tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post1787009035351848420..comments2024-01-19T04:32:25.260+11:00Comments on Ned Kelly : Death of the Legend: Body Straps: What is the evidence? Deehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-42621673953389108752016-10-27T09:59:12.268+11:002016-10-27T09:59:12.268+11:00Correct about poor old MacIntyre. History has been...Correct about poor old MacIntyre. History has been very harsh to that poor Bugger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-60875103341677478572016-10-26T13:27:33.857+11:002016-10-26T13:27:33.857+11:00Well said Spudee. I agree. Cruelly murdered by a...Well said Spudee. I agree. Cruelly murdered by armed criminals. Regardless of my thoughts on the Kellys, this is what the incident amounted to. I feel for McIntyre more so to be honest. His life was blighted forever more. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-57399740003624148132016-10-26T09:00:12.512+11:002016-10-26T09:00:12.512+11:00Today marks the 138th anniversary of the murders o...Today marks the 138th anniversary of the murders of Sgt Michael Kennedy, Constable Thomas Lonigan and Constable Michael Scanlan and the attempted murder of Constable McIntyre at Stringybark Creek. Often lost in the misguided adulation of their killer is the fact that these men were honest cops, well respected in the Mansfield District and 3 of them were husbands and fathers. Rest easy boys knowing you did your best and will always be remembered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-3343538527640923972016-09-08T23:59:42.040+10:002016-09-08T23:59:42.040+10:00The police were outmaneuvered, outgunned and murde...The police were outmaneuvered, outgunned and murdered at Stringybark Creek by useless rural yobbo criminals.<br /><br />Ned was a complete dud.WANG hOnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-16322952163787049862016-09-08T23:42:33.338+10:002016-09-08T23:42:33.338+10:00Bill, stick with SBC, your crowning achievement fo...Bill, stick with SBC, your crowning achievement for over a decade. You are an amazing investigator on the ground.Josh Ellisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-73956708934209183822016-09-08T08:58:06.403+10:002016-09-08T08:58:06.403+10:00I have in front of me the transcripts of the lette...I have in front of me the transcripts of the letters you mention, the first, written on 10 August 1878, is from Supt Sadlier to Sgt Kennedy. In it Sadlier talks of Ned Kelly being 'in the neighbourhood of Greta, or from thence to Connolly's and the bogs near the Wombat'. The general context of the letter is advising Kennedy of the plan to conduct a search with police parties from Mansfield, under Kennedy and another from Greta.<br /><br />The reply from Sgt Kennedy to Supt Sadlier is dated 16 August 1878. In it Kennedy talks of setting up a 'depot' at SBC and using this as a base to search '...the flat country towards the King River, Fifteen-mile Creek, Holland's Creek.' <br /><br />The closest Kennedy comes to identifying a likely location for Kelly is when he writes 'I believe Kelly has secreted himself in some isolated part of that country, lying between the Wombat and King River.' There is no specific location mentioned at all nor any indication that Kennedy has received a tip-off from Tolmie, Martin or anyone else. So where is your evidence that Kennedy was tipped-off on the whereabouts of Kelly camp?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-23175000724905314722016-09-07T18:49:43.509+10:002016-09-07T18:49:43.509+10:00Like you Dee I am also getting the impression that...Like you Dee I am also getting the impression that Bill wants to suggest that Kennedy and Scanlan were more intent on arresting the Kellys so as to obtain the reward than doing their job. As far as I am concerned and I do confess as a retired cop to a vested interest here, there is nothing to suggest that the Mansfield police were not simply going about the task they had been given i.e to patrol the area around SBC for any evidence as to the location of the Kelly gang. <br /><br />How many times do we have to point out to Bill that if he uses just a little logic he will see that his theory is simply ridiculous. Two coppers head off into an area they know little about, searching for a location that is unknown to them, armed with 2 Webley .45 cal. revolvers, with a pocket full of additional ammo and a Spencer carbine with just 20 extra rounds. The shotgun was still with McI. I can clearly see the result of any confrontation with the Kellys in that scenario.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-57328372763098540692016-09-07T18:37:41.492+10:002016-09-07T18:37:41.492+10:00Once again the so-called reward money motivation r...Once again the so-called reward money motivation rears its ugly head. We have no evidence as far as I can recall that Kennedy, or any of his party, even talked about the reward money. From what I have read about Sgt Kennedy he seems to me to have not only been a good cop but also a decent man. And as I have said earlier in this blog, if Kennedy and Scanlan were intent on going after the reward they were very optimistic. Not only were there only 2 of them but they were lightly armed and apparently had no idea where the Kellys were! I'm very surprised that you of all people should raise this reward/motivation theory. As far as I am aware we have no evidence whatsoever to support it apart from vague theories without foundation.<br /><br />There has only been mention of one (borrowed) tent being utilised by the Mansfield party and I think that had there been another and taken along with the 'provisions' by Kennedy and Scanlan, then McI would surely have mentioned this in his many accounts of what happened at SBC. As far as I am concerned and all the evidence I have seen seems to support it, Kennedy and Scanlan were simply carrying out a reconnaissance mission as part of the overall operation. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-44903235117263039292016-09-07T17:58:17.890+10:002016-09-07T17:58:17.890+10:00I’m not sure what the Blue Range letter is Bill, b...I’m not sure what the Blue Range letter is Bill, but this is becoming quite a bizarre discussion about the motivation of the Policemen. Bill I am still waiting for you to declare Kennedy Scanlan Lonigan and McIntyre as corrupt, devious, greedy and a disgrace to the Police Uniform, because frankly that is what you are implying by what you’re alleging about their motivations and behaviour on the SBC adventure. Your references to the RC do NOT support that idea of yours, except by taking a very peculiar interpretation of the meaning of answers that were given, to all manner of leading question from people whose interest was often to embarrass Police at the commission and settle personal scores. What reason is there for not accepting that the Police went there for the exact reasons they always stated, which was to arrest the two Kelly boys in relation to the Fitzpatrick Incident? There is no need to complicate the story with a conspiracy theory that ascribes deeply corrupt and greedy motivation to the Policeman. Calling it a ‘Police party stuff up’ sounds like you’re blaming the victims here. I agree with Spudee though that the reward may well have been in the back of their minds but think if their entire motivation was a desire to get their hands on the reward money, their preparations would have been a whole lot different. Heading off with two revolvers and a shotgun to kill two or more desperate men on the run would imply at the very least they were incompetent fools....<br /><br />Bill I really think that idea of yours hasn’t been thought through properly.<br /><br />And by the way, have we decided to all agree that the specially made body straps idea has nothing to support it, no physical evidence, no logic, nothing other than Ian Jones unprovable oral history?Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-83696864290696380942016-09-07T17:51:51.544+10:002016-09-07T17:51:51.544+10:00Hi Spudee,
See my Blue Range story - Click on abo...Hi Spudee,<br /><br />See my Blue Range story - Click on above link<br />http://www.denheldid.com/twohuts/story.html#Story7 or copy paste this one.<br /><br />In short-<br />The lease holder of Howqua Stn, a large lease North East of Eildon, was owned by a man named Martin. His son John was a boundary rider and engaged by Ewan Tolmie to lay dog (Dingo) bait. Apparently John Martin during one of these jobs came across the Kelly camp. He apparently told a Mr Tolmie who passed this onto Sergeant Kennedy.<br /><br />The Sergeant mentioned this to Supt Sadleir, and in a letter dated 16 August 1878 (according to the Royal Commission), and Kennedy in another letter also suggested to the Superintendent he and Scanlan could mount a successful arrest of the Kellys if he could have two more men, one who knew what Kelly looks like, Const Lonigan and the other having good knowledge of that part of the ranges Const McIntyre.<br /><br />Some weeks before the police party set out, it was a 'Tolmie' (as he had three sons), one that showed Sgnt Kennedy where to camp at SBC. Perhaps this Tolmie did not realise how close they were to Kelly camp, but in the area. <br /><br />At the Prelim trial in Beechworth, Ned Kelly blamed Martin for tipping off the police. And one month after the killings at SBC, Constable James followed horse tracks that led to the Kelly camp. He wrote a detailed account of the place, and on noted on one tree near the camp someone had deeply carved the name 'Martain' into the tree bark.<br /><br />This name miss spelt was obviously carved into the tree for some reason? By this time the Kellys were a gang, and someone had decided to name that person who had defied them. Perhaps the original name was Martain, but the RC mentions Martin. I have a photo of a descendant of that Martin family, from the Engelke family photos (re Toombullup) who lived at the top end of StringyBark Creek road. re Jack Martin. <br /><br />PS, <br />Spudee, you said somewhere you owned a .44 or .45 cal 'Webley' revolver like the police issue. <br />Can you please send me a contact email sometime as I was interested in doing some tests with quartered chopped musket balls or bullets to see what patterns would result. Thought you'd be interested.<br />Bill - Blue Range Letter at Two Huts Story 7http://www.denheldid.com/twohuts/story.html#Story7noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-89506073064044399092016-09-07T17:02:48.846+10:002016-09-07T17:02:48.846+10:00Spudee, you mention about how if Kennedy's sea...Spudee, you mention about how if Kennedy's search party had joined up with Shoebridge's that they would have have a better chance to take on the Kellys. Remember when Kennedy joked about how he did not want to meet up with the other party because "if we do we will find them out of tucker and they will eat us out." (there's those provisions again!I agree how provisions makes it sound like more than a cut lunch) Some might say that Kennedy did not want any possible reward money to be further diluted by having to share with the other party. If that was the case, that was a poor choice considering the outcome.<br /><br />Regarding Kennedy and Scanlon possibly having a tent with them as they went on reconnaissance, I was always under the impression that they only had the one tent (a borrowed one at that, which the owner sought recompense for). They may have already had one and then borrowed one (or, borrowed one from more than one person, but no one else put in for the recompense). Since they had to borrow practically everything else, it would seem more likely there was one tent sized 8 x 10 to share among the four which would have been sufficient. It would be different if it were a pup tent!<br /><br />I had this in a posting at my blog back in 2011 -<br /><br /><br />In a letter dated December 6, 1878 written to Sub-Inspector Pewtress,<br />Archibald McKenzie wrote:<br /><br /><br />To Mr. Pewtress, sub inspector police, Mansfield<br /><br />Sir,<br /><br />On the 24th September 1878 the late Sgt Kennedy borrowed a tent from<br />me which was destroyed by the Kelly gang. I therefore desire to be<br />paid the sum of three (3) pounds, three (3) shillings, the value of<br />the said tent or equivalent, a duck tent 8 ft x 10 ft..<br /><br />Archibald McKenzie, Mansfield Sharon Hollingsworthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-26158283375627118272016-09-07T14:56:56.814+10:002016-09-07T14:56:56.814+10:00Bill, I have checked the RC transcript into your s...Bill, I have checked the RC transcript into your suggestion that Tomlie/Tolmey had 'tipped off' Kennedy to the whereabouts of the Kellys and I see no mention of this. The only reference I can find (and please give me another reference if I am wrong) to Tolmey is at 14408: "Did you ever hear that a man named Tolmey showed where the Kelly camp was?— No, he showed the place where we were to camp ourselves." <br /><br />So I'm not sure how Kennedy and Scanlan could have headed off on a secret bounty hunting mission as you suggest if they had no idea where the Kelly camp was.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-52094641911133920042016-09-07T09:31:23.284+10:002016-09-07T09:31:23.284+10:00As Sharon points out K & S just took some tuck...As Sharon points out K & S just took some tucker with them for the day, assume a tent as well maybe?<br />I think to split up the party for the day was a huge mistake. Why would the other two be required to just hang around the camp all day. They may as well have followed the Sergeant Kennedy knowing he had been tipped off about the where abouts of the Kellys, but due to confidentialities was not passed on to the others. A fatal mistake to split the party for the sake of secrecy.<br /><br />Spudee makes the other main point, that the whole saga was cooked up by top brass and their influential mates in Spring Street. Unfortunately, good people like the sergeant was lured to take action as he saw best. He should have realised he needed the other men to protect each other rather than camp cooks. <br /><br />This is the sort of discussion for the topic Peter Newman put up regarding the Blue Range Letter, the possible reason the Kennedy party took off when it did, but can not now find the Link Dee? Perhaps you can create a link to cross reference here?Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-53764413755672159092016-09-06T10:52:51.049+10:002016-09-06T10:52:51.049+10:00You are right Bill that there quite a few 'stu...You are right Bill that there quite a few 'stuff ups' at SBC; the main ones being that Kennedy's party were understaffed, under equipped and too lightly armed to try and apprehend the Kellys. If they had joined up with Senior Constable Shoebridge's Greta party of 4 police, then they may well have been able to take on the gang but this wasn't to be.<br /><br />As far as the reward being an incentive for Kennedy to arrest the Kellys, that may well have been in the back of the minds of the Mansfield police party. However, I don't see that as their primary motivation. You need to remember that the plan to send police up to the SBC area was not Kennedy's but Superintendent Sadlier's at the suggestion of Inspector Secretan. No doubt Sadlier was at that time under pressure from the Victorian colonial government and his own superiors to do something about the Kellys. Overall, the police in the north-east region were probably very embarrassed at not being able to bring the Kellys in. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-58880173704048520702016-09-06T10:23:38.912+10:002016-09-06T10:23:38.912+10:00Thank you Sharon for that. I was thinking the ter...Thank you Sharon for that. I was thinking the term 'provisions' was meant to suggest that Kennedy and Scanlan were going for a bit longer and would be taking more than a kind of picnic lunch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-43164281963854381272016-09-05T19:07:39.947+10:002016-09-05T19:07:39.947+10:00I am not surprised by your response. You sound lik...I am not surprised by your response. You sound like an apologist for the police party stuff up at SBC and the inconvenient truth about this Royal Commission of 1881 into the Kelly Outbreak.<br /><br />My comment are to allow the reader see, and get a handle on a pretty dodgy plan to apprehend the Kellys.<br /><br />If my reference of #14316 relates to # 14314, I apologise. I am summarising what's been written not just quoting.<br /><br />People can read for themselves. What's quite obvious, there was a man hunt paid for by private enterprises -regarding the reward monies coming from private land owners, ( although this is not said in the RC, but quite true)<br />and they had huge influences on the politicians of the Victorian Parliament of the day.<br />Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-2224448921169054722016-09-05T16:20:37.695+10:002016-09-05T16:20:37.695+10:00In the RC question #14352 is "Did he take pro...In the RC question #14352 is "Did he take provisions?" The answer by McIntyre was "Some lunch for himself and Scanlan; sufficient for that day."<br /><br />In question #14351 it was asked "Did he say how long he would be absent?" McIntyre answered "He said possibly all night because if they got lost they could not get home till morning."<br /><br />In McIntyre's unpublished narrative he said "Taking some lunch with them Kennedy and Scanlon then left....The last words that Kennedy said to me were "Mac, don't be uneasy if we are not home to-night."<br /><br />I think that if they were going to be out all day and possibly overnight that they would take something to chow down on and not count on being able to obtain wild game or risk, like Mac did, the sound of their gunfire attracting unwanted attention. Sharon Hollingsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11500349415203451928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-70171825485646428862016-09-05T15:12:52.544+10:002016-09-05T15:12:52.544+10:00Interesting references from the RC which you cite ...Interesting references from the RC which you cite Bill.<br /><br />14314: I assume that is a typo and that you are actually referring to 14344 which is a question directed to McIntyre about him being surprised to be camping at SBC. I can't see any problem with this as McI seems to have known very little about the objectives of Kennedy's patrol. <br /><br />14346: No mention in this question and answer as to McI having knowledge of the Kellys being in the area or about any tip off at all. Not sure what you are getting at here. The question relates to what McI thought was the object of Kennedy and Scanlan leaving the SBC camp. McI's reply is quite innocuous "Well, at the time I thought they were merely patrolling." This is exactly what I said that I thought was the objective of the party in my post (ABOVE) on 3 September.<br /><br />14376: This question does relate to the RC puting to McI the possibility that Kennedy and Scanlan were heading off by themselves to catch the Kellys. However, the questioner mentions Kennedy and Scanlan possibly taking provisions with them when they left SBC. McI answers that he thought it possible. Of course it might have been possible but pretty implausible. For a start this is the first mention of the 2 police possibly taking 'provisions' with them when they left SBC. I can't find anything to confirm this speculation. Secondly, it would be almost suicidal for Kennedy & Scanlan to leave SBC by themselves on some sort of secret mission to capture the Kellys. Even the party of 4 from Mansfield is pretty risky. Anyone with even the slightest understanding of police or military operations, or just plain common sense, will see the absurdity of that suggestion. The 2 police who left SBC were each armed with their standard issue Webley Mk.1 .45 cal. revolvers and perhaps a dozen spare rounds each. Kennedy was also carrying the borrowed .50 cal. Spencer carbine, which I seem to recall, only had the rounds it carried in its 7 shot magazine. They had no indication on the likely location of the Kellys making any such secret bounty-hunting mission almost untenable. For the 2 officers To capture the gang by themselves would firstly require good knowledge of the Kellys actual location and access routes to it to allow for a covert approach. Even if this were accomplished, the 2 officers would have to somehow surround the place and kill or capture presumably the 4 members of the gang. An impossible task as far as I am concerned. <br /><br />14379: McI certainly did think it 'very strange' that Kennedy and Scanlan "...went to that neighbourhood instead of continuing the direct road to Hedi." I would have thought it even stranger if Kennedy and Scanlan had in fact gone directly to Hedi by themselves. As it was, Kennedy had split the Mansfield party, apparently with the intention of patrolling the area, which I take to mean the immediate area around SBC.<br /><br />If you look at 14345 you will see this: "Then, within your knowledge, are you aware what was the object of Sergeant Kennedy and Constable Scanlan in leaving you in charge of the camp and proceeding where they went to? — Well, I think it would be no unusual circumstance, if four men went out, for two to go and look at the neighboring country, because we had a pack-horse and tent, and it was necessary to leave some men behind to watch the place." To me this confirms the real intent of Kennedy and Scanlan leaving SBC and heading off on their own - it was a reconnaissance and patrolling mission. I also contradicts McI's later evidence at 14379 that he thought it "very strange" for Kennedy & Scanlan to patrol the immediate area. One minute he tells the RC that "...it would be no unusual circumstance" and the next that it was "...very strange." Maybe he was having a bob each way? <br /><br />But as far as your suggestion that the RC questions and answers you have quoted are evidence of 'unpalatable truths' I'm afraid I can't see that Bill.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-61249036051021681162016-09-05T10:39:32.955+10:002016-09-05T10:39:32.955+10:00Unpalatable truths are for all to read in the Roya...Unpalatable truths are for all to read in the Royal Commission.<br /><br />Dee, You talk about the smoking gun being the Body straps the police probably had with them. On the scales and balances, we don't have the records that Ian Jones claims to exist. <br />Sharon on 19 Dec gave insight as to where the letters of proof may have originated. Maybe one day they will turn up.<br /><br />However the Unpalatable truth remains that the police were able to claim reward monies, sufficient to lure TWO police parties of four to give it a go to capture the Kelly brothers, even though they were only wanted for questioning.<br /><br />Lets not forget £200 reward at that time is like $200.000 in todays money. <br />Here are some more Unpalatable truths, See Royal Commission click above and see <br />pages 522, 523, 524, 525<br /><br />#14314- McIntyre surprised to be at SBC,<br /><br />#14346- McIntyre has no knowledge of the Kellys being in the area yet Sgnt Kennedy and Const Scanlan knew they were as tipped off by the a Mr Tolmie.<br /><br />#14376- Considered Kennedy and Scanlan catching the Kellys themselves without McIntyre or Lonigan being present.<br /><br />#14379- Mc is asked if he thought K & S went away for the purpose of getting a special advantage without the other two?<br /><br />Q, Were McIntyre and Lonigan set up as decoys at the camp?<br />The RC questions whether McIntyre thought the other two K & S may have been the decoys for an attack from the Kellys subject to inside knowledge provided by the Tolmie's, but this maybe turning the argument around?<br /><br />The real story here is not whether the police had body straps, but rather the unpalatable truth the Kellys were to be hounded out by the lure of reward monies, that may or may not have been equally shared between the captors.<br />Bill - click here for the Royal Commissionhttp://www.denheldid.com/twohuts/images/524royalcommission.jpgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-77904170319661127612016-09-05T00:08:52.401+10:002016-09-05T00:08:52.401+10:00Ian is a very engaging individual who I respect a ...Ian is a very engaging individual who I respect a lot. My comments are not against the man but what he wrote. If things are not going well for him now, I (and I'm sure others) would be saddened and wish him recovery and wellness.Horrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-86633042519637156482016-09-04T16:37:36.024+10:002016-09-04T16:37:36.024+10:00You say I am cleverer than you Alf? What a stupi...You say I am cleverer than you Alf? What a stupid thing to say. Never said that. I just felt that once again the bitching about Ian Jones was rearing its head again. And for the record, I think McFarlanes book is very very good. And needed. As is Morriseys. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-19654327886118711152016-09-04T16:33:44.842+10:002016-09-04T16:33:44.842+10:00He (ian) is not in a position to do so unfortunate...He (ian) is not in a position to do so unfortunately. No one is perfect. But when it comes to Ians work and the shoe leather used to do his books, I think he can be spared stone throwing./Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-57222176126548091532016-09-04T16:31:01.437+10:002016-09-04T16:31:01.437+10:00I thought your RED post was good. I thought your RED post was good. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-88228507718126680672016-09-04T07:18:34.989+10:002016-09-04T07:18:34.989+10:00Bill you say ‘when the whole of the facts are pres...Bill you say ‘when the whole of the facts are presented they ignore’.. by which I presume you are meaning that people who disbelieve the ‘body straps’ theory are so intent on denying the story that they are deliberately ignoring the facts.<br /><br />Lets not lose sight of the issue at stake here : the issue is the claim by Ned Kelly that the Police were going to kill the Kellys if they found them. <br /><br />So what facts are there that might support the claim? One FACT here, that a you correctly point out, is that there was a reward. <br /><br />You claim that the Reward was enough for the Police to determine the best way to collect it would be to kill the Kellys. <br /><br />Seriously Bill how likely is it that these particular Policemen - Scanlan, Kennedy Lonigan and McIntyre - were so corrupt and so greedy that they were prepared to break the Law and kill Ned and Dan to receive a quarter of the total £200 reward? But that is what you are alleging when you suggest they wouldn’t walk the Kellys back to Mansfield. Its easy to make a vague statement about them but when you follow it to its logical conclusion, if true what you’re claiming is these 4 particular Policemen were deeply corrupt, they went into the bush with an intention to kill, and they were prepared to kill two young men for as little as £50. Bill is that what you actually believe about Kennedy? Is that what you actually believe about Scanlan, Lonigan and McIntyre? Are there any facts in relation to those 4 men that indicate that was the sort of people they were? If there are none, what are you going to use to support your very unkind allegations about them?<br /><br />The ‘body straps’ argument, which is also supposed to be evidence that the Police intended to kill the Kellys, is that before leaving, they went to the trouble of having special body straps specifically made at their own cost, the sole purpose of which was to bring back the bodies of the Kellys. Now there are ZERO actual facts to support this idea. All we have is a claim by Ian Jones that such straps existed and in 1934 were in the possession of the Egan family. The next logical step is to try to verify their existence - you have tried and been unable to. Ian Jones didnt try as far as we know. So all we are left with is an unverifiable claim, of which there are many in the Kelly saga. There are also many claims which have been proven wrong, so could this be one? Thinking about the idea of spending their own money on straps when they were poorly armed, and when they already had perfectly suitable alternatives, the whole concept makes little sense. Neither does it make sense that if these straps existed, Ned Kelly who was desperate to convince everyone he killed in self defence never mentioned them. In fact nobody ever mentioned them anywhere for more than a century.<br /><br />The body straps idea falls apart when you think about it carefully.<br /><br />But Bill are there any other facts that you think I am ignoring?Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-81577444831985449782016-09-04T00:36:00.509+10:002016-09-04T00:36:00.509+10:00Spudee is right that Ian Jones on crucial points &...Spudee is right that Ian Jones on crucial points "hasn't provided hard evidence just some story he was told by someone". That's the central problem. Otherwise, his research was exemplary.Gwen Havelocknoreply@blogger.com