the letter-writer’s claim. In the news article about Cherry’s inquest found elsewhere it states that Thomas Dixon, bootmaker from Benalla helped carry Cherry out. Regardless, it is still interesting reading about the stretcher. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19100701.2.29.6
Hi Sharon! I tried to find the old article from the 1940s or so, in which I read an eyewitness account of the Gang rounding up the railway workers, marching them off, and someone yelling instructions that included the name “Kate,” but I’m ringing up a zero in my vast collection of files. I attach a photo that I took from precisely that article, in the hope that someone may have a search line that yields better results than the ones I tried. Since there really shouldn’t be a woman known to be named Kate in the whole haul of hostages, then process elimination makes it seem to be our mystery tent lady….
As for Cherry being attended by Larkins in the hotel’s kitchen, I think he was big-noting himself after the event – it is, however, the closest thing to a solid claim of seeing Cherry shot inside the inn out of all the many more dubious pieces of hearsay that are around, since he filtered it through an investigating cop. My soon-to-be blog post on Cherry’s location will present every snippet, and weight them up in the balance…
Remember, the old article that has THAT attached sketch in it should also have the “Kate!” reference that we seek…. It may even be the original “I was at the Kelly Gang roundup” article of the 40s, but if so, my search engine keeps pointing me straight away from it….
Cheers Sharon!
Attachment
Thanks, Tomas, if I had a dollar for every article I found one time and could not find again, I would be filthy rich! I like that image (even if the coat is wrong, right, Dave?)
Tomas, I had quick look around and found the image at Trove in the ABC Weekly of August 31, 1940. It is the John Lowe narrative called “I saw the Kelly Gang Wiped Out” which Dave and I are very familiar with. I re-read it just to be sure, but the only time “Kate” is mentioned is in reference to Kate Kelly.
Hi Sharon, sorry I took a long time to notice your comment – alright, I’ll have to keep searching my folders for it, because the reference (“Kate!”) that I saw was definitely in the early morning antics rounding up the labourers, not in the afternoon of the next day when the Kelly sisters came to ~~ erm, whatever it is that Maggie was expecting to find when she turned up dressed like she was going to a royal wedding! Cheers!
I just noticed that McQuilton’s account of the death of Lonigan at SBC in his Kelly Outbreak p. 96 resembles what Kelly wrote in the Euroa and Jerilderie letters and told Stephens and Beechcroft when he held them prisoner; that Lonigan reached cover of a battery of logs and Kelly shot him as he rose up to fire. A classic case of a Kelly “authority” giving Kelly’s fanciful tale of what happened, with no mention of McIntyre’s statements. As has been observed many times, this cannot account for Lonigan’s thigh wound which requires him to have been out in the open.
Worse, McQuilton says Lonigan fell dead behind the logs. This is clearly wrong. His body was found where it fell, in the open, not behind logs. No wonder the Kelly nuts endlessly recycle nonsense under the banner of “doing their research”.
Lonigan was out in the open although he was behind the logs in relation to where McIntyre and Kelly were standing. So McQuilton is correct on that point.
No, sorry you’re wrong, as was McQuilton because the logs being referred to were what Kelly described as a ‘battery of logs’ that he claimed Lonigan ran to for protection.From there, according to Kelly, Lonigan then lifted his head up from behind them and took aim at Kelly, but Kelly fired first.
In McQuiltons defence, I would add that when he was writing everyone believed Ned Kellys version of what happened to Lonigan was accurate, and it was only quite recently that I solved the puzzle of why at postmortem several wounds were discovered on Lonigans corpse. They provided the evidence that exposed Kellys version as a lie, because they were all inflicted simultaneously, but the thigh would have been protected if Kellys version was the truth. The thigh wound showed that McIntyres version was the true story.
If McQuilton was quoting Kelly, wouldn’t he have said “battery of logs”? McIntyre said Lonigan was on the “other side” the logs and confirms that in his drawing. “The logs” are where the fire was and where McIntyre and Lonigan were standing on either side. It looks more like McQuilton is quoting McIntyre, ether from his statements or newspaper articles quoting him. I agreed Lonigan was out in the open but made no reference to his wounds, that is sidestepping the point, but since you raised it, I believe Bill Denheld explained Lonigan’s wounds not you. It is quite clear what McQuilton says, Lonigan’s body was behind the logs, meaning the other side of the logs to where McIntyre was.
It’s always a good idea in these textual discussions, when commenting on something, in this case McQuilton’s book, to read WTF he actually wrote before blogging about it 👍. McQuilton didn’t claim to be quoting Kelly. He just presented only Kelly’s side of the story as a factual description of what happened. Please have a quick check of McQuilton before jumping in feet first ✅
My comments related to what you said McQuilton’s stated in his book. I have not pulled it out of thin air, so if you misquoted McQuilton, that is not my error. Where did I claim McQuilton was quoting Kelly? I said, “It looks more like McQuilton is quoting McIntyre”, a big difference, so please read WTF (to quote you), that I wrote. I do not understand your hostility or misrepresenting what I said.
Not hostility, just cracking up laughing. See next post.
In reference to Anonymous suggesting it was Bill who solved the 140 year old conundrum about Lonigans injuries, no , it was me. You may be thinking of the drawings that Bill made of the shooting that have been posted here and elsewhere : yes they were Bills drawings but he made them at my request. I explained to him what I wanted them to show and after some feedback he got it more or less how I wanted it. So yes it was Bills illustrations of my ideas.
In relation to Anonymous insisting McQuilton was referring to the logs where the fire was, I cant think why he would want to mention those logs – they were not relevant to Lonigans murder, whereas the ones he was supposed to have got behind, the ‘battery’ of logs were relevant.
Maybe Bill Denheld can clarify on Lonigan’s injuries and apologies if I was incorrect.
The logs McQuilton mentions are relevant to Lonigan being shot as that was where Lonigan ran from. In saying behind the logs, where is McQuilton’s reference point from? I believe it was from McIntyre’s position, as Lonigan’s body would be behind the logs from where he (McIntyre) was standing. That agrees with McIntyre’s statements and drawing. McQuilton says “the logs” not “battery of logs” as claimed by Kelly.
Yes check with Bill and then apologise to me.
As for the logs, Lonigan was not ‘behind’ the log that McIntyre was standing by – he was on the other side of it. Getting ‘behind’ something implies in some sense being screened by it, as the very first definition of the word that came up on Google indicates : “at or to the far side of (something), typically so as to be hidden by it.”
As I said, with Lonigans death the contentious issue was Kellys claim he got ‘behind’ certain logs and McIntyres claim that he did NOT. He was shot in the open and the injuries prove it, and they prove Kelly was the liar not McIntyre.
You of course, being a typically argumentative and dogmatic Kelly cultist will cling to whatever tenuous and irrational interpretation of plain English that reassures you about McQuiltoin being right and Dawson being wrong.
David, “Lonigan was not ‘behind’ the log that McIntyre was standing by – he was on the other side of it.”
Are you seriously saying that ‘behind’ and ‘other side’ have two completely different meanings? The word ‘behind’ has several different meanings, but if you are “being screened by it”, then you are ‘hiding behind’ it! See dictionary explanations below.
FYI, Stuart has explained that he misquoted McQuilton, which created the confusion about what logs he was referring to
MACQUARIE DICTIONARY. The Australian Dictionary.
At the back of; at the rear of
MS WORD AUSTRALIAN DICTIONARY
At the back (Dictionary Forum)
At the rear (Dictionary Forum)
In the rear (Dictionary Forum)
behind
/bĭ-hīnd′/
preposition
1. On the farther side or other side of; beyond.
behindpreposition and adverb uses
(bɪhaɪnd )
1. preposition A1
If something is behind a thing or person, it is on the other side of them from you, or nearer their back rather than their front.
Synonyms: at the rear of, at the back of, on the other side of, on the far side of More Synonyms of behind
Behind is also an adverb.
Not “the logs”, “a pile of logs”, p. 96.
Attachment
Stuart, as I said, my reply was to what you wrote, “Worse, McQuilton says Lonigan fell dead behind the logs.”
“Fell dead behind the logs”, not ‘a pile of logs’! There were also logs where the fire was and where both McIntyre and Lonigan were standing when bailed up. So, cracking up laughing you may have, but I’m afraid the laugh is on you, and your WTF was hostility! I would hope your responses in future will be more cordial.
Had you been more specific and quoted McQuilton correctly, there would have been no confusion.
“Fell dead behind the logs”; which is the pile of logs McQuilton just said in the same paragraph that Lonigan took cover behind. If you had bothered to read what McQuilton wrote before posting in the first place and before I posted the text photo you would not have confused yourself with various random other logs. But do carry on 😂😂😂
It’s always funny seeing Anomymice get their knickers in a twist about nothing 😂😂😂
Stuart, I am greatly amused at your feeble attempts to cover up your mistake. How hard it must be for you to admit you blundered in not quoting McQuilton properly! 😂😂😂 I took what you said in good faith and had no reason to doubt you were not being honest in what you quoted. Given that, please tell me why I should not have recklessly believed you were telling the truth and should look it up myself? I will have to be more discerning in future and take whatever you claim from now on, with a bag of salt. 😂😂😂 😂😂😂
P.S. Nothing in twist here Stuart. This whole conversation could have been avoided had you made a full confession of your mistake when I first commented, instead of doubling down on trying to avoid being exposed.
The fact is that Anonymous missed the point of what McQuilton said and is still rambling on about how McQuilton was acshually giving a version more like McIntyre’s than Kelly’s. No. McQuilton’s narrative follows Kelly’s, not McIntyre’s. I’ve even posted McQuilton’s paragraph. Duh!
Stuart, you are being dishonest in your last reply. Nor have I continued to suggest that McQuilton sounded more like he was quoting McIntyre. This is just another falsehood. No point was missed, my reply to your misrepresenting what McQuilton wrote, was done in good faith, believing that you were accurate and truthful in your quote. As previously explained, I did not realise you had deliberately misquoted McQuilton causing confusion. Had you been accurate and honest, there would have been no reason to comment. Perhaps you should have posted the paragraph when you first mentioned it.
Perhaps you should have read McQuilton in the first place instead of speculating about whether I was quoting or discussing, then mind-reading about what you thought I meant???
You also tried to tell McQuilton how he ought to narrate the encounter: “If McQuilton was quoting Kelly, wouldn’t he have said “battery of logs”?
Have another sherry…
I am not mindreading or speculating, just taking you at your word in good faith that you quoted correctly. I have not tried to tell McQuilton anything, I have just emphasised that you should quote correctly in future to avoid confusion. I will pass on the sherry thank you, but you go right ahead.
O Anonymous, you are tedious. And wrong. In my first post about this I wrote, “I just noticed that McQuilton’s account of the death of Lonigan at SBC in his Kelly Outbreak p. 96 RESEMBLES what Kelly wrote in the Euroa and Jerilderie letters and told Stephens and Beechcroft when he held them prisoner; that Lonigan reached cover of a battery of logs and Kelly shot him as he rose up to fire.” RESEMBLES. It’s not a quote from McQuilton, it’s a COMPARISON.
No wonder you don’t put your name on these silly posts.
Yes this anonymous is showing his true colours as a tedious argumentative and stupid moron…in other words a typical kelly fanatic. I am sure if he told us his real name it would be one thats very familiar to all of us.
And of course, he wouldnt dare check with Bill…because then he would blow his cover!
David, there has been nothing tedious in my replies to Stuart, just stating fact that had he not misquoted McQuilton, there would not be an issue. That has now been cleared up, although Stuart will not admit his mistake.
As for being called a tedious argumentative and stupid moron because of Stuart’s mistake by not quote correctly, says more about you than it does about me. Why would anyone use their real name here when you use such disrespectful and abusive terms. Please excuse me for taking Stuart’s word for something in good faith, as I was unaware he is prone to mislead people. Honesty and good manners are attributes you both should aspire to in future.
Thank you, your Worship.
You and Rowsell are a perfect pigeon pair of argumentative kelly fanatics.
You said you were going to check with Bill about whose ideas are illustrated in the images he made of Lonigans murder – have you dont it yet? I’m still waiting for my apology.