Post by bill on Mar 7, 2014 at 1:57pm
Thank you Kelvyn,
I think you and all readers would have to agree your CSI team's
site is near the Kelly tree.
In your last post you advise me Bill to
" read what I said carefully,
the tramway I
referred to was between the road and the Creek,
ie east of the road, ---- ---- ---- ----- I pointed out that
there was a significant tramway running some distance along
between the road and the creek – ie on the eastern side of the
road. Remnants of the tramway were
what became a well
worn “path” that went passed the now No 3 Kelly Tree."
Back in 1985 I detected all through
Kellys Creek area and tramways were very easy to follow because
there were thousands of big rusty nails just under the surface
soil. No such nails or evidence of tramways were ever detected
by me along SBC.
I have a letter from Charlie Engelke ( now deceased), part of
which is shown below,
2/ I understand
(was told by Dad) that the stump (of the Kelly tree)
was pulled out by the McCashneys. He was working at the Mill at
I understood that it was in the way of a proposed tram line.
no remains of a tram line there so it seems the plan was
About the police camp-
"4 / We
were always told it was the west side adjacent to the tree
marked by Beasely"
" 5 / --
--- --- --- "Locals always considered it to be the wrong place"
This Beasely K tree site is where CSI
team have placed the Police tent, and assert that Burman took
his photos looking North East towards the current Kelly tree,
which they claim is somewhere in the 1878 Burman photo. That is
why the CSI@SBC teams location is referred to as the Kelly tree
There is absolutely no reason why you should go crook at Horrie
for referring to your police camp location as the Kelly tree
site as it is the truth.
PS: Dee, perhaps you could
edit - grey out all postings that do not relate to the subject.
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 2:06pm
I am having
about "Sarah" and "her"
in this Forum. You aren't helping.
A smarter person would have realised I am avoiding "Sarah" at
Your wild pronouncements about threats and jibes are ridiculous.
"Sarah" is the one with the 54 hate posts, not me.
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 3:48pm
Question for one Mr Denheld &/or Horrie aka
The following image SBC36.jpg on page
that a sketch of a tent pitched on your preferred slope? why
would a band of first class bushman pitch a tent on a bloody
slope? Please explain.
Also the figuration of the logs appear way off. I would also
appreciate the feedback from the a member of the csi team.
These are simple observations by a simple minded sympathiser.
Notes in black text are by
BILL to help explain to Glenn and the reader the orientation of
the panorama views.
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 4:43pm
I'm still trying to work out why the "tent stood
here" as shown on page 2 ( on this
added by Bill, Glenn does not realise this picture is a Panoramic
view arcing through 160 degrees and the road wraps around behind the
viewer running north south. Following Glenn's confusion I added
the N East to South on this image below. The tent faces
Was moved from the North to the South side as on the map shown
on page 9
Pitched behind which hut?
( Bill's explanation note; There is a hut shown on map as
yellow near W. The nearest hut fireplace is where it reads 2
Huts. This would be the hut they pitched the tent behind as the
fireplace would not be considered as the front of the hut )
Within the findings and conclusions -Stringybark Creek The
( Note, Glenn could not even provide a link -
From page 29
Quote: 2. “That the police tent was pitched on the rise slightly
west of the road with a commanding view overlooking the numerous
logs that the police had used as a beacon bon fire far enough
from the tent.” Unquote
Note added by Bill, Glenn, Yes this would be
correct of the tent was 70 yards from the creek, but I
always said it was more likely 70 feet, and this
confusion is an oversight by me which Glenn has made me
aware of, I go by my map as shown. This would have placed the tent on the far side of SBC road
? Yes, but the tent was not there any longer as the reporter
days later he said that ' from the little hill (-slope)
he could look down on the tent location ' the burnt out tent '
so we know the tent was on lower ground.
“That the police tent
was pitched behind a ruined hut but one still standing maybe
slanted over and dilapidated ready to fall “
Note from Bill, Yes the ruined hut may well
have been still standing only 'just'.
So for now I will continue painting my house.
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:11pm
Brian, Many eons ago the
matter of pitching a tent in or on a spot where any good bushmen
would was the subject of debate somewhere in another forum. It
was pointed out to BD then that no sensible person with any
knowledge of the bush would pitch on a slope and would seek out
level/flat ground for the purpose. But you can only lead a horse
to the water. The camp being near a spring with easy access
would meet the bill most certainly, and I am certain they would
have bucked the adage and had their fill.
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 6:13pm
here B (or W) D again attempts to mislead.
In his recent graphic with the wording at the bottom of it
“Images on map by W Denheld Jan 2013 . . . . pdf”
“sketck of SBC approved by McIntyre. Editorial read
– ‘Being drawn from a rough sketch, made at our request by
Well that’s not correct – the sketch drawn by McIntyre was
indeed rough . The sketch was drawn by McIntyre on the 2
November on the day after he was admitted to the Police Hospital
in Richmond, Melbourne.
The sketch, reproduced in many books consists of two
intersecting logs, an indication of men advancing (the Kellys)
represented by small circles, McIntyre’s position (a small
circle) and notations of “Fire”, “Lonigan” (with perhaps a
circle line arrow around his name) and “Scanlan Shot (circled).
NO depiction of a tent nor a creek nor any directional
information (the latter two would be included by McIntyre around
ten years later in his very detailed to scale diagram now on
permanent display at the Victoria Police Museum, and reproduced
in both the CSI Team’s report and my book.
From this an artist produced the sketch shown by W Denheld.
AND the word “APPROVED” appears NOWHERE in the accompanying
article – a verbatim transcript is below. If the words “, the
words “its general correctness can be relied” are those of the
newspaper and NOT words attributed to McIntyre. MCINTYRE DID NOT
APPROVE ANYTHING (no wonder history becomes perverted when
erroneous statements are made).
This rough sketch of McIntyre’s can also be accessed on-line in
the Public Records Office VPRS 4966, Unit 2, Item 10 papers.
McIntyre’s rough sketch was also used by the prosecution at both
Ned’s preliminary hearing and subsequent murder trial.
The correct citation of the newspaper is: The Sydney Mail New
South Wales Advertiser.
And here is the story that accompanied the paper’s depiction:
Scene of the Bushranging Outrage
We have given to our readers a full description of the murderous
outrage perpetrated by the Kelly gang of bushrangers on the
police at Stringybark Creek in Victoria. What further details
have come to hand of the endeavours made to bring the murderous
villains to justice will be found in another column of this
week’s issue. We are enabled this week to present our readers
with a view of the scene of the encounter. For the most part it
tells its own story, for it at once shows the desperate nature
of the attack made by the Kelly party, the fatal results, and
the narrow struggle for life which was made by the police
concerned. Being drawn from a rough sketch, made at our request
by constable M’Intyre, the sole survivor of the police engaged,
very shortly after the outrage, when every detail was fresh in
his memory, its general correctness can be relied upon. And
looking at it, one may fairly ask whether a more deliberate
bushranging murder has ever been committed in the colonies. That
any of the police escaped at all is a wonder. The chances were a
hundred to one that they would never more have been heard of
until some chance traveler found a few skeletons, the identity
of which with the missing troopers time had rendered impossible.
It will be remembered the police were searching for the Kellys –
well known horse-stealers – among the ranges at the head of the
King River. As the neighbourhood was infested by the relations
and connections of the Kelly family, the expedition was,
especially to men who were imperfectly acquainted with the
intricacies of the country, one of peculiar difficulty, though
to some of them the general locality was well known. Their
opponents were on the watch; and by some secret system of
communication , the ring leaders were made acquainted, not only
that search was instituted in the neighbourhood, but that the
very movements of the searchers were closely observed. At length
the police party, which consisted of sergeant Kennedy and
constables M’Intyre, Scanlan, and Lonergan – all strong men over
30 years of age – left Mansfield in private costume. Equipped
with revolvers, a rifle, and a double-barrelled gun, they
arrived at Stringybark Creek, about 20 miles from the township,
and camped near the creek. They were provisioned for a
fortnight, and within that time they hoped to complete their
capture. They pitched their tent in an open space, 80 yards from
the creek, all around them being a thickly timbered and scrubby
country, with the ranges of hills in the distance. Thick ferns,
fallen trees, and sword-grass five feet high surrounded the
camp. It was not thought by the party that the bushrangers were
near them – such experience only, as backwoodsmen in America, or
those accustomed to the treachery of Indians, would have
suggested such a thing. Evidently, however, they were closely
watched, and their preparations were well understood. Kennedy
and Scanlan then went out on the search, leaving M’Intyre and
Lonergan in charge. A fire was lighted, and M’Intyre with
Lonergan was boiling the “billy” for the afternoon tea ready for
their companions’ return, when suddenly through the grass
appeared four men, one of them (subsequently recognized as
Edward Kelly, the ringleader, whose portrait we gave last week)
wearing a digger’s sash. E. Kelly carried two rifles, and had a
thick beard; D. Kelly, next to him, was beardless; and there
were two others, one of whom had a medium beard, and the other
none. Each man wore a hat with a string coming down under the
nose. This party made an immediate demand for surrender, and
M’Intyre, being then unarmed, held up his arms; but poor
Lonergan attempted to get behind a tree, and in doing so tried
to draw his revolver. Kelly, seeing this, immediately shot him,
and he died at once. Kelly then told M’Intyre to advise sergeant
Kennedy and Scanlan, on their return, to surrender; but on
hearing them approach, retired with his three brigands behind
some logs, warning M’Intyre on pain of death not to give the
alarm. This was the first attack.
The second is the subject of our picture.
“sketck” the k is two positions to the right of h! not even next
I suggest that B (W) D takes a leaf out of Peter Fitzsimons’
book and his employment of a good editor (his wife) or at least
take the time to re-read stuff before rushing to post.
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:05pm
Horrie you are one waste of
space. Your description of SBC 20 years ago when you supposedly
visited there is very confusing, or you are not knowing east
from west. From your description, I don’t believe you have ever
been there as it is totally nonsensical! You have shown you know
nothing about SBC and are just being a nuisance here, not
contributing a thing.
Horrie any nightmares you may be having about Sarah would only
be that she knows more about Stringybark Creek than you do as
she has posted some interesting things along with the SBC team.
I can assure you that I have been to SBC many times and Bill’s
site is too small, the orientation is wrong by 180 degrees and
no bloke would pitch a tent on the side of a steep rise.
You now question my intelligence for not supporting your
vindictive persecution of her! I thought she asked you a
reasonable question and you not only refuse to answer her, but
you ridicule for asking you to explain your accusations.
Stop waffling Horrie and tell us who are Bill’s detractors that
have never been there!
Post by Guest on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:48pm
Brendon, I don't give a fig what you think.
You assure us you have been to SBC many times. Prove it.
While you're at it, photos of Fitzy, Pooflower and Sarah at SBC
would give credence to their claims...
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:13am
Geez Dee! Your forum is
doing fifty times more business than all the other Kelly Forums
combined. Imagine what a bit of publicity could do. Trent claims
half-a-million hits on his moribund Ned Kelly Forum with six
active members. Brad's IronOutlaw claims four million... There
has been zero activity on your favourite, the Ned Kelly Forum
boards, for days. "Fred" killed off discussion there forever.
There is immense potential to create THE ultimate Kelly Forum
for all right here. You could become famous! You will need much
more bandwidth if you are going to allow Glenn and Kelvyn to
continue to post here.
Post by bill on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:37pm
At least I address
people by name when I reply,
I thought you were a smart fellow.
You say you are still trying to work out where the tent stood at
the two huts site. ref page 2
You show this image - the URL of the image above.
Glenn, where I wrote on that image 'Police Tent stood here' This
is looking east from the road. North is to the left of that
image , South is looking up the road - little hill.
On the next image in your post of map with Scenes , do you see
that yellow tent marked to the west of the map near where it has
W = west OK. The tent was pitched on that flat bit of ground
approximately near the road.
I will show the readers the picture of where you and Kelvyn were
asked to stand. You are standing in the area where the police
tent was pitched, in relationship to the ruins of a hut -
fireplace and foot print drawn in. Are you now able to follow
Glenn, if you still cannot work out where the tent stood near
the two huts, then I suggest you may as well just keep painting
Brian, why do you refer to Mrs Denheld, my wife as akas Horrie?
Carla has not posted since being banned from Trent's forum, and
if she did she would use her own name - not a pseudonym.
Brian you are nothing more than a pseudo for either Glenn or
Kelvyn, we can pick it a mile off !
If you are a real person with an open mind why not just give me
a ring today so we can have a chat. You can find my phone number
in the book. I will report on this forum whether you rang me or
not on Monday.
Remember too, you on another forum said you wanted me to show
you SBC, you never contacted me and I wonder why? If I don't
hear from you today, or Sunday, it will be confirmed you are
just a patsy for these CSI experts who can't even read a map,
interpret images, make sense of history, yet try to influence
the public with pseudo publications that are based on false
beliefs. Brian, please look up patsy in the dictionary.
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:41pm
site is too small, says Brendon. Const McIntyre said it was
And don't be shy about those pics. We're all patiently waiting!
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:55pm
Why are you so abusive to everyone Horrie? It
that the way you welcome a new person to this forum? Dee has
obviously got no control over you and gives you ‘carte blanche’
on this forum. Something here doesn’t add up.
You assure us you have been
to SBC many times. Prove it.
Well Horrie can you prove you have been there? Your knowledge of
the area appears limited and you have trouble grasping what
Glenn and Kelvyn have graciously posted here to help you
understand. I am still considering both sides and have no
problem understanding the data submitted by both sides as I know
the area well.
If you want photos of Fitzy, Pooflower and Sarah, I suggest you
direct your request to them.
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 1:57pm
"Fred" on Ned Kelly Forum
boards claimed Dee was Carla. His record for identifying people
is very poor though.
Great photo Bill! Surely Glenn and Kelvyn will get
'the picture' sooner or later?
It doesn't look as if the tent was on much of a slope either, as
contended by someone or other, a day or two ago.
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:09pm
Brendon, I have several aces
to play on whether I have visited SBC or not. You will be
gobsmacked by who can prove I've been there, which is why I'm
going to keep you waiting a very long time. You will look like a
complete clot! Pooflower and "Sarah" are invisible in the
real world and are not contactable as you well know. Fitzy can't
provide an SBC pic.
Which leaves you. Where's the proof you have been been to SBC
Post by bill on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:29pm
does not mention he was wrong about the tramway along SBC.
The track he
referred to was in fact the Bridle track on the western bank of
the creek leading up to the two huts and beyond.
In his latest posting, Kelvyn is talking about The Sydney Mail
sketch 'approved by McIntyre' because Mc had provided the
essential information to the artist enabling him to execute the
The sketch note reads -"Being drawn from a rough sketch, made at
our request by constable McIntyre"
The sketch by McIntyre may have been rough, but the final art
work is very refined and graphically accurate.
Kelvyn then referrers to two maps McIntyre had drawn, one large
map turned up only a few years ago 2010. This larger map only
shows two logs laying around 100 degrees included angle with a
tent placed in the lower south west corner of the map with North
up. Still no creek, only notes, and he has one Mc ( himself) miss
placed on the wrong side of the log when he was supposed to be
facing north when the other half of the police party returned.
Kelvyn then referrers to the Sydney Mail sketch as having been
drawn 2 Nov - - - - no year, but goes on to say ' on the day
after he (Mc) was admitted to the Police hospital in Richmond
Of this McIntyre map and sketch, Kelvyn in his post above writes
Quote- " the latter two would be included by McIntyre around
ten years later
in his very
detailed to scale diagram now on permanent
display at the Victoria Police Museum, and reproduced in both
the CSI Team’s report and my book.
From this an
artist produced the sketch shown by W Denheld."
Oh boy, this must be the joke of
the decade. Kelvyn, I don't know where you get your information
from, perhaps from your own book? The" Sydney Mail" sketch shown
on my map of SBC -
-was first published on 16 Nov 1878 - just 3
weeks after the event which makes it Primary Source material-
and NOT AT ALL- ten years after the event as you falsely claim.
The CSI@SBC report does not even show this 'Sydney Mail sketch'
or the SBC wide scene in the 'Australasian Sketcher', or the
'News Illustrated front cover', why not ? Because it does not
help their cause for the Kelly tree site.
What is the value of a SBC report that excludes important
Primary Source sketch material drawn at that time when state of
the art photogrphic cameras were only just beginning to replace
the artists work. Sketches had to be an accurate depiction of
Why Kelvyn would type out a transcript accompanying the Sydney
Mail sketch in it entirety in a solid almost unreadable block is
beyond me. Just read out the highlighted text is enough.
And yes, the artist has drawn two logs meeting
up, but on careful examination of the Burman photos - shows the
configuration was made up of three tree log parts. Three trees
were felled to meet at one junction point. For all intentions
the Sydney Mail sketch perfectly captures all the elements of
the scene relative to each other.
note this sketch does not sit well with the CSI Kelly tree
I will tell you why they want to ignore it,-
1, Because CSI team only want to use McIntyre's base map
instead of a combination of all primary source materials. They
blindly follow Linton Briggs's scenario.
2, They want the Burman photo to be looking North East -FROM
near the Tent in the Sydney Mail sketch, yet the sketch' clearly
shows the direction the Kellys are shooting the police - to the
North, and from where the police came back to camp, this
orientates the sketch. The view of the sketch is looking WEST.
3, If McIntyre was told to sit on a log facing North -as he did,
then the Burman photo is looking South which is proven by the
sun light shadow demonstration on page4 of this SBC thread.
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 2:44pm
Horrie who cares about your ‘aces’, as that
proves nothing other than you are full of hot air. I will
certainly not be waiting as you have proved you haven’t studied
are in detail. You shot yourself in the foot with your
It doesn't look as if the
tent was on much of a slope either, as contended by someone or
other, a day or two ago.
This proves you have never been to the two rock piles (as
someone hysterically called them), walked up that slope or seen
the angle from side on! Photos can be deceptive, so there goes
one of your aces!
I think that is enough proof that I have been there, because I
know what you don’t!
Bill, the people in the Burman photo were ‘props’ and their
positions cannot be taken as fact. There have been many attempts
at explaining these figures and the consensus is they do not
accurately depict anything other than props to sell copies of
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 3:47pm
please desist from disrupting everyone - including me.
I want to see what CSI and Bill have to say - not you or
I am who I
say I am
Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 5:35pm
Dream on dude.
You are not worthy of receiving a call from the likes of me.
Redeem yourself and set the record straight or forever more been
known as a liar of history.
Bill, As usual you have the facts twisted in a blender yet once
more. I say I am, who I say I am and I'm no pseudo for glen or
kelvyn. I have never met the pair. Bill we shall meet one day
soon and when we do I may extend my hand as a gesture of
courtesy & respect. Until then remember this; I am, who I say
Dee, I agree. Bills graphics are impressive though not
convincing. The formula does not work.
Post by Dee on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:23pm
"I am who I
say I am" - and Bill - in fact, everyone - a reminder : PLEASE
be respectful of each other. There is never any need for
personal attacks. We already have a resident troll, we don't
want any more. Perhaps I am naive, but I have always believed
that the main protagonists in the SBC debate are sincere and
honourable men, dedicated to their passion about where things
happened at SBC.