This is a copy of KC2000 forum SBC News and Views page 9

Author

Topic

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
31 Posts

Posted - 16/09/2010 : 18:40:56

Hi Fitzy,

The best I can make out is that vest is done up with the left side overlapping the right side.
The buttons being on the left/middle. As most mens shirts are today.

Cannot clearly make out the blokes on the log.

I share the same opinion. The photo is correct and has not been reversed.

Regards,
Glenn

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
161 Posts

Posted - 16/09/2010 : 22:59:06

G'day Glenn,

I thought that was what you meant and just checking. Different copies of the photos have such varying differences in clarity, making the task even more difficult. Thanks for your reply.

Fitzy

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
31 Posts

Posted - 17/09/2010 : 02:34:30

Hello Bob,

with regards to the slope.

Would you please compare the two trees I have indicated on my posting 13/9 Burman pic 2. with Burman pic 1 and tell me what you see?

Question is - on what basis can the height of the slope be measured?

Regards,
Glenn

robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member

Australia
116 Posts

Posted - 17/09/2010 : 11:12:59

Glenn,I cannot see how anyone can prove conclusively that the tree that you have marked on the Burman photo is the current tree.Bill has already measured the slopes with his machine and he says on his document page 12 that the slope at the 2huts site is 14degrees.He has also measured the slope at the Kelly tree site and shows that it is 9degrees and I believe that those figures are accurate.The angles from anywhere near the current tree just do not fit with the Burman photos.To the naked eye and that means through my own eyes I still say that the slope at the 1000 metre mark is a more likely spot.I agree with a post that poorflower made several weeks ago in saying that the tent that was shown on Joes website ,which is evidently near your preferred site did not resemble the Burman photos(360o view) and I agree with poorflower.I do not know if poorflower still retains that opinion as it is several weeks down the track and he or she may have changed his mind with the evidence produced so far.I apologise to Joe for bringing up his tent again because I know that he agrees with you Glenn and doesn't want to debate anymore on this subject.I respect Joe for his views but I know Joe and I can disagree and still remain friends.I believe that none of us can say 100percent for sure that they have the correct site but we can conclusively say it is not the Ian Jones east bank.We are making good progress and reduced the suspect sites from 4 to 2 .

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
31 Posts

Posted - 17/09/2010 : 15:42:29

Hi Bob,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I agree it would be difficult to prove conclusively that the tree I have indicated in the Burman photo is the current Kelly tree.

However, I am wondering if my question was misunderstood

The two trees I am referring to are high lighted in a pinky colour on the image: http://i56.tinypic.com/2qbujxt.jpg

These trees are to the right of the image. Next to the burled tree.
It is my belief that these trees can be seen in both Burman images.

Great emphasis seems to have been placed on these two trees to determine the height of the slope using only Burman pic 1. Not Burman pic 2.

The height of bases of these trees appear much lower in Burman pic 2 compared to Burman pic 1.

I believe this is due to there being some branches from the saplings in the foreground disguising the lower part of the trees in Burman pic 1.

Therefore would it be fair to say that these two trees cannot be relied upon to determine the slope height?

Hence the question - on what basis can the height of the slope be measured?

Appearances can sometimes be deceiving.

These are simply questions. Although we have never met I would like to think we can be on good terms regardless of our different points of view.

Thanks & best regards,
Glenn

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
140 Posts

Posted - 18/09/2010 : 09:33:52

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
31 Posts

Posted - 19/09/2010 : 02:37:02

I can only lead the horse to water. I can't make it drink

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
32 Posts

Posted - 19/09/2010 : 02:37:02

I can only lead the horse to water. I can't make it drink

"FYI. These are my current workings to date on my interpretation the SBC camp layout.

It demonstrates where both the Kelly tree & the two trees on the slope could be positioned in both Burman images.
Using the same photo lens.

Along with the relative position of the two trees on the slope in comparison to the burled tree and what would be the R/H edge of both Burman images.

This is why I believe the same two trees in question can be seen in both images."

Regards, Glenn

Pic1

To see large picture click link
http://i55.tinypic.com/2psr7si.jpg

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
141 Posts

Posted - 22/09/2010 : 16:52:42

Interesting lot of postings lately.
The fascinating thing though is how varied peoples views are on what should be fundamental issues.
I do think some are grasping at straws. Glenn suggesting the Kelly tree being in the Burman photo was born by Linton Briggs who made a nice drawing for the cover of the team of four who continue with this most unlikely scenario.

Regarding the current Kelly tree.

Firstly we have an early picture 1930's of the current Kelly tree to the left rear of the Mr. Cuddon photo. ( this tree was first identified by me back in 2003 and all I say is it could be the current K tree)

This tree by the scale perspectives of everything else looks about 2 foot, (0.6 Metres) dia at the base. And fifty years earlier it must have been a mere sapling.

Then we have a 1950 photo of the Kelly tree which looks about 3 foot in diameter.

Another photo 1960's with Sheila Hutchinson and friends with a tree that looks a bit larger around 3 foot 6 inches or just over a metre in dia..
Another photo in 1985 with the tree around 4 foot plus, and now 2010 currently, Roberts photo with the tree approaching 5 to 6 foot in diameter.

Which all means that from 1930's till 1985 the tree doubled in diameter. This in a 55 year time scale.

If the Kelly tree is in the Burman photo like Glenn suggests, in 1878 it would only have been small.

Glenn's uploaded Burman image of the 13/09/2010 showing the yellow dotted outlines as the K tree, behind the seated man, who is man width, and the yellow marked tree behind him would have to have been quite large at that time being so far behind. Clearly the proposition the K tree is in the Burman photo is pure fantasy and grasping at straws.

Glenn thank for your latest map, and I realise it is a work in progress.
I have added a few notes to Glenn's map -
http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/glennsplanforsbc_2psr7si.jpg

And also see fireplace sketch by Australasian Sketcher done in Nov 1878
In this image notice the log in the back ground laying parallel to the yellow line indicating the slope.
There is no creek between the logs and the spear grasses and the slope.
http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/sketcherdoublepagefireplacenov1878.jpg

The point of all this is that mostly all the information is already there to be viewed in a ration way.
It does not matter if some can't see it. Glenn, all you need to do now is find a suitable site where there are the remains of two old huts fireplaces and a slope similar to the one in the Burman photo.
And I notice you have not drawn in the current Kelly tree on your map?

With thanks,
Bill

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
32 Posts

Posted - 22/09/2010 : 18:49:37

Very well Mr. BILDID.

I choose the navy colt.
I suggest you choose Ned’s old gun loaded with the swan drops & give yourself a better chance of hitting something.

This is my first warning shot.

Ned Kelly – from the Jerilderie Letter

We approached the spring as close as we could get to the camp as the intervening space being clear ground and no battery We saw two men at the logs they got up and one took a double barreled fowling-piece and fetched a horse down and hobbled him at the tent we thought there were more men in the tent asleep those being on sentry we could have shot those two men without speaking but not wishing to take their lives we waited McIntyre laid the gun against a stump and Lonigan sat on the log I advanced, my brother Dan keepin McIntyre covered which he took to be constable Flood and had he not obeyed my orders, or at-tempted to reach for the gun or draw his revolver he would have been shot dead but when I called on them to throw up their hands McIntyre obeyed and Lonigan ran some six or seven yards to a battery of logs instead of dropping behind the one he was sitting on, he had just got to the logs and put his head up to take aim when I shot him that instant or he would have shot me ......

Interesting -------
If South is the direction that you have indicated, we could expect the intervening space to be clear (branches & undergrowth) with no logs. The Burman images tell us otherwise.

Next
I am absolutely fed up with your cock & bull Hut 1 fireplace location. Where are your due NS & nearly EW logs?
Your tent location, McIntyre’s position at the fire, Lonigan’s position, direction of the advancing men, your slope location, measurements,your rubbery directions. All hold no water in my bucket.

Bill I’ll go further ...... Once I respected you for sharing your knowledge about all things Kelly.

I don’t pretend to know all there is about the Kelly era.

I had no idea that by asking a few questions about who shot who with what gun and how, would lead me into spending the best of the past 2 years studying, considering & thinking about all the material at my disposal in relation to the tragedy that unfolded at Stringybark creek. Visualizing the events.
The positions of Lonigan, McIntyre and the advancing men. Relating all to the Burman images. Spending countless hours studying those images.
Driving my friends, work mates, family & mostly my wife nuts talking about it all. Driving myself nuts, going over your suggestions and conclusions.
You have given my brain a work out, I’ll give you that.

Now I am disappointed in you.

All I have ever wanted to see is that the location be properly marked. So that future generations can confidently stand at the correct location.
We all have the opportunity with the information currently available to do just that.

So much has been made of Ned Kelly. So many stories, so much hearsay, my great granddad told me’s. etc etc etc.
If you throw enough cow dung around some is sure to stick.

Surely we can get something right. Without trying to be legends in our own lunch box.

I intend to offer for consideration some further information that may be helpful in verifying the location.
Then allow those interested to make up their own minds.

Once that is done then I am out of it. I’ve spent too much of my precious time on this cause.

marcus
Advanced Member

Australia
207 Posts

Posted - 23/09/2010 : 00:56:22

Yawns..and rocks back in chair....

Sheila Hutchinson
Advanced Member

Australia
73 Posts

Posted - 23/09/2010 : 22:48:30

Glenn I’m sure there are a number of Kelly story enthusiasts who appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to determining where the police camped at SBC in 1878 and explaining why and how you came to this conclusion.
I regard your work and the work of your team as an invaluable contribution.

For what it is worth I believe the 1938 Engelke photograph of Mr Cuddon standing near ‘the Kelly tree’ with the present Kelly tree in the background was taken in the same area as the photograph of the Police Camp Wombat Ranges – Scene of the Kelly outrage that appeared in the 1897 Beautiful Mansfield booklet.

Charlie Engelke the owner of the Cuddon photograph and the one of the stump of the original Kelly tree is adamant that the photographs were both taken on the west side of the creek, not far south of the present Kelly tree.

The 1938 Photograph of a Kelly tree ………….. (to be posted by Bruce)

Sheila

kellycountry2000
Forum Admin

Australia
760 Posts

Posted - 24/09/2010 : 15:01:51

If there is still anybody left here to discuss this.

On Tuesday I took some pictures at SBC at Bills site, using his latest plan of the site. The pictures were taken at his spots and angles marked 1 and 2.

http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/burmanphotomodelplan.jpg

Over next few days I hope to show them here, the two fire places are covered with blue tarps so they show up in the pics, and the two hut posts are PVC pipe in the post holes, almost 6 feet high and you can see the yellow tape measure.

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
142 Posts

Posted - 25/09/2010 : 16:37:46

There seems to be a lot of believing going on with this debate.
With due respect to all those who have taken part in this quest, no pity for Glenn's regrets for being involved. Nobody is wasting their time, we are all responsible for our own actions. Glenn chose to participate in finding the true site, but the lack of rational argument is a waste of time.

The area Sheila believes in is too flat, there is no slope there like the Burman photo CLEARLY shows.
I am beginning to think we still do have a Flat earth society !

Sheila, with respect, the Engelke photo of Mr Cuddon may show an area that land owner Beasley considered the place based upon early Parish maps and huts and notes as plotted. But this does not mean they plotted the correct site ! The problem with this photo of Mr Cuddon looking across SBC is not enough conclusive information BECAUSE the slope is no where in sight. The fact the photo was taken 60 years after the event is a problem but of great interest and offers little proof. The ground on the other side of SBC as depicted is a slight slope. See my document pages - 8 and 12-13

My argument simply is this. Once an INCORRECT site is recorded as the site on a land allotment map, ( McCrum's) and later due to that beautiful Mansfield booklet photo' promoting a view of a location, it becomes very difficult to correct the location as being false. With that falsity being perpetuated it is no wonder all believed the parish maps had got it right, when in fact it was all wrong.

I draw attention to your own webpage http://www.ironicon.com.au/validlinks.htm where in you challenged the Jones east bank site, in favour of the west bank. We had a discussions about that and subsequently I rejected your proposition that the twohuts site could be the correct site. Near the bottom of your document you have two pictures, one if sword grasses and the other of an open area both were taken near the two huts fireplaces on the west bank. Why did I reject your proposition? because I believed in the east bank scenario because everyone else believed in it too.

But it was not until I studied McCrum's allotment map that I realised the hut plotted (on it) that you show in your Valid links webpage was near the picnic ground some 160 metres North of the current Kelly tree, and thus with two maps showing the same hut site separated by 160 meters, so if the surveyors could not get it right then there is a problem with those maps.

To me this threw a spanner in the works. Neither of these mapped sites exhibit a slope as in the Burman photo ?

The point of all this, we can believe all we like, but at the end of the day we have to look and compare the photographic evidence first, then read the texts, then come to some conclusion by a 'rational thinking ' irrespective of the one's beliefs. Belief is no proof for historically correctness.

Please also read the SBC investigation webpage http://www.ironicon.com.au/stringybarkckinvestigation.htm
which is still a works in progress.

Bill

PS, Bruce, your picture with the blue covers was a good idea.

Sheila Hutchinson
Advanced Member

Australia
74 Posts

Posted - 25/09/2010 : 21:43:19

Hi All,

Yes I am a believer (I believe in many things !)

To answer Bill’s comments;
The (Cuddon) Engelke photograph; I simply said that I believed it was taken in the same area as the 1897 photograph. I am leaving all of the surmising this and surmising that to other researchers who are interested in finding the true location of the police camp.

As for the Engleke’s and the Beasley’s, it is highly unlikely that they would have used Surveyors maps to find the spot where the Stringybark creek tragedy took place.
Rather they would have simply got details of the site from folk with first hand knowledge of where this event took place as well as from the pioneers of the area.

For your information the two photographs on page 16 of the Valid Links document were taken on the western bank of SBC not very far south of the Kelly Tree - nowhere near the two huts site.
I don’t think the simple comment ‘ Could this be the site marked on the Map ?’ that I put with the photographs could be considered a challenge to the current recognised site on the east bank, I was simply asking a question !

I have always thought the two huts site was most likely occupied by miners post1878. I’m yet to be convinced otherwise.

My question is;
Which interpretation of the Burman photograph(s) is correct or even close to what Frederick Burman actually shot when he went on his trip to SBC in 1878 ??

Photograph: Bark Hut (miners hut) that wasn’t far 'as the crow flies' from SBC

hut2

Bye for now

Sheila

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
164 Posts

Posted - 28/09/2010 : 00:15:44

G’day Sheila,

Thanks for sharing those photos of the old huts. Early bush carpentry and buildings is one of my passions.

Fitzy.

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
164 Posts

Posted - 28/09/2010 : 00:20:07

G’day Bruce,

The photos you posted do look similar to the Burman photos and would more so if cropped the same. The ground falling away to the left however, does not fit.

Fitzy.

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
164 Posts

Posted - 28/09/2010 : 00:23:03

G’day Gang,

Well I finally got to SBC and have seen all the proposed sites of where the different groups/people, believe the shootings took place.

I fully appreciated the time, effort, expense and years of research that has gone into everyone’s findings and can see merit for all cases put forward and why the conclusions have been made. However, I am not convinced any of the sites are correct, as they all have major flaws. So this is a real conundrum in all senses of the word and may never be satisfactorily established.

Below are a few things that have me puzzled.

Why was there about two acres of land cleared near the shingle hut as Ned called the site? McIntyre said they camped on the northern edge of the clearing. The land at all sites named, does not look suitable to me to be cleared and as the Burman photos suggest, the land was relatively flat apart from the slope on the right of the photos.

Ned mentions a spring and also refers to the creek in the Jerilderie Letter, so this spring most likely fed the creek. As he uses both spring and creek, he would not be referring to the same thing.

As for McIntyre’s orientation, I find it hard to believe had had his bearing wrong about north and south. He mentions the sun setting in the west, so must have known where that was. He also said he went west then north. He states Kennedy followed his general direction, which is where Kennedy’s body was found. This was also the direction that McIntyre’s horse was found in. There was also a report that the wombat hole McIntyre his in was also in this direction about a mile from their camp. There are also many references by Ned and McIntyre about Kennedy and Scanlon coming ‘up’ the creek. As the creek runs from north to south, coming up the creek means they came back from the north.

I am by no means demeaning anyone’s work or theories, as that is not my aim, only to satisfy myself as to which site I agree with.

So that is my initial conclusion and that may change after further investigation and yes I know I have only been on this topic for 5 minutes, not like the rest of you. I do have two theories of my own to investigate and if they prove fruitless, then it will be back to examining the sites, already put forth by other forum members.

After seeing the area, it’s no wonder that it has driven some to distraction and created such passion to try and find the truth. Now I have a lot more research to do on this subject and probably wishing I had kept out of it, as I keep adding to my workload.

Cheers to All,

Fitzy.

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
143 Posts

Posted - 29/09/2010 : 11:15:44

Hello Fitsy,
Pleased you have seen the 'sights' at SBC. I look forward to your site conclusions. To me it was always a conundrum - until I looked outside the square.
Another thing that struck me was the huge differences between what your eyes see and how a photo portrays that same place. From a photo you get the impression of vastness but its quite the opposite when there.

I think fellow researchers have been interpreting things too literal. Example Creek or Spring ? Hillock or Mound, Swamp or Bog, Log or Trunk, River or Stream, I could go on.

Your paragraph about the cleared two acres, picture below. The Melbourne Herald actually reported the area cleared was about 10 acres.
Quote - Thomas McIntyre, Pseudonym for Kelvyn Gill (This thread Page 4 20/07/2010 )
These are extracts and not the entire quote -

quote:

" SCENE OF THE MURDER. This was a cleared space, of about ten acres in extent, on a gentle slope, rising gradually, and on the further side having a northerly and easterly aspect" . -- --- --- " The site has been partly cleared as a paddock for a horse," - " The police tent was pitched on the northern slope of the hill and faced that direction. At the rear of the tent, the slope goes gradually up to the summit, " - "Across the creek, at the back of the little hill, was a fallen gum-tree, over six feet high at the butt end, and behind which twenty men could find shelter". - " At the top of the slope and overlooking the police tent, was a clump of scrub and sword-grass, some sixty feet in circumference, ( 7 meters across) and in which a dozen men could readily conceal themselves. Standing a few feet in front of this clump of scrub but still overlooking the police tent, are two bunches of sword-grass, four feet six inches high, and presenting a covering surface of some six feet " - ' the hill hid their approach to the clump of scrub mentioned, the distance being about 20 paces.

McIntyre said they camped in a clear area of an acre or two, and they pitched their tent in the North west corner. So this means the clearing was to the south and the east, would it not ?

10 acres = 4.5 hectares. Approximately an area about 200 metres by 400 metres on the east side as well as the west side of SBC, but the majority of the clearing was on the flattish ground east AND most probably associated with a hut that Bruce has shown on a plan * of SBC . This hut location was to the South east of the two huts site.

Fitsy, in your paragraph 'Orientation' you say- Quote " the creek runs from north to South" Actually it runs from South to North.
Isn't this just the point, if we do take things too literal we would never sort anything out.

PS, * Bruce I cannot find where you showed us that red dot hut to the east , can you show us a picture

Bill

http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/sbcgoogleviewinsertcopy.jpg

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
165 Posts

Posted - 29/09/2010 : 20:57:13

G’day Bill,

Thanks for pointing out the blue I made about north and south. I had rectified that when I read over it and must have accidentally undid my correction. I have now rectified that on the post. Aren’t I a drongo!

You are correct how different a photo looks to an actual site, as I already mentioned about the photo Bruce posted.

As for the point I was making about creek and spring was that Ned used both terms, meaning he was referring to different things, as it shouldn’t, as they are two different things. This is quite different from two people describing the same thing and as you suggest, they may use different words in their descriptions. When researching I also look outside the square, looking for the little things that may have been overlooked or misinterpreted.

quote:

Macquarie Dictionary: Spring; an issue of water from the earth, flowing away as a small stream or standing as a pool or small lake, or the place of such an issue.

The article you posted from the Melbourne Herald is quite interesting, as my first impression of the area was that if I was going to clear land around there, it would have been the flat ground on the east bank. As you would know, deciphering newspaper reports and putting into perspective what the reporter actually means, can be a trying task. That report also states that the tent was faced in a northerly direction. As one of many examples, one report in the Argus says McIntyre rode done the creek to escape, whilst I have yet to see a statement from McIntyre that backs this.

As previously stated, I have an open mind and admit I still have a lot of research and trips to the SBC before coming to my own conclusion, if I can at all. As so many things to not fit in the broad scope of the whole area, I have a few ideas I would like to try out before concentrating on the more recognised sites.

Fitzy.

alanros
Advanced Member

Australia
71 Posts

Posted - 30/09/2010 : 12:26:17

G’day Fitzy, Crikey mate, 10 pages and perused over 7000 times. This has got to be a record for the Forum. So many diagrams with more degrees than a thermometer, but mate, I’m still bloody confused! I know McIntyre didn’t have his GPS with him, but surely he carried a compass? When he says the tent was pitched on the Northern slope of the hill and faced that way, is he referring to the entrance or the end of the tent? In his recollections he reckons the tent faced East and to the creek. The more I try to work out McIntyre’s directions, the more I’m led to believe he didn’t know his arse from his elbow. I can understand the frustrations of all researchers involved, and I wish them all the good luck in October’s Stringybark expedition, and sincerely hope they can finally come away with a unanimous decision on the Police Camp’s exact location.

“Sergt. Kennedy had selected a clear place near an old burnt out hut as the most suitable for a camping ground as it was out of danger of any timber which might fall from the forest trees. Our tent was pitched near the North West corner of this clearing which was partly natural and partly caused by human agency. THE ENTRANCE TO THE TENT WAS FACING EAST AND ALSO THE CREEK WHICH WAS ABOUT 70 YARDS DISTANT. Standing at the tent entrance and facing the creek there was upon the left front a felled tree nearly 4 feet in diameter, at the thickest part. It lay nearly East West. About midway this log was joined by another which lay due North and South and terminated where it joined the other. These two logs thus formed two right angles, the point of junction being about 25 yards from the tent. On your right or the Southside of the clearing the ground was free of timber and being of a swampy nature there was a luxuriant growth of rushes and other course herbage. These together with a slight declivity in the formation in that direction afforded good cover to within 20 yards of our tent for any party wishing to attack our camp, and it was from this position we were attacked, the South side or up the creek: whilst Kelly’s hut was to the North of our camp and in the direction the men had gone on patrol”.

" SCENE OF THE MURDER. This was a cleared space, of about ten acres in extent, on a gentle slope, rising gradually, and on the further side having a northerly and easterly aspect" . -- --- --- " The site has been partly cleared as a paddock for a horse," - " THE POLICE TENT WAS PITCHED ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF THE HILL AND FACED THAT DIRECTION. At the rear of the tent, the slope goes gradually up to the summit, " - "Across the creek, at the back of the little hill, was a fallen gum-tree, over six feet high at the butt end, and behind which twenty men could find shelter". - " At the top of the slope and overlooking the police tent, was a clump of scrub and sword-grass, some sixty feet in circumference, ( 7 meters across) and in which a dozen men could readily conceal themselves. Standing a few feet in front of this clump of scrub but still overlooking the police tent, are two bunches of sword-grass, four feet six inches high, and presenting a covering surface of some six feet " - ' the hill hid their approach to the clump of scrub mentioned, the distance being about 20 paces.

Joe.D
Advanced Member

Australia
768 Posts

Posted - 30/09/2010 : 18:28:40

Hi all,

Bill, on the 29/09/2010 @ 11:15:44 you wrote in yellow text pasted on top of a Google satellite view of SBC... as follows:

The yellow area defines an area about 10 acres (4.5 Hectares) that was reported in the Herald 20 Oct 1878, said to have been cleared by someone and left abandoned. etc.

Bill I must raise a question here.....in the same satellite map you have an area marked with a yellow square showing N-S-E-W. How did this square/area come into equation? did you add it yourself? or was/is this part of the story by the reporter at the time? I would like to view the sketch/drawing.

My regards to oma

Chat soon.
Joe.D

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
167 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2010 : 01:33:41

G’dat Alan,

In answer to your question: “When he says the tent was pitched on the Northern slope of the hill and faced that way, is he referring to the entrance or the end of the tent?”

I think you’ll find; "THE POLICE TENT WAS PITCHED ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF THE HILL AND FACED THAT DIRECTION”, is a newspaper reporter’s description.
McIntyre said; “THE ENTRANCE TO THE TENT WAS FACING EAST AND ALSO THE CREEK WHICH WAS ABOUT 70 YARDS DISTANT.” This is consistent with his detailed diagram, although he does not show the creek on it. Both the quotes in capitol letters are in the text you quoted in your post.

McIntyre’s description and detailed map would suggest the police tent was behind where Burman took his photos from and that to the right of the photos should be some indication of the creek. I think this is part of the reason Bill believes the photo faces a southerly direction and not northerly, which is a reasonable assumption.

Could there be an underground spring to the right on the photos and emerging as a creek around the center of the photos, behind the logs? There are so many contradictions and things that don’t fit. As with a lot of these conundrums are WE ALL missing something that is staring us in the face?

Fitzy.

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
33 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2010 : 11:59:28

We cannot see the creek in the beautiful mansfield pic either, but we know it's there.

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
167 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2010 : 13:23:20

True Glenn, but with that photo you can tell by the scrub along the bank. Believe me, I've tried to see a creek in the Burman photos and if it was then all would be much clearer.

Burman must have taken more that two photos after traveling all that distance, if only someone could produce them. Maybe one day.

Fitzy.

kellycountry2000
Forum Admin

Australia
761 Posts

Posted - 01/10/2010 : 14:37:58

Are you sure Mc said ten acres ?
here are some scale maps
The red star is todays Kellly tree
the orange star are the two fireplaces
the red squares are 10 acres.
The third fire place is within the ten acres
and may be associated with the clearing

Map 1

Map 2

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
168 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2010 : 00:40:30

I’m sure McIntyre only referred to about 2, then 1 to 2 acres. Reference to 10 acres appears in this piece below that Alan posted which appears to be a newspaper reporter’s version. I’m not sure where this piece originated from.

quote:

" SCENE OF THE MURDER. This was a cleared space, of about ten acres in extent, on a gentle slope, rising gradually, and on the further side having a northerly and easterly aspect" . -- --- --- " The site has been partly cleared as a paddock for a horse," - " THE POLICE TENT WAS PITCHED ON THE NORTHERN SLOPE OF THE HILL AND FACED THAT DIRECTION. At the rear of the tent, the slope goes gradually up to the summit, " - "Across the creek, at the back of the little hill, was a fallen gum-tree, over six feet high at the butt end, and behind which twenty men could find shelter". - " At the top of the slope and overlooking the police tent, was a clump of scrub and sword-grass, some sixty feet in circumference, ( 7 meters across) and in which a dozen men could readily conceal themselves. Standing a few feet in front of this clump of scrub but still overlooking the police tent, are two bunches of sword-grass, four feet six inches high, and presenting a covering surface of some six feet " - ' the hill hid their approach to the clump of scrub mentioned, the distance being about 20 paces.

Fitzy.