Blundering Kelly ‘research assistant’ bombs yet again…

This is a post for people who value facts, evidence, the truth about things in general, and in the fine detail of the Kelly saga in particular. Its about a small but important piece of the evidence that has been used to try to locate the exact place where the Kelly Gang shot and killed two of the three police they murdered along Stringybark creek in October 1878.

The evidence in question consists of two photos of the exact place taken only a few days after the tragedy by Melbourne Photographer Mr F C Burman. (One is shown above ) I wrote a comprehensive Blog Post discussing these photos a couple of months ago, (HERE) addressing in particular the erroneous claim by some, and most dogmatically and emphatically by self-described ‘Kelly ‘research assistant’ Mick Fitzsimons among others, that the photos showed the view that would have been seen from where the police tent had been, or, in other words the ground in front of the tent where nothing happened.

There are many good reasons and many interested people who are certain that Fitzsimons is wrong: its not just me. Many of these arguments  have been made by Adrian Younger and the others who belong to the Kennedy Tree group, they’ve also been made by the brilliant Two Huts site advocate Bill Denheld who also disagrees with Fitzsimons who is more or less alone out on a limb, except for the CSI team advocate Glenn Standing. The three main reasons we all reject Fitzsimons claim were discussed in that earlier Blog post but here they are in brief :

First, as anyone can see  easily enough at the top of the page, Burman created a kind of re-enactment of the scene when Kennedy and Scanlan returned to the camp from the north :  Ned Kelly hid himself  behind a log with McIntyre to his left, and both are shown looking to the north at the arriving Kennedy. If Fitzsimons claim about camera positioning is correct, the very obvious problem with that claim is that it means the people placed in the scene for his photograph are all looking the wrong way. Fitzsimons admits this but falsely claims Burman wouldn’t have known where the people were. Actually, Burman most certainly DID know, because he was shown by Mr Monk who had accompanied McIntyre in the original search for the bodies of the murdered policemen. Burman most certainly knew, and so there is no sensible reason to believe Burman would have misplaced these people, as Fitzsimons et al claim, and have them facing the south when Burman knew perfectly well they were facing north..


Secondly, an artist made use of the Burman photos as a basis for an etching (shown above) created for publication, and highlighted shadows and light entering the scene from a direction that would not be possible if the image had been taken from the site of the police tent.

Thirdly, as I spelled out clearly in the original post, Constable McIntyre himself viewed and commented on the photos. He affirmed that the images were indeed taken at the place where the Police camped, he did  NOT object to the position or the direction that Burman had the ‘actors’ in and facing – so its safe to assume they were correctly positioned-  and very importantly, he said more specifically that they showed the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan had been murdered. The ground where they were killed was not the ground  where nothing happened immediately in front of the tent, but on the opposite northern side of fallen trees, where there were also the ruins of a burned hut.

Despite all this,  Fitzsimons and more than a dozen others on his Facebook page who agreed with him, all insist that Burman had his actors in the wrong places and they were all looking in the wrong direction. Also according to Fitzsimons, when he was shown the images  McIntyre didn’t notice they were in the wrong places, and again, according to Fitzsimons the artist who made the etching got it all wrong as well, putting shadows and the light in the wrong places. According to Fitzsimons no part of the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were murdered is visible in the photos, which of course makes absurd everyone’s claim at the time, that that’s exactly what they DID show, the actual ground where the policemen were killed.

So, if Fitzsimons is to be believed, Burman who was there at the time got it wrong; McIntyre who was there at the time got it wrong; and the Artist also got it wrong, – but Fitzsimons, who was never there and 145 years later : he got it right! Oh really?


Fitzsimons also had this to say:

“MacFarlane still hasn’t tried to disprove this unquestionable evidence or admit he lied when he claimed McIntyre said the photos showed where Lonigan & Scanlan were shot. He is just pretending he hasn’t seen it. Oh the joy in showing once again, what a dishonest and stupid fool he is!”

And this:

“It must be killing him that he has been beaten and exposed for making things up and presenting them as fact, just like the other MacFarlane did in his literary nonsense of a book.” 

And this:

“It looks like I have finally shut MacFarlane up! He won’t admit he made up the claim that McIntyre said the Burman photo showed “where Lonigan and Scanlan were shot”..”


In fact, I wasn’t silenced or beaten or exposed for making things up, but simply waiting to see if Fitzsimons the self-proclaimed  Kelly ‘research assistant’ would make use of the reference I provided, do the research and discover for himself that McIntyre did indeed say what I said he did. But no, he and his mob of fools just doubled down and carried on digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole with post after post denigrating and abusing me.

I also pointed out to him how his argument for where the photos were taken from is circular and therefore a fallacy. He and his 12 ‘likers’ are too stupid to understand what a circular argument is and I am not going to waste my time explaining it to them: they can look it up. But its wrong.

So now we come to the statement that Fitzsimons claimed I made up, that I lied about, yes the one I gave him the direct reference to , the reference the now exposed failed ‘research assistant’ failed to track down, the one that could have saved him from the humiliation of being hung out to dry if he had only looked it up and kept his mouth shut. But he couldn’t be bothered, or maybe didn’t know how to, so, just to make sure the record is corrected,  I am going to spoon feed it all to him and his equally incompetent hangers on:

Here’s a graphic of three pages of additional testimony provided by McIntyre to Sub Inspector D S Kennedy on July 21st 1880. It starts with this  ‘Constable Thomas McIntyre adds to his statement as follows “On the morning of 29th June….”

The relevant words, at the very end of the third page of testimony taken from McIntyre by Sub Inspector Kennedy are as follows:  “For the information of the Chief Commissioner the witness (McIntyre) identifies a photo of the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were shot. Mr Burman, photographer of Burke St will be summoned to prove it”


Subsequently, Burman did indeed prove it with this statement:“The photo produced is a picture of the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were shot. I took it myself. The place was pointed out to me a few days after the murders by Mr Monk”



This statement also disproves Fitzsimons claim that Burman didn’t know where the bodies were : Mr Monk knew because he was a member of the party that found them, and as Burman says himself “The place was pointed out to me a few days after the murders by Mr Monk.”

These statements are unequivocal : both McIntyre and Burman affirmed categorically in their statements to Kennedy that the images showed the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were murdered. They are entirely consistent with his other statements confirming that they show the place at SBC where the police camped.  

So what will happen now? Will Fitzsimons and Bob and the other dozen or so hangers-on apologise for their vile defamations of me, admit they were wrong, that I didn’t lie or make anything up, and concede that McIntyre DID say the Burman images showed the ‘ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were shot’ and so did the person who took the photo? Will he finally admit that the Burman photos were not taken from the ground in front of the tent?

No of course not – I know from a decade of experience with this obstinate moron that there is ZERO chance of that happening. Instead he and his mob of blind fools will do what they’ve always done when found out – if not stunned into an embarrassing and shameful silence – extremely unlikely – they will double down on the personal attacks, the mockery,  the abuse and the vile accusations, and combine that with a package of verbal gymnastics, backflips, sidesteps and somersaults worthy of a world class contortionist to explain to themselves – but fail to convince anyone else –  why they are still right, why the facts are not really facts, why words don’t really mean what they mean and why any evidence that contradicts their preconceived dogmas should be ignored. For this contemptible mob, facts and evidence and logic are meaningless. So grab your popcorn folks and sit back and be entertained by the Toad and his Kelly clowns as they wriggle and spin their way deeper into the ranks of the discredited fanatical buffoonery known as Kelly sympathy.

I wrote at the top of the page that this is a post for people who value facts, evidence, the truth about things in general, and in the fine detail of the Kelly saga – in other words it wasn’t written for the abusive Toad and his ilk – they are not that kind of people. It was written ABOUT them for people who ARE interested in the true story.





(Visited 994 times)

90 Replies to “Blundering Kelly ‘research assistant’ bombs yet again…”

  1. Anonymous says: Reply


  2. Congratulations

  3. I don’t expect them to say anything smart back


    1. Bob is now back-pedalling as hard as he can go, claiming, much to my amazement and delight that he doesnt support the Toads view of the photos even though he gave a ‘Like’ to the whole of the toads abusive rant on his FB page, and made various comments supporting the Toad and attacking me all the way through the thread. I think now he supports the Kennedy Tree groups claim about where the police camp was , and the silly old fool doesn’t seem to have realised that the Kennedy Tree groups belief about where the Burman images were taken from is exactly the same as mine, and I have no doubt they would all happily endorse every word of this Blog Post. The poor old man is aging and is confused and losing his marbles I fear… I should probably go easy on him.

      The Toad on the other hand is performing exactly on cue and as predicted, letting off another long string of personal insults and abusive comments, and saying not a thing about the words McIntyre and Burman said about the photos showing the ground where Lonigan and McIntyre were killed. He’s also saying nothing about his blundering claim that Burman didnt know where the bodies would have been, but instead has set off a red herring to try to distract everyone from his humiliation, announcing that Cucelino, the contributor of a one word comment above these ones is actually ME! Yet again he is wrong – as indeed he has been every single time that he has made these childish claims because as I have been telling him for many years, I post as myself or as Dee and nobody else. He has NEVER and NEVER WILL FIND me behind any of these pseudonyms because I simply don’t use them. One wonders how many more times does he want to embarrass himself by making and getting wrong these these absurd allegations time after time after time…NOT ONCE has he ever got it right…because NOT ONCE have I ever posted as anyone other than myself or as Dee…and just remember when I was only known as Dee ( up until the day sleazy Mark Perry decided to betray my trust in him and double cross me ) I made it very clear that Dee WAS a pseudonym, and everyone knew it was. I have no need to use a false name.

      1. So the blundering fool thinks that the admin of this blog is Antonio Cucelino? Never ceases to amaze me.
        Hello David. Over the years I have been threatened and chased out of this kelly business. One thing about Fitzy, he’s loathed by many and I’ve come to the realisation that he is mentally disturbed. He and his bunch of ‘Buffoons’ including that dope smoking imbecile Steve wagger are brain fried twits. I see Fitzy is still up to his old games? will he ever grow up.

        A message to Fitzy and his loyal buffoons. I’m no longer afraid of any of you. I refuse to be bullied I’m here to stay. Catch me if you can. Go on I dare you.

        1. He doesnt think it, he KNOWS it, and now he thinks I am replying to myself. You cant make this stuff up! If only MORE people realised this is the calibre of the typical Kelly sympathiser. There once was a time when it was almost respectable be a Kelly sympathiser – say 15 years ago when there were academics and legal experts and the like who supported the idea that Kelly was some kind of political revolutionary – but nowadays NO academic ANYWHERE believes that – they’ve all fled the ranks of sympathisers and the ones that are left are buffoons and paranoid conspiracy theorists like this oaf, and like the ship of fools run by sleazy Perry, a person by the way to whom you should never divulge personal details, even if he assures you of his discretion, because as sure as night follows day he will spill his guts to the mob and before you know it they’ll be attacking and vilifying you all over the Internet.

  4. For what it’s worth for this discussion about the sunlight and shadows, I thought it would be helpful to compare the Burman photo with the Sketcher sketch side by side. The extract from Bill’s site discussing the shadows is from this page,

    Bill’s point about the light coming from the right is supported by the Sketcher’s sketch.

    It was established in the previous post discussing the photos (, that there was nothing anywhere to support McMenomy’s claim that the Burman photo was taken from the police tent site, and that McMenomy’s 1984 first edition appears to have invented that claim, from which it has been accepted over time as a fact. (He repeated the claim as a fact in his 2nd 2001 edition.) Searching the VPRO files found no trace of the “evidence” McMenomy claimed was there. It seems that he simply guessed the camera position as having been at the tent site; i.e., he made it up.

    As always, I am not getting involved in any discussions about the location of the police camp site. But seeing the photo and sketch side by side strongly supports what Bill said about the sun and shadows.

    I don’t have a JPG of Burman Photo 2, but it is in McMenomy’s book. Could it be that the coat draped over a branch in the lower left front of the photo indicates the place where Lonigan died, rather than a careless inclusion of one of the photographic party’s coats?


    1. Yes you’re right Stuart the light and shadow drawn so definitively in the Sketcher reproduction fits perfectly with all the other evidence that supports the view Bill has been expressing for years, that the images were taken from somewhere closer to the creek and looking to the south and south-west. His analysis of where the light was coming from was confirmed when everyone took a closer look at the etching and realised it was clearly based on the photos. The contrary view requires us to believe that McIntyre and Burman were wrong when they said the photos showed the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were killed, and that Burman got it wrong when he positioned the ‘actors’, even though he knew exactly where they were.

      1. Anonymous says: Reply

        Hi Stuart,
        It has been established here that there was a party of 4 who visited SBC at the time of the photographs. Burman, Monk, the reporter and a guide from Mansfield.
        The actors shown in the Burman photos are Monk, the reporter and the guide.
        The artist did not visit the scene and has drawn sun shadows from the two posts not seen in the Burman photos.
        For the light shadows to fall as the artist has drawn in his sketch, and if the image was looking south the sunlight would be coming from a N/W direction the time being well after 1pm that afternoon. The same being said if the sunlight was coming from over the photographers right shoulder if he was facing south.

        The reporter included in the photos left prior to midday to meet up with a police patrol. Therefore the photos could not have been taken during the afternoon. And does not support Bill’s view at all.


        1. Hi Glenn, my hypothesis on the previous blog page that discussed the photos was that the artist did not draw his scene from either of the two Burman photos we have, but from a third Burman photo that we don’t have. The reason for that hypothesis is that the artist’s sketch shows much more bush to bothn the left and teh right than the photos we have. Either the artist made it up, or he had a different third photo to draw from. It is a wider panorama and yet its detail reflects that of the photos we do have.

          I don’t think David agrees with me about a third photo; I think he was sticking to the artist’s sketch being made from one of the existing photos. My other reeason was that it was a long way to go to only take two photos. What if one didn’t work out or print successfully? He had another plate for teh Kennedy tree photo. I see no logical objection to him taking more than three plates into the bush when he didn’t know what exactly he’d find to photograph.

          If there was a third photo of the ambush scene and that one was provided to the artist and used for his panorama ilustration, we can further speculate that it was taken at a different time to the other two (obviously). That could be either earlier or later such that the shadows might be different lengths from the ones in the photos.

          Whether that can be pinned down as earlier or later than the others is probably a matter of considering where the sun would have to be to produce the shadows shown in the sketch. I haven’t got a clue what angle that might be or what time that might indicate. My hypothesis ends at pointing out the possibility that the sketch was from a different photo to the ones we have.

          I mentioned in my post dwon below on 24/11/23 at 10:28pm that I had always assumed the photos were taken from the south side that the gang approached from; not necessarily from the tent site but from somewhere on the southern side of McIntyre’s detailed map.

          But the discussion was making me wonder if the photos were taken from the north east, as is being argued by David and Bill. I then wondered that just as the photos are held to show Kennedy walking in from the right, then the coat thrown over a branch might indicate where Lonigan died on the left of the field of view? This was by looking at the McIntyre map from the north, effectively turning it upside down to see how the sketch lines up with Photo 2.

          As I said there, I’m still having difficulty visualising how the detailed McIntyre map maps onto the trees in the photos, but McIntyre’s written description quoted by Sam elsewhere on this page may help?

          Given that no persons are depicted in the sketch, if it was based on a third panoramic photo that we don’t have, it makes no difference whether the reporter left before midday to meet a police patrol, leaving only 3 men at the site. A third photo with no people in it could have been taken either before or afer the ones we have. That means the discussion of shadows and times to estimate the time the hypothetical “sketch photo” was taken is still open, IF you accept my hypothesis of a missing panoramic photo. Of course, it is easy just to reject it, and I’m not fussed either way.

          As I also said, you can all feel free to ignore me on this; I’m just throwing ideas around as this is something I haven’t looked at before. And I still don’t know. This is how I investigate things; testing ideas, not asserting things. Throwing ideas up in the air and seeing how they work out. I’m just testing my thoughts in public where they might get some feedback. If there is any good reason that I should drop my hypothesis of a third photo, I’m happy to do so. (And don’t start on the “unlocatable but really truly real printed copy of a declaration of a republic of north-eastern Victoria” or I’ll chuck. I did a whole book about that nonsense and why it is nonsense, and how it came to be. There is no parallel in the hypotheses at all !)

          1. Thank you Stuart. l will give some further thought. But on the basis that it has been presented by Bill and David it does not add up.
            By the way l have no interest in the declaration of the Republic of North_Eastern Victoria. Glenn

        2. I dispute the claim of yours Glenn that the artist drew shadows that are not seen in the photos. As you know there are dark shapes in exactly the places where shadows would be expected, and you have claimed they are something else : in other words we have a difference of opinion about what they are – and the artist, by what he drew, provides evidence that supports my interpretation and not yours.

          As for the time when the photos were taken, we dont actually know what time the photos were taken. All we have that I know of is a calculation by the Kennedy Tree group working backwards from the time they think the group got back to ( wherever it was ) and a guesstimate of how long that would have taken, and thereby an estimate of what the time was when they left which would have been the latest possible time when the images would ave been taken. But its rough and relies on several best guesses.

          The shadows indicate however that the sun was high in the sky so if it wasn’t noon it was certainly late in the morning.

          In addition, this view of where the images were taken from is further supported by the testimony of Burman and McIntyre, affirming that what is shown in the images is the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were killed, which is what you would only be able to see if they were taken on the northern side of the logs.

          This is the real point of the argument Glenn : its supported by multipole strands of evidence.

          1. That’s fine with me David. l expected you would. At what time of the morning do you think the reporter left to join up with the police patrol?

            1. Anonymous says: Reply

              David, what we do know is that the reporter left well before midday. He met up with them and rode with them for some time before stopping for lunch. “It being about midday, and a tolerable open space close to the creek at hand , a halt was made, a small fire lit and the billy boiled, and dinner partaken of” So shall we say a reasonable estimation would be that he left around 10.30am.

              I’m going to put this to you in a basic manner. It has been agreed upon that Burman photos were taken in the morning any sunlight would be coming from a N/Easterly direction. It is simply not possible for there to be any afternoon N/W sun shadows next to the posts.
              If you had taken notes from your own blog you would have soon realised that yourself.
              Both Bill and yourself are firm that the sunlight in the photos was coming from (over the photographers right shoulder) a N/Westerly direction. As we now know that direction is not correct.
              To correct this you would need to rotate your logs/posts the whole shebang clockwise by 90deg. Any sunlight would then be from a N/Easterly direction and over the photographers right shoulder.
              Your photo view would then be looking towards the west.

              1. Well this might surprise you Glenn but I am willing to accept the timeline the Kennedy Tree group have suggested, and accept this means the images were taken in the morning, and who knows your guess of 10.30 might be right…lets for the moment use 10.30 as the time when they were taken. Now what I would like you to tell us is exactly what direction the camera was facing : East, ENE, NE, NNE…then we can work out where the shadows would fall in relation to the burned hut post and what would be seen in a photo of the posts taken from that direction.

                1. Anonymous says: Reply

                  What I would like to hear from you David is that you were wrong. Wrong about the shadows from the posts. Wrong about the orientation of your logs.

  5. I confess to only having a cursory look at the suggested location. In all the pictures and drawings that purport to represent the actual site, I have never seen a log that was described by McIntyre as being almost 4 feet in diameter, near the tent entrance. None of the photos or the drawings show a log this size. In time, I will investigate further, and try and come up with a realistic solution.

    1. Hi Sam, bear in mind that the tent had been burned down and none of the photos or sketches show its remnants or anything definite about its location.

      The scale on McIntyre’s detailed sketch map seems to indicate the tent was about 5 to 6 yards from the east-west log; but it is not clear from his sketch map where the log ends at either end as it is sketched simply as parallel lines.

      It is also possible that the 4 foot diameter log mentioned by McIntyre might be a different log to the east-west log and the intersecting roughly north-south log shown in his sketch map to indicate the movements of the people involved, and not any part of either of his sketch maps.

  6. So true. Much to mull over and consider. Here is what McIntyre said in his statement.

    “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 years (sic) = ‘yards’ from the tent. On your right of the south side 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’ (sic) herbage.”

  7. Bill Denheld says: Reply

    McIntyre got the last sentence wrong referring to ‘SOUTH’ side if he was looking east, the ground being of a ‘SWAMPY’ nature was to the NORTH because the creek flows from South to North, and immediatly south there is the steep slope. When the body of Sergeant Kennedy was found, the leader of the search party Mr Tomkin said ‘immediately north of the police camp ” there was particularly boggy ground”. – this was to the north as it is today when at the remains of the two huts fireplaces.
    So, perhaps later McIntyre reading these other reports, he got his north and south mixed up.

    1. Both could be true Bill : ie swampy ground mentioned to the south by McIntyre and more swampy found to the north mentioned by Tomkins.

      The good news is this most recent round of discussions about SBC has strengthened to the point of almost being irrefutable the belief that the Burman images were taken from where you always said ; from the north east looking southwest and south.

      1. Adrian Younger says: Reply

        Yes I agree David
        Swampy ground was in both directions
        Your discussions are proving to be very positive
        Keep up your getting closer and closer

        1. Thanks Adrian. Its been a long and difficult road but I do believe we have made progress : in time everyone who is rational will come to accept as correct that the images show the ground where Lonigan and Scanlan were murdered and not the ground in front of the tent where nothing happened – why would you take a picture of that when you get a picture of where it DID happen?

          Also, we mustn’t ever lose sight of the fact that this is a murder scene, the sight of a truely ghastly attack by a gang of thugs on good policemen.

          1. Adrian Younger says: Reply

            Yes you are so right
            The Kennedy Tree photo clearly shows what Burman was shown as the correct location of where Kennedy died.
            That’s why the PC photo showed the exact location of where Lonigan and Scanlon died.
            Burman wanted that in his photos

  8. Hi again, I just grabbed this colourised JPG of Burman photo 2 (VPM) from Bill’s site and raise my question again:
    . Could it be that the coat draped over a branch in the lower left front of the photo indicates the place where Lonigan died, rather than a careless inclusion of one of the photographic party’s coats?


    1. An interesting suggestion Stuart but theres nothing to support it that I know of.

      1. Yes, there is nothing to support it. Why I raised it is that I always assumed the photos were taken from the south side that the gang approached from; not necessarily from the tent site but from somewhere on the southern side of McIntyre’s detailed map.

        But this discussion is making me wonder if the photos were taken from the north east, as is being argued by you and Bill, then just as the photos are held to show Kennedy walking in from the right, then the coat thrown over a branch could indicate where Lonigan died on the left of the field of view? This is by looking at the McIntyre map from the north, effectively turning it upside down to see how the sketch lines up with Photo 2.

        I’m still having difficulty visualising how the map maps onto the trees in the photos, but McIntyre’s written description quoted by Sam may help here? You can all feel free to ignore me on this; I’m just throwing ideas around as this is something I haven’t looked at before.

    have you heard? Groovy find at bloody page .Dawsons republic book is now obsolete . the tug a war for stringy bark is also lost . what’s left now ? Fitzpatrick . what will become of him when fitzy tells all. now now not all is lost you still have each other

    1. Don’t get too excited, Gaius Octavius, Hocking’s book Australian Dissenters was 2007 and unsurprisingly he was very keen to recycle the Jones Kelly Republic myth. He knew no better, the poor deluded chap, and did next to no investigation of this silly claim that had been part of the Kelly narrative since Jones stuck it in there in 1967. He just added to the clutter of nonsense teas demolished in its entirety by Dawson’ Republic Myth book in 2018.

      The carrot headed genius is incapable of understanding timelines and thinks that an unresearched snippet in a 2007 survey book trumps publication of a forensic examination of the Kelly Republic tale 10 years later. Let him blather on. It’s hilarious seeing the BBM not putting a Community Note on that drivel 🤡🤡🤡

      1. Hocking seems to have swallowed the Jones Cool Aide about the entire outbreak and not bothered to do the necessary due diligence before committing himself to print. But these blind numbskulls adore Keneallys Tract, you know the one that says the Kellys were framed by the Billie Jimmies…who were the REAL horse thieves….you could NOT make this stuff up.

    2. Yes I noticed the Ship of Fools are trawling the mould and slime at the bottom of the barrel for any scrap of left over food to sustain their delusions about the Republic. It is a window into the minds of people who are academically challenged like Jager and the Bob and Toad, these absolute losers who accuse Dawson of all people as being a cherry picker but who themselves so selectively pick cherries thier little news clips are trimmed to conceal where they are from and what their context is. Dawson slammed all that stuff out of the park years ago…its truly pathetic to read the idiot Rowsell and his anti-woke venting…an absolute moron.

      And yes I share your eager anticipation of the Research Assistants earth shattering findings about Fitzpatrick…I expect they will be at least as fantastic as his utterly marvellous illustrated text about SBC.A devastating exposition…of blind stupidity.

    Hocking be damned
    Tiberius fear thy enemy they still lurk amongst us. How are you fairing my fellow emperor
    Let’s feast my fallen emperor. Much has changed since we last walked and ruled our beloved Rome


    1. Loving it; keep them coming! The last two paragraphs have been seen somewhere before… I think you’ll find the reference in Dawson’s heretical typescript. Maybe the exact quote… To the lions with him!

      1. Sure thing mr D. Macfarlane 😉

  11. more


    1. Biggus Dickus says: Reply

      Another 1940s clipping, I assume? From Bill the Beater’s book?

  12. Enjoy


    1. Tiberius Maximus says: Reply

      Hi Anonymous, that’s a reprint of the 1900 Bulletin spoof article in another paper. Nice find, though.

  13. feast feast feast my fellow man


    1. I wish I could find the newspaper reference I saw a few years ago that mentioned that NED KELLY was the first person to swim across Bass Strait. Also, apparently when captured among the papers taken from him were the first plans for the Sydney Harbour Bridge and a doodle for an Opera House that I think became the basis for Utzons award winning design. And by the way, the lady over the road told me about her great grandma who lived in Kelly country back in the day, and they used to put plates of scones with jam and cream out for the KELLY BOYS who after collecting them in the middle of the night always left behind a crisp new £1 note…from the Jerilderie Bank Vault they think…history is SO amazing.

      1. david not a problem. Octavius is here to help. Found a damaged copy with broken text. 100 words long.

        Edward kelly son of an ex convict recently released from HM Pentridge has just completed a daring and remarkable feat crossing the bass strait. kelly along the way lost his companion a Californian by the name of king. King fell victim to a man-eating shark famously known as jaws. Kelly reported spotting moby dick a battle and weary scared whale. Captain Ahab of the whaling ship Pequod has sent kelly well wishes. kelly will return to the colony to a heros welcome onboard the HMS utzons

        no need to thank me

    2. You left out the paragraph where Ned dropped his pants and mooned the police. I’m sure Beatty has that bit?

      1. Romulus BLAWAHAHA

    3. Beatty was a batty one! There are a lot more such articles in 1940s snippets from Beatty in different papers with varying minor word changes because “journalism” if you want to keep looking!

    4. Anonymous says: Reply

      The (in) famous document that this is based on, the equally (in)famous “historian” Ian Jones claimed that this document exists …. that he had spoken to a journalist (likely the author of that fiction) that Ned had the declaration, the manifesto for the Republic of North Eastern Victoria.

      That this document, the journalist claimed, he sighted as being in the hands of the British National Archives .

      Investigation with the British National Archives confirmed that the document not only isn’t on their hands for all to see, but the document has NEVER existed

  14. Hi David, I see the SBC discussion has been swamped by a load of cobblers about the Kelly republic myth from what appear to be a stream of 1940 newspaper clippings all taken either From Bill Beatty’s Believe it or Not book, or from the 1900 Bulletin article and reprints thereof.

    Assuming that anyone today still thinks these mean anything, given that I traced them back to Beatty’s tall story and then back to the Bulletin, it is possible to see why Jones thought he heard rumours of a Kelly republic in the 1940s. As I showed in my Republic myth book, these snippets were widley published; yet they are all short, all say the same thing with some varied words, and are all originaly derived from the 1900 Bulletin send-up article in its oddities and absurdities column and which was seen at the time as a joke. When Jones was roaming around in the 1950s asking people if they had ever heard of a Kelly republican plan, all he ever got was vague rumours, but he never connected the dots as to why these rumours existed. I suspect he convinced himself that there must have been soemething behind them to start them off.

    And when I researched that, I found the answer lay in Max Brown creatively joining two unconnected one-sentence mentions of “papers” to magic up a “declaration of a republic” from sources that mentioned no such thing. Socialist Max, what a legend (he created). And all a wishful thinking fairy story. When you trace back to the original sources, there is nothing anywhere about a republic declaration at all. I am the only person who ever bothered to look for the source evidence and found that it didn’t exist.

    The Kelly repuiblic is one of the most idiotic fictions ever to arise in Australian history. The story of how this nonsense came about is all traced clearly and accurately in my book, which got a stack of written testimonials from high level Australian professional academic historians. And so Octavius, Tiberius, Romulus and the rest of the Roman empire, adieu!

    1. HI Stuart
      this Republic conversation was just a few of us poking fun at the earnest and fatuous discussion thats taking place on one of the Sympathiser Fakeboook pages where the die-hard cult members are trying to convince themselves that these bits of fantasy flim-flam from 20th century gossip columns have a basis in reality. Your work is hated by these pathetic losers because of course it destroys the Jones theory that was supposed to tranform the violent thug Kelly into the Saviour of the Downtrodden and Oppressed…

  15. Hi David, I have had a good laugh at the clippings but am flabbergasted that anyone would think that finding more reprints of the same snippets I analysed on pages 3 and 4 of my Republic myth book and their origins means anything, or that it comprises any more evidence for a Kelly republic than the original nonsense.

    It’s like searching Trove for the saying that the moon is made of green cheese, finding lots of references and then proclaiming that as proof. IQ of room temperature stuff.

  16. Did the BBM gang buddy up to see this one? Who would pair with who if they went as couples? Who would be Mrs and Mr Toad? None of them can think straight.


  17. Mrs Smith says: Reply

    Hazel (Bob) would be Mrs Toad for sure! Has already been practicing her drag identity here! But who would be Mrs Pyjamas? Which one would make the best Lizzo? In’s just as well none of them ever read this blog as they have very fragile egos. Every time another Kelly myth gets busted they howl like Banshees! They do know Ned and Joe were an item, right?

    1. Yeah, it’s time for Hazel (Bob McG) and Sarah (Toad) to come out of the closet. It explains why they’re all such angry old men. As for who would be Mrs Pyjamas? That’s an easy one, most people know Perry swings both ways, and also why he keeps Slattery around. He still lives in hope. *wink*

      1. Patty Smith (Mrs) says: Reply

        Here’s one of them swamp creatures now! They sure look worked up about this page!


  18. Thank you Stuart. l will give some further thought. But on the basis that it has been presented by Bill and David it does not add up.
    By the way l have no interest in the declaration of the Republic of North_Eastern Victoria. Glenn

    1. Hi Glenn, all good; my comment about the so-called never existent declaration was not for you but for an assortment of lunatics who will no doubt already be crowing that I have suggested that one unsighted item might have existed while denying that another never sighted item existed but which was given three chapters in Joney’s creative fictional Kelly history regardless.

      1. You’re right, it didn’t take long for the BBM crowd to find something from about 10 years ago on a left wing website to “prove” there was a case for a declaration for a republic in Ned’s pocket. More Einsteins on the BBM site than anywhere else in Australia. And of course Fitzy liked it. Albert himself?


  19. Dee it looks like Fitzy has you covered and destroyed you claims about the logs and direction. He has used primary source documents (he says) and that is hard to ignore. Have a read and you will see that McIntyre does state where the east-west log was, to the left of the tent when looking east. The tent is also marked on the diagram McIntyre drew.

    Arguing over whether the pictures show the police camp or where police were shot is irrelevant as both happened at the same place. You failed to produce proper evidence that McIntyre described picture as where police were shot. Someone saying he said that is not proper evidence.

    Albert Einstein

    1. Albert Einstein? Really Fitzy – you are far too obvious…..once again proving your sickening hyposcrisy with an anonymous post.

      Dont you realise that YOU are the ONLY person on the entire planet who is making those completely absurd irrational and circular arguments?

      Pointing out time and time again what McIntyre drew on his diagrams – which even Bob has correctly noted do NOT accord perfectly with his written descriptions – tells NOBODY ANYTHING about where Burman placed his camera.

      Dont you get it that even your most loyal lapdog, the old fool Bob DOESNT agree with you? If even HE cant bring himself to agree with you then NOBODY ELSE ever will. You lost. Its done. Get over it. Go away.

  20. My Reply to this comment from Glenn is posted here to start a new chain – otherwise it becomes a ridiculous skinny stack of words :

    Glenn’s comment was “What I would like to hear from you David is that you were wrong. Wrong about the shadows from the posts. Wrong about the orientation of your logs.”

    Well Glenn thats a bit premature. dont you think? : we are trying to understand the meaning of the shadows, and when we have it sorted then if I am proven wrong I will be happy to admit it. And if its you who is proven wrong I hope you also would have the decency to admit it too.

    But I am not trying to defend a religious dogma at any cost, like Kelly cult members do – I am trying to understand the Burman images so the Police camp site has a better chance of being located accurately.

    And to that end, it would be helpful if you would indicate more accurately the direction you think the camera was pointed when those photos were taken. Then we can analyse your claim and see if it stands up.

  21. Anonymous says: Reply

    Words from the man who proclaimed:
    “Figuring out Stringybark Creek is easy”

    1. It is only hard for people who are wedded to an opinion thats not supported by evidence and are unwilling to follow very simple logic. There are still many details remaining to be worked out but the big picture is clear.

      But here it is in brief :
      *There are 5 sites in contention – yes ?
      *The Jones site every one agrees is wrong , so we are left with four sites – yes?
      * Those four can be divided into two groups of two sites based on their proponent views of the Burman photo orientation, and both cant be correct so that leaves the two sites based on the correct view – which I contend is that the camera orientation was to the west and south ( and Glenn Standing is challenging me on, saying it was the opposite direction )
      *The remaining two sites in contention are the Two Huts site and the Kennedy Tree group site which is based on deeply flawed claims about tree identification.

      Glenn now needs to front up with a commitment to exactly what direction he thinks the camera was pointing in and then we can see if that lines up with the shadows seen in the photos and the etching. I very much doubt that it will, and he will have to concede.

      1. Adrian Younger says: Reply

        What about deeply flawed two hut site you failed to mention
        We have plenty of support for our tree identification which you may not know about. Don’t spoil your investigation by your own opinions .
        Let’s stick with the evidence. In time all shall be revealed.

        1. Funny you say that Adrian, about having plenty of support for your tree identification that I may not know about….of all the people involved in these discussions NOBODY has been asking you more than I have to explain your tree identifications …and you have NEVER done it. You have simply asserted it.

          We will get to YOUR site eventually I am sure but for now I want Glenn to explain how HIS group can continue to claim the photos were taken looking directly into the morning sun, and yet have shadows falling at an entirely impossible angle off to the viewers left, when they ought to be coming towards him….

          1. Adrian Younger says: Reply

            What’s there to explain David
            We have talked about it till the cows have came home
            Some people get it, others don’t
            If you know anything about trees and SBC it just jumps out at you
            But we will wait till you get down to Two sites and there better be as many questions to Bill as to us

            We have always claimed that Burman would not have taken a photo towards the sun. It just doesn’t make sense
            Our two sites both face SSW to SW based on tree orientation
            Bill did very well to work out the direction from the photo years ago

            We had some no believers at SBC a few weeks ago but are now convinced our sites are right from all the walk through evidence.
            I don’t agree with how your trying to trip up Glenn on his site.
            Not everyone has all the answers but you are raising questions.

  22. Anonymous says: Reply

    David, if you want to continue our conversation in this new chain, you should copy and paste what has been posted leading up to this point. So that it can be followed. Glenn

    1. Glenn I posted the relevant part, which is your assertion that I am wrong and you are right about the posts and the shadows. If you want the discussion to continue then you will have to say more precisely where you believe the camera was so we can see which view is best supported by the evidence. Ive presented my argument and made it very clear here and in many earlier posts and threads…its your turn now .

  23. 03/12/2023 at 6:36 pm
    David, what we do know is that the reporter left well before midday. He met up with them and rode with them for some time before stopping for lunch. “It being about midday, and a tolerable open space close to the creek at hand , a halt was made, a small fire lit and the billy boiled, and dinner partaken of” So shall we say a reasonable estimation would be that he left around 10.30am.

    I’m going to put this to you in a basic manner. It has been agreed upon that Burman photos were taken in the morning any sunlight would be coming from a N/Easterly direction. It is simply not possible for there to be any afternoon N/W sun shadows next to the posts.
    If you had taken notes from your own blog you would have soon realised that yourself.
    Both Bill and yourself are firm that the sunlight in the photos was coming from (over the photographers right shoulder) a N/Westerly direction. As we now know that direction is not correct.
    To correct this you would need to rotate your logs/posts the whole shebang clockwise by 90deg. Any sunlight would then be from a N/Easterly direction and over the photographers right shoulder.
    Your photo view would then be looking towards the west.

  24. 03/12/2023 at 9:36 pm David
    Well this might surprise you Glenn but I am willing to accept the timeline the Kennedy Tree group have suggested, and accept this means the images were taken in the morning, and who knows your guess of 10.30 might be right…lets for the moment use 10.30 as the time when they were taken. Now what I would like you to tell us is exactly what direction the camera was facing : East, ENE, NE, NNE…then we can work out where the shadows would fall in relation to the burned hut post and what would be seen in a photo of the posts taken from that direction.

  25. I found this image in a file – SBC Investigation – dated Sept 2017 of which Glenn was a member. I had invited the team members according to their interests and analytical prowess. When Linton Briggs, Kelvin Gill and Glenn Standing decided the Burman photos were taken at the current Kelly tree site, the image at right was uploaded to the forum ‘SBC News & Views’ in around 2010. at that time I showed them that the predominant light in their view of trees and terrain would come from the wrong direction, suggesting their chosen site does not fit the photos. Also, I pointed out that while there is a low embankment on the other side of the creek, this embankment is not high enough to be compared to the Burman photo ‘slope’, and also there is no creek between the flat foreground with the logs and the slope in the Burman photos as the creek is not in the picture- to the hard left. It is unfortunate when a dozen rusted-on Kelly researchers like Fitzy, Bob, Joey, Glenn, Kelvin, and others fail to see what photos do show, yet they are willing to argue for ever about written descriptions instead. We all make mistakes with left or right, yards, feet or metres. Most people visiting Stringybark Creek get confused about where north is while they drive up the road heading south. Unlike surveyors, most people I have met don’t have a good sense of visual distances. Likewise, have they observed where the Sun is or when a light source illuminates an object?
    It’s for this reason I show this image below that the people I have mentioned fail to see why the view with the current Kelly tree is not the place Burman took his photos.


    1. Bill I know from your webpage that you calculated that the Burman images were taken in the afternoon. I would like to hear your thoughts on the Kennedy Tree groups time line which suggests Burman had left the scene of the murders/the police campsite by noon, and so must have taken his images in the morning?

      On the basis of that timeline, Glenn has suggested 10.30 as the time of the day when Burman might have taken his photos, and I am prepared to work with that. Its only 2 to 3 hours earlier than the time I had been using in my own calculations. What I want now from Glenn is a more precise description of exactly what direction he thinks Burman aimed his camera : once he has provided that information we can look at the shadows in that etching again and see if they fit.

      Maybe you also could suggest the direction YOU believe the Camera was pointing. I think it was somewhat south of west, say WSW?

  26. Anonymous says: Reply

    Hi Bill, the point in question is how the sun shadow on that post of yours could possible be cast from the afternoon sun W or NW. Given that the known time of day when the photos were taken was in the morning with the sunlight coming from a N/Westerly direction.
    Answer that please.

    This has nothing to do with the CSI location.

  27. Anonymous says: Reply

    Correction. With the morning sun coming from a N/Easterly direction.

    1. Glenn how are you going to reconcile the idea that the sun was in the NE with the shadows seen in a photo taken looking in that same direction, in other words straight into the sun? The shadows would be in a direct line with the burned post and the camera not lying off to the left at a very obtuse angle…Youre in deep trouble on this one Glenn…I dont see a way out of it quite honestly…but I am looking forward to your response.

  28. David, I remind you the topic is the single shadow from the post that you claim to see. That shadow that falls between the two posts. It has been agreed upon that Burman photos were taken in the morning at approx. 10.30am any sunlight would be coming from a N/Easterly direction. It is simply not possible for there to be any afternoon N/W sun shadows next to the posts within the Burman photos. If you do not agree with that basic logic then please explain why. Otherwise please accept that you were wrong and we can move forward.

    As it stands you have far more serious problems than any I may have. Glenn

    1. Glenn I think you must have missed my earlier comment where I said I am happy to accept the Kennedy Tree groups timeline that means the images were taken in the morning and I also said lets work with your suggested time of 10.30. Until now Ive believed Bills claim the images were taken in the afternoon, and Ive just asked him if, in view of the KTG timeline he still believes that.

      At the moment I am not certain that Bill and I are wrong to have believed that, which is why I have asked for Bills opinion about it but the KTG case seems logical to me, and I think it makes sense to continue the discussion on the basis that its correct.

      And BTW please refrain from suggesting I am merely ‘claiming’ to see a shadow, as if its not something anyone else can see. Its there in the photo, and its unmistakably there in the Etching based on the photo. We are not discussing a ‘claim’ that theres a shadow we are discussing THE shadow and what it tells us about camera orientation.

      So instead of asking you yet again to say where you believe Burman aimed his camera at 10.30 that day , I am going to suggest from CSI reports that it was to the NE which is straight into the morning sun….and theres your problem!

  29. Hi Glenn, this is a repeated discussion.
    My images above have everything to do with previous postings, – about the shadows cast by upright posts in Australian Sketcher illustrations. The Aus Sketcher artist prepared an image that could be re-produced in print because actual photos could not be printed.

    The illustrator used the Burman photos to create the best reproduction for printing.
    He would need to know orientation i,e where the predominant sun light source was, and knew the Sun was in the northern sky, and he would have observed, (unlike you and many), the light source was illuminating objects face on like logs and stumps which would cast shadows the viewer would not likely see unless he was on the south side of the logs. ( south looking north)

    What you are trying to push is that in the morning the light source is from left to right, or from East to West. This is what happens with the morning sun in the southern hemisphere, but the Sun still casts a shadow facing the viewer.
    THIS is what this discussion is all about.

    The issue you have to explain here, is how can a photo taken looking southerly with the predominant light coming from a northern sky, light up logs face-on if they were viewed from the south looking north? The predominant light was coming from behind the photographer’s right shoulder, illuminating objects face on.

    The hut posts in the photo do not cast a shadow we can see because the light is from behind the photographer, and if there was a shadow it seems defused by the grasses, even though the artist drew faint shadows that David has highlighted in a previous post thread.

    We can agree the light source is not a blazing sun, but if you look at the plants to the left of the post, you will see the predominant light, lights up the stems from the right causing a shadow on the left. Likewise, the whole of Burman photos No1 and 2 are lit from behind the photographer to the south and slightly to the left suggesting a mid-afternoon photo taking. This notion was part of your CSI at SBC report.

    If you go to your preferred SBC site (the current Kelly tree on any partly overcast day), the predominant light will always indicate where North is, unless it is very overcast and raining. I have had several expert people look at these Burman pictures, and their consensus is, that the photos were taken looking in a southerly direction, and not North or Easterly.
    If you want to contradict this, then it’s your turn to explain.

    The attached image may remind you of what we went through 10 years ago.
    Sorry you never understood this!

    Log on driveway-05-12-2023


  30. Glenn, you may remember this image below dated 2013.
    As the image above refers to 10;30 am, the image below refers to sun shadows also looking Northeast but at 2;15 pm. This illustrated the logs in the Burman photo would have strong shadows facing the viewer if the photos were taken looking North-N East or East. You will notice a sundial was set up and at 2;15 pm my photo was taken at that time we agreed the most probable time Burman took his photos was after noon, -between 2 and 3 pm.


  31. Anonymous says: Reply

    Bill, at the time of that discussion we were judging the time of day by what we both saw within the photos. You say black I say white. From what has been recently established we now know that the photos were not taken in the afternoon. The current estimate is 10.30am.
    The directions the photographs were taken are not set in stone but what we both think are close estimations only. Your photo views are Southerly ours are Easterly. (East and East North East)

    1. Glenn, these images of Bills sundial taken looking to the ENE categorically prove what I am saying about the post shadows seen in the Burman images and the etching. If you see where the shadow would be on Bills sundial at 10.30 am it would be extending back from the post almost directly towards the camera, which of course is NOWHERE near the place that they are seen in the Burman images and the etching. It wouldnt approximate what is seen in the Burman photos and etching even if it was taken at 8 am. This proves that the proposed ENE orientation of the camera is wrong, unarguably. The only way a photo can be taken that has those shadows falling to the left at quite an obtuse angle is for the camera to be looking from a westerly position.

      Incidentally Ive recently come across a chart called a Hassall Sun chart, for Melbourne. Its a chart that is used to calculate the suns azimuth at any time on any day of the year. It confirms the information obtained by Bills brilliant sundial , that the shadows would not be seen where they are in the Burman photos if they had been orientated the way you claim they were.So, the Hassal chart agrees with Bills interpretation and mine as well.

      It is absolutely incontrovertible, and I am calling on you to do the honourable thing and concede.

      1. Heres the Hassall chart with some notations added to demonstrate how it disproves the claims by CSI and more recently by Fitzsimons who is currently floundering about on Facebook trying to convince Kennedy Tree Group members of the view thats now been well and truly put to bed, that the camera was facing ENE. He’s wasting his time, but will of course NEVER admit to having got it all completely wrong.


      2. David, I have just taken a cursory read through what has been put forward. And will be giving it further thought. Consideration. I am not at all prepared to or feel the need to concede anything at this point in time.
        But will say this: if the sun direction was from the direction Bill has indicated at 2.30pm and that is your view it does not match the time frame we are working with. Your orientation would not be correct.

        1. I thought I had made it quite clear that I am working with a 10.30 time for the Burman images. I am not using Bills 2.30 time. Like you, I am taking on board the new evidence that the Kennedy Tree group have assembled, and I wouldnt be surprised if one of these days Bill did too.

          Heres the info needed to use the Hassall chart :


  32. Glenn, thanks for your reply. I have just shown you both time frames of log shadows if the Burman photos were taken at either 10;30 am or 2;30 pm. I realize the exact ‘Azmith, Sun direction may vary according to date’, but tell us your opinion on Azmith time.

    In your CSI at SBC report 2017 – Appendix 7, pages 77 -78, it shows a chart of Sun Movement Across the Police Camp site on 3rd November 1878.
    Can you tell me the time of day, – you have from 9 am to 6 pm.
    So now you agree with 10;30 am and not 2;30 pm.
    I have shown you either time by my illustrated images, and to me its not a matter of Black or White, as it may be light or dark Grey.
    We are not here to kill each other off, are we? And, I have always said if I can be proven wrong, then prove me wrong and I will accept that.
    What you and your crew need to do is show us all a photo that matches Burman photo No. 1 with the slope rising at least 5-7 metres higher than the flat ground with evidence of the two huts where the police had camped.

    In the attached image, the CSI team of which you are a member, there is a claim that in the background of the Burman photo -there is ‘seen’ the third Kelly tree.
    Do you agree on the 3rd Kelly tree being in the Burman photo?


  33. Anonymous says: Reply

    Bill, thanks for putting up the time movements. I have been trying to do that myself but am having difficulty attaching images. It doesn’t like my Jpeg files. The photo you have used above showing the Kelly tree will do for now. And I’m not about to become bogged down about who’s picture looks the best and if there is a slope as we both know there is one. We have been over the huts time and time again. And that is not what we are discussing.

    I will admit as said earlier that time frame I was working with during those earlier discussions was not correct. Nor is yours. We could spend hours each picking out light and shadows in the photos that suit our agenda.
    Come up with all kinds of demonstrations. I simply cannot change the evidence we are working with.

    I’m not quite sure of your question to me about the time of day – but if you are asking me what time I think the photos were taken it’s not pick a box.


    1. Glenn to get your images up, if they are jpeg just rename them and drop the e so they become jpg and then they will get through

  34. Hi all, I see that everyone seems to be agreeing that the Sketcher sketch was taken from one of the Burman photos, namely No. 2, and debating about the time it might have been photographed. The shadows seen in photo No. 2 are being compared with the shadows in the Sketcher sketch.

    I see a problem here. I have lined up the Burman photos and the Sketcher sketch under one another in the image below. I think we have a series of three images, not two. Photo No. 1 is closest to the action at SBC. Photo No. 2 is a bit further back, and again an action shot. The sketch is further back again, a panoramic view of the scene without any people (actors). Also, the shadows around the two poles in the Sketcher sketch are longer than in the photographs.

    I am more confident in suggesting that there were a minumium of 3 photos taken by Burman here: the two that became postcards, and a third that was provided to the Sketcher from which its panoramic view was drawn. The panoramic view is a significant increase both in the width and height of the scene from what is available in the photos yet, at the same time, its accuracy of representation can be tested by comparing those parts of it that appear in the photos with the sketch; and this comparison indicates that the sketch accurately represents what it purports to show. There is therefore no reason to doubt the accuracy of the length of the shadows shjown in the sketch, which would indacte that the photo on which it appears to have been based was (a) a different, third, phot; and (b), taken at a different time to the other two photos.

    If my hypothesis is potentially valid, then nothing can be gained be treating the shadows cast in the photos as if they were or should be the same as the shadows as drawn in the Sketcher. The longer shadows in the Sketcher sketch indicate that the photo from which it was drawn was taken at a different time from the other photos. And we don’t know if that was at an earlier or later time as there are no people in it. It could just as easily have been taken after the reporter left the scene to meet up with the police patrol, ratrher than while he was still there.

    I am more comvinced that


    1. I dont see a problem Stuart, and I dont see a need to postulate a 3rd image. The left page and half the right page is very detailed and variable, but corresponds as you say quite closely with the two known images, whereas the right quarter of the image that extends out to the edge of the page is very generic in its composition : its clumps of sword grass in a line almost as if they used a rubber stamp to make a row of them across the lower third of the page and a similar repetitive series of low shrubs across the bottom, and in the background very pale and indistinct bush . I am going to guess they wanted the image to fill the entire page for effect and the artist obliged by adding the generic shrubbery to make it fit.

  35. Hi Stuart,
    I think you may well be correct. Upon his departure the special reporter wrote:
    “leaving Mr Burman to photograph the various scenes, I struct across country to pick up a police patrol” So it is logical more photos were taken.

  36. Hi David, bearing in mind that my suggestion that the sketch was from a third photo is just a hypothesis – there is no rubber stamping here; the different sword grass plants on the right are individually drawn, as can be seen in the much clearer part-picture at the top of your previous blog page called ‘The Correct orientation of the Burman photographs”..

    The low shrubs at the bottom are again individually drawn but more importantly the main log extends further into the right hand side of the sketch than it does in Photo No. 2, and their is bush sketched behind it. The background bush on the right is all further away and so less distinct.

    There was no need for artist to fill a page by imaginatively expanding the scene at the top, bottom and right, as the sketch did not fill the pages as a double spread but (as seen in the whole page views of the Sketcher’s pages that I uploaded in a previous blog page, there were other sketches on those pages as well. Could the artist have wanted to expand the view beyond what is in Burman’s Photo 2 simply for interest? Why give the engraver extra work when a sketch based solely on Photo 2 would have done?

    I continue to think that Burman would have taken more than just the two photos of the place after carting his gear all that way. And Glenn has added another point to my list of reasons for my suggestion of a third photo of the scene by noting that the reporter said that he left Burman photographing when he headed off to meet the patrol.

    Again, the suggestion of a third photo is purely hypothesis, but the shadows are different lengths in the sketch (longer) than they are in the photos, and his attention to detail as seen for example in the sketched stumps seems impeccable. So I continue to think that the length of shadows in the sketch does not support a case about time of day for the photos based on equating it with the photos.

    In any event the photos are the actual evidence in a discussion about when they might have been taken (and from what direction, etc., which I am keeping well away from as I have no background in it). I don’t think the sketch can be confidently used as evidence towards when the photos might have been taken.

    1. Youve taken me literally Stuart, when I was using a metaphor for the way the sketcher has filled in that last quarter of the image. There is no actual evidence that a third photo was ever taken of the murder scene, only speculation, and even if he did I dont think it adds anything to the discussion. If he took other photos elsewhere, I am not aware of them either.

      But lets not lose sight of what we are trying to establish here : its what direction the camera was facing when the images were taken, and the point about the shadows is not so much how long they are but in what direction they are pointing.

      If the images were taken at some time in the morning – and we’ve chose 10.30 as a starting point – then shadows from the burned post would be expected to be seen in certain parts of the scene and not others. In fact if as Glenn is suggesting the image was taken at 10.30 facing ENE then the camera would be facing the sun almost directly and the shadow from the post would be seen extending from the post almost directly toward the camera – but this is NOT what is seen in the images and the sketch based on them. So what have we got wrong ? The time of the day or the direction that the camera was said to be pointing in?

      As Ive said already I believe the Kennedy tree group timeline makes sense, and so I accept the photos were taken in the morning, not in the afternoon as I used to believe. So what has to change to make sense of the images is the camera position : if it is looking west and south the shadows from the post are in the right position. QED.

      1. Hi David, OK, the issue is not the time the photos were taken but the direction of the shadows. I’ll keep out of that one! But is an interesting speculation I think as to whether there might have been a third photo from which the sketch was made. I‘ll revert to being a spectator now!

Leave a Reply