tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post4911429077389086479..comments2024-01-19T04:32:25.260+11:00Comments on Ned Kelly : Death of the Legend: Is there a Stringybark Creek Swindle underway right now? Deehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-52512018477102974862017-04-07T16:39:25.672+10:002017-04-07T16:39:25.672+10:00Click here to read two versions of Doubt on Kelly ...<a href="http://www.ironicon.com.au/doubt-on-kelly-site.htm" rel="nofollow">Click here to read two versions of Doubt on Kelly site</a><br /><br />The Herald Sun article ran in Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, and NT.Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-81557006467170225982017-04-07T14:38:25.203+10:002017-04-07T14:38:25.203+10:00Like you Bill, I too have concerns about the impar...Like you Bill, I too have concerns about the impartiality of any archaeologist used for a reexamination of the SBC. The fact that the newspaper article about what the DELWP was proposing to do at the site surfaced around the same time as media announcements about the Foxtel bushrangers series is a little suspicious. I personally have fears that if Foxtel uses a contracted archaeologist such as Adam Ford in relation to the Kelly aspect of the series, any findings may be seen as commercially tainted and biased. As you say, a TV production might give an impression of professional archaeological work but be superficial in its findings. To my way of thinking there needs to be some serious unbiased historical input into whatever research is carried out at the site. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-69542653123570458482017-04-07T10:24:03.702+10:002017-04-07T10:24:03.702+10:00On Ned Kelly Central I see there is some further d...On Ned Kelly Central I see there is some further discussion. <br />Mick Fitzy thinks it will be up DELWP to decide on historical sites. Leigh Olver assumes the Herald Sun article was initiated by persons with a particular point of view like me!<br /><br />Apparently the Herald Sun took up the story following the Riverine Herald - DELWP article 9 Mar, and Dee's Ned Kelly Blog write-up 12Mar all very visible on the web. The journalist Aaron contacted Leo and myself. He was aware of the Age article 'Kelly Victims' 11April 2015. I emphasised he should contact all involved including CSI group, Adam Ford- Dig International, and DELWP. Since that time Lucas Russell -DELWP revised its position in the northern papers. <br /><br />DELWP are managers of the forest and don't make any decisions about historical sites. DELWP take instructions from Heritage Victoria who issue permits for any historical site works. Any work is strictly under supervision of a qualified archaeologist approved by Heritage Vic. Heritage principle Jeremy Smith has said no permits have been issued, so if that's the case no works should have taken place on which DELWP could have announced their plans in the Riverine Herald article of the 9 Mar, wherein it clearly states walking trails are planned to the Kennedy site to be completed later this year, but from where do they start, that is the question?<br /><br />Without a proper evaluation of all the evidence by impartial archaeologists and photo forensic experts, as well as primary source evidence, there is always a danger of popular TV program production companies 'who pay archaeologists' to perform investigations that looks sciency, the public and the authorities could well be hoodwinked again, as seems currently the case with SBC.<br /><br />Its quite clear whatever announcements made about the walking trails extensions by DELWP, these have originated from the work Leo and I conducted three years ago and reported in The Age April 2015. <br />Billhttp://www.ironicon.com.au/doubt-on-kelly-site.htmnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-35452921824071082852017-03-19T14:45:48.828+11:002017-03-19T14:45:48.828+11:00No wonder Ian Jones hated that book and foolishly ...No wonder Ian Jones hated that book and foolishly advised author Peter Fitzsimons to ignore it. Then there's that guy who started a FB hate page against the book...groan.Sean Johnsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-11625798182808211352017-03-18T22:53:51.247+11:002017-03-18T22:53:51.247+11:00My pal faxed me page 141. I see there that Barrist...My pal faxed me page 141. I see there that Barrister Bindon never advanced a self-defence plea at the trial, but later authors like John Phillips (a later Chief Justice of Victoria) did so in his 'The Trial of Ned Kelly' in 1987. The lame self-defence theory was thus concocted by later pro-Kelly writers, and had never been presented at Ned's trial. We were misled almost from the beginning of the modern Kelly hoax era.Gary Sayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-86777261699365078032017-03-18T12:07:40.991+11:002017-03-18T12:07:40.991+11:00Gary, Barry's comment is at p.141. Here Berry ...Gary, Barry's comment is at p.141. Here Berry doesn't specifically address 'self defence' but talks about the 4 outlaws being involved in a joint enterprise; that is, to hold up and rob the police. So if murder occurred during this enterprise, then all four were equally guilty of murder. Barry also pointed out the fact that the evidence showed that Ned had taken (bird) shot from the police shotgun cartridges, replacing it with round shot. While the judge didn't specifically mention it, by doing this Kelly had converted the gun from one that could wound, to one that could kill. Good evidence of premeditation.<br /><br />But the point Stuart is making and one which I support, is that in the moment when Ned pointed a weapon at Lonigan in a firing position, demanding the officer surrender, Lonigan was well within the law to fire first in self defence. This is the only example of 'self defence' which can be raised about what happened at SBC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-12332183853419705532017-03-17T23:01:48.460+11:002017-03-17T23:01:48.460+11:00"The Kelly Gang Unmasked" book denounced..."The Kelly Gang Unmasked" book denounced this very issue. Justice Barry also mentioned this furphy in his summing up (also discussed in the book). I can't provide page numbers to help you, as I have lent my copy to a pal.Gary Sayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-67928857719004357752017-03-16T09:11:48.755+11:002017-03-16T09:11:48.755+11:00" This apparently affects the "self-defe..." This apparently affects the "self-defence" argument advanced by Ned Kelly; although it is hard to see how Kelly thinks that his advancing on someone with a rifle aimed at them becomes self-defence for the assailant when the target reaches for his weapon. If anyone acted in self-defence in that scenario, logically it was Lonigan trying unsuccessfully to draw his revolver." How come nobody has raised this very basic and simple element of the Kelly 'self-defence' argument before? Nice one Stuart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-68959478956454102542017-03-15T15:39:53.537+11:002017-03-15T15:39:53.537+11:00Spudee's quote from DELWP, that "It is ho...Spudee's quote from DELWP, that "It is hoped the project will provide a relative representation of how events unfolded and present historically accurate information at the existing visitor area", raises a new kettle of fish. There are only 2 versions of what took place. One is McIntyre's, which pro-Kelly enthusiasts have tried to discredit for years as self-contradictory, mostly over the question of whether or not Lonigan drew his revolver, or made a move to do so from it's buttoned down holster. This apparently affects the "self-defence" argument advanced by Ned Kelly; although it is hard to see how Kelly thinks that his advancing on someone with a rifle aimed at them becomes self-defence for the assailant when the target reaches for his weapon. If anyone acted in self-defence in that scenario, logically it was Lonigan trying unsuccessfully to draw his revolver.<br /><br />The other version is Ned Kelly's. That suggests that a "relative representation" of events likely means giving Kelly's statements equal weight with McIntyre's. I can't see this blowing over soon!<br />Stuart Dawsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-5211046821350518132017-03-15T14:42:23.950+11:002017-03-15T14:42:23.950+11:00Anonymous, I have changed my mind. I don't th...Anonymous, I have changed my mind. I don't think you are or were in politics, it sounds more like some sort of secret service given your obvious propensity for the world of mirrors. If Bill's involvement is some sort of secret squirrel stuff, why would Lucas Russell have acknowledged Bill's apparent involvement. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-67934575481784710572017-03-15T14:38:42.170+11:002017-03-15T14:38:42.170+11:00I had also asked the Heritage Council, in light of...I had also asked the Heritage Council, in light of the recent DELWP press release, if it, the Council, had received any application for archaeological work to be carried out in the SBC Heritage area. I asked this as there had been mention of Adam Ford being associated with the Foxtel series, The Real Bushrangers.<br /><br />I have just received the following from Jeremy Smith, Principal Archeologist with the DELWP and Heritage Victoria:<br /><br />" Your email about proposed works at Stringybark Creek was forwarded to the archaeology team at Heritage Victoria for comment. <br /><br />It will be necessary for a Heritage Act permit to be obtained to authorise any significant changes at the Stringybark Creek site. As you are aware it is included on the Victorian Heritage Register. Heritage Act permits are assessed and issued by the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria. <br /><br />I understand that DELWP have been working with various stakeholders, including Victoria Police and police descendants, with a view to updating some of the interpretative elements at Stringybark and perhaps introducing some new features and infrastructure. <br /><br />Heritage Victoria has not received any application for a permit, and has not received details of the proposed changes. <br /><br />It is likely that Heritage Victoria will require the details of the proposal to be publicly advertised when it is received, and I'm sure there will be a high level of public and stakeholder interest, from across the Kelly spectrum! <br /><br />From my preliminary understanding of the proposed changes, I do not think that a reconsideration of the signage in relation to the location of key events is one of the main issues being considered - it is more about a more respectful or sensitive presentation of the police story. <br /><br />I encourage you to make a submission once the permit is advertised, and the details of the proposal are known. <br /><br />regards <br /><br /><br />Jeremy."<br /><br />This seems to be an assurance that should Adam Ford, or anyone else connected to Foxtel's series, or in fact any archaeological works at SBC, will need to apply for an appropriate permit. This in turn will be advertised. To me this augurs well for any future projects at SBC.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-45205509398988082632017-03-15T13:56:42.904+11:002017-03-15T13:56:42.904+11:00My mistake was to think that the CSI people knew w...My mistake was to think that the CSI people knew what they were talking about when they shared amongst themselves some news that it was all done and dusted late 2014. I thought at least Kelvyn wouldn't have been taken in by gossip and 'fake news' but seems I was mistaken. <br /><br />However I believe that by bringing this issue to everyone's attention on the Blog Two Huts might now get a fair hearing after all. Remember when Peter Newman wrote to them only a few days ago they denied knowing who Bill Denheld was? Now they know about him, they know about the Two Huts site and they know the CSI site is totally dodgy.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-22276284407418012482017-03-15T12:03:42.417+11:002017-03-15T12:03:42.417+11:00Spudee well done, this is terrific news, exactly w...Spudee well done, this is terrific news, exactly what we have all been hoping for, and a major setback for the CSI people. I asked the question of anonymous, were they celebrating prematurely or was the evaluation a sham and now we know - they were congratulating themselves two years ago that it was all done and dusted and that their site was about to be recognised formally, but now we learn from Official sources the investigation is still in its infancy! - its not a sham, and the CSI people were way out of line patting themselves on the back 2 years ago! The documentary is a side issue - its a commercial venture, no doubt will sensationalise various aspects of all the Outlaw stories, and like most commercial entertainments of this kind may well play rather loosely with the truth. Nothing new in that - Kelly documentaries have forever been loose with the truth, but ti will be interesting to see what they come up with. <br /><br />I think we should thank Sharon for bringing this news release to our attention, because as a result DELWP have received a wealth of information that the CSI people would never have given them, they will I think now realise the genuine merits of Bills research and how widely its supported, and they are also being made aware of the dubious nature of the CSI 'research' and hopefully in the fullness of time will not be persuaded by their burls, their smudgy photo interpretation and unscientific approach to the site.<br /><br />What we have been wanting all along, and it seems will now get is a fair and balanced hearing for the Two Huts site. It will beat the CSI site hands down in a fair contest! <br /><br />Bring it on!<br />Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-60849340540694739772017-03-15T11:45:41.635+11:002017-03-15T11:45:41.635+11:00Well there you go Spudee, the DELWP are not operat...Well there you go Spudee, the DELWP are not operating behind closed doors! Stakeholders are welcome, so are new theories and old theories of the site. (Dee I hope your listening now and not reading more into this harmless reply from Lucas)<br />Although Spudee, whether Bill was involved or not is really his private information and I feel perhaps you could have asked him first if he wanted this to be known.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-66794874349509338412017-03-15T11:01:54.823+11:002017-03-15T11:01:54.823+11:00I have just received the following email from Luca...I have just received the following email from Lucas Russell: "Thank-you for your interest in the project to enhance infrastructure and signage at Stringybark Creek. The project is in its infancy. The media release, which was issued by DELWP recently, aimed to inform the community of the project and also help identify interested stakeholders. <br /><br />It’s important to note no decisions have been made about potential changes to the site and the views of stakeholders will be considered prior to the commencement of any works. The stakeholder engagement will be run in a transparent way and every effort will be made to present the rationale for decisions made. <br /><br />As you are aware, it is unlikely a unanimous view will ever be reached regarding the events that took place at Stringybark Creek in 1878, however this project is very much about appropriately reflecting the differing views and perspectives at the Stringybark Creek site. The project will not attempt to make definitive judgements about where events took place. It is hoped the project will provide a relative representation of how events unfolded and present historically accurate information at the existing visitor area. <br /><br />No new information has been presented to determine the precise location of Sergeant Kennedy's death and the proposal for a new walking track in the vicinity of Sergeant Kennedy's death is one idea stakeholders will be asked to contemplate. While the intent of the project is to enhance infrastructure and signage at Stringybark Creek, the idea of a walk to the Kelly camp can be included as an option for stakeholders to think about. <br /><br />If you do not have any objection, you will be added to the list of stakeholders we will consult and work with to undertake the project. <br /><br />Bill Denheld has made contact with the project team and will be consulted as part of the process. We look forward to his valuable insights. <br /><br />Feel free to call me if you have any questions about the project. <br /><br />Regards<br />Lucas"<br /><br />I suppose we have to take Lucas's word that "... no decisions have been made about potential changes to the site and the views of stakeholders will be considered prior to the commencement of any works. The stakeholder engagement will be run in a transparent way and every effort will be made to present the rationale for decisions made." So I am feeling somewhat more comfortable about the project. I have requested that i be added to the stakeholder's list and kept informed.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-16371392774656250402017-03-15T09:15:41.357+11:002017-03-15T09:15:41.357+11:00Are you in politics? If not I think you should be....Are you in politics? If not I think you should be. You are impressively good at not answering simple, direct questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-82945529644227005072017-03-15T07:13:44.768+11:002017-03-15T07:13:44.768+11:00The point has been addressed Dee, your are scaremo...The point has been addressed Dee, your are scaremongering without all the facts - just assumptions. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-87185585255337630402017-03-15T06:01:46.057+11:002017-03-15T06:01:46.057+11:00Why don't you adddress the point? Were they ce...Why don't you adddress the point? Were they celebrating prematurely or is the 'evaluation' involving stakeholders a sham? What you really want to happen is for there to be no public awareness of whats going on behind closed doors until such time as its all a fait accompli, and as we all know with Government departments, change happens at glacial pace, so once the signs are up, nothing will change again for years. It will be an absolute disgrace and dishonouring to slain police if the visitors are directed to the wrong place YET AGAIN , to a site, 'identified' by shonky science, like the example I posted yesterday of their absurd analysis of the Burman photos.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-43879000278211306332017-03-14T19:41:52.053+11:002017-03-14T19:41:52.053+11:00Yes Dee it's all very political isn't it.
...Yes Dee it's all very political isn't it.<br />I would explain it as similar to how you and others appear to gloat on this site when defaming or character assassinating others....all very childish and histrionic really. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-34134764912183458352017-03-14T18:56:21.563+11:002017-03-14T18:56:21.563+11:00Please can you explain why CSI members on their me...Please can you explain why CSI members on their members only Blog were congratulating themselves TWO YEARS ago that it had ben decided that the CSI site was to be recognised, and were gloating about how Bill would react when he finally got to hear about it? And also, please explain why those same people lately are saying there is an ongoing 'evaluation' involving Stakeholders? Either their gloating and self-congratulations were premature, or if not, the claims about a current evaluation are a sham. Whats it to be? <br /><br />And then maybe you can defend the CSI teams interpretation of the Burman photo?Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-71871770143613287122017-03-14T17:03:28.172+11:002017-03-14T17:03:28.172+11:00Dee the information about the upgrade is from a pu...Dee the information about the upgrade is from a public media statement from DELWP. Sharon and Ned Kelly Central have alerted us to this. Stakeholders would no doubt be welcome to make contact. DELWP would not have individual potential stakeholders contact details and if people are waiting to be contacted then they will most probably be disappointed. <br />The TV documentary may reveal more, as suggested by anonymous, I think we wait and see what develops from this first. <br />I do not support your histrionic posting and maintain that it is irresponsible to create unnecessary divisions with those that have different views. It is not some conspiracy by a government department but I believe more a fantasy by a blogger with intent to create reaction. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-81255374699091899992017-03-14T16:02:02.441+11:002017-03-14T16:02:02.441+11:00You're quite wrong. The issue is that if an in...You're quite wrong. The issue is that if an independent organisation decides that it wants to 'verify the claims of the respective champions' if it intends to a thorough and professional job it ought to make sure it involves all the stakeholders. How else is any stakeholder supposed to know that an organisation is doing such an investigation unless the organisation contacts them, or publicly advertises for expressions of interest from 'stakeholders'? If the organisation doing the investigation only involves stakeholders who contact it, and makes no attempt to ensure all the relevant stakeholders are involved, and more or less goes about its work in secret, then the investigation becomes a sham, and its results meaningless. Thats whats happening here. Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-47957124127539566292017-03-14T12:11:58.171+11:002017-03-14T12:11:58.171+11:00Perhaps Dee as has been explained before any othe...Perhaps Dee as has been explained before any others who consider themselves stakeholders only need to make contact. <br />What is the issue?... do you think the DELWP has a list of private emails and phone contact numbers for Bill, CSI, Dee, Horrie and James....etc. <br />This is very irresponsible blogging Dee, although it does give your blog some click bait drama.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-77946311791427221442017-03-14T10:18:14.370+11:002017-03-14T10:18:14.370+11:00One thing that has me puzzled is why is Bill so qu...One thing that has me puzzled is why is Bill so quiet on this? I would assume that by now he is well aware of what we are discussing here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-66275829433878875432017-03-14T10:01:57.403+11:002017-03-14T10:01:57.403+11:00James, you have been taken in if you think there a...James, you have been taken in if you think there actually is an independent organisation making an evaluation of the various sites, consulting all the 'stakeholders' and has new evidence and a new site to be revealed. That because over TWO YEARS AGO CSI were told it was all done and dusted. Whats happening now is an attempt to clothe the decision made over two years ago in some sort of legitimacy, by pretending that a fair process of evaluation has been entered into. But the result was decided upon two years ago. Adam Ford has been wheeled in to make a Documentary and give further credibility, by the adoption of his eminence and celebrity status, to the decision that was made long ago, presumably then on the basis of Ian Jones lending his own weight to the issue, and on the basis of some politicking by CSI - it certainly couldn't be on the basis that their Report was regarded as credible. I'll put up a new Post a little later which explains what I mean, and I will be most interested to read your response to it.<br /><br />I say again, I am not afraid of Bill being wrong. or the CSI team being right, or there being evidence that places the Campsite somewhere else. What I am really incensed about is the secretive way this debate has been hijacked by CSI who are now pretending theres a process of evaluation going on, and when its done we will have an answer. James, they already have their answer and it was decided two years ago. What I am afraid of is the suppression of a theory and of facts and argunents that make sense by a group who have a different and non-sensical theory, determined to advance their ideas at all cost.And the cost here is that once again the sacred site of Police murder at SBC is going to misidentified. Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.com