INTRODUCTION:
For the entire time that I have been producing this Blog, I have been trying to decide if the contentious subject of Bill Denhelds research, trying to identify the exact site at which the Stringy Bark Creek Murders took place, is something that should also be discussed here. I’ve hesitated for a number of reasons not the least of which is because on the Forum of mine that was sabotaged by Kelly bullies, SBC was the subject that provoked the most interest but also the most anger and vitriol, and possibly was in large part why that Forum of mine was destroyed. I’ve also noted there have been long bitter discussions on several other Forums on the topic over several years which seem to have ended in tears but no agreement or resolution about the site, making me doubt that any further discussion would end any differently. In any case for those that are interested, Bill has a comprehensive site of his own (HERE) which provides exhaustive detail and makes a very compelling argument that the place where Lonigan and Scanlon were murdered is the place he’s identified at Stringy Bark Creek. How could I possibly hope to add to it? Lastly, this subject is not really about the Mythology of the Kelly Legend but is closer to pure historical research, a dispute not about what happened and why but about exactly where, a kind of niche within Kelly history where ‘place’ is mostly well known. It’s not a dispute between ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ Ned people, but a dispute between amateur researchers.
In the end I decided I would write about SBC because anyone exploring the Kelly Legend will inevitably come across it and I expect might hope to find something about it on this Blog as well. Its about time the controversy surrounding it was settled, and that’s what discussion here will help to do. I also didn’t want to allow the Bullies who silenced the discussion last time to have the last word on the subject. This time I will moderate with much more attention to personal abuse, to relevance and to fairness.
I am not going to present two sides of this story because having participated in a long discussion between both sides of this subject a few years ago on the Forum of mine that was sabotaged, and having read all of Bills site, I have no doubt that he is right in his belief that he has identified the true site. Instead I am going to present my understanding of what Bill has proved, but in a way that I hope will be easy to understand. One of the problems with Bills site is that there is so much detail and the arguments are at times so intricate that an ordinary person is likely to find his eyes glazing over as he tries to wade through it all. I am going to provide the Idiots Guide to SBC. (with apologies to Bill!)
Stringy Bark Creek : the last debate:
According to the Tourist brochures that direct everyone to it, the famous Kelly Tree in the Wombat Ranges not far from Mansfield is the place where the Kelly Gang ambushed the Police search party and killed two of them. On this point though I think all sides are in agreement: its not! Historical records show that the Kelly tree was a more or less randomly selected tree in the general vicinity of the ambush site, at a place that could conveniently be visited by tourists. Ian Jones drew this to everyone’s attention in 1993 when he announced that he and his son had identified what they believed was the true site after ‘lengthy research and… field work’. Jones said he had ‘absolutely no doubt’ that the true site of the ambush was ‘several hundred meters south of the accepted location (which is marked by the Kelly Tree) and on the opposite, eastern bank of the Creek’ (Footnotes to Chapter 9, A Short Life by Ian Jones)
Despite the fact that Jones said it was “unarguable that the battleground was on the eastern bank’ (The Age: Oct 19 1995) I think everyone now agrees that this second site, the Jones site is also NOT the right place. (by ‘everyone’ I mean all the people who have a particular interest in this subject and who participate in these discussions) The reason is provided by McIntyre, the sole Police survivor of the ambush who says this in his “True Narrative of the Kelly Gang” :
“Sergt Kennedy has selected a clear place near an old burnt hut as the most suitable for our camping ground as it was out of danger of any timber which might fall from the forest trees. Our tent was pitched near the north west corner of this clearing, which was partly natural and partly caused by human agency. The entrance to the tent was facing east and also the creek which was about 70 yards distant.”
If the tent was facing east, and facing the creek, then the tent and the site of the ambush can only have been on the western side of the creek. Period.
But where exactly?
McIntyre wrote a detailed account of the attack, some of which I have already quoted, and he also provided a couple of diagrams of the site, one drawn with much greater care and a lot more detail and many years after the first one.
 |
| McIntyres first sketch of the scene of the ambush. He has inaccurately drawn the ends of the logs crossing over each other |
Remarkably, there are also two amazing photos of the exact site, taken within a week of the murders, the so-called Burman photographs. Burman was a commercial photographer who cashed in on the massive public interest in the Kelly story by selling photos of the scene at Stringybark Creek, and other sites as “Cartes de Visite”. His informant and guide at the ambush site was Edward Monk who in turn received his information directly from McIntyre when they both returned to SBC with the Police search party to SBC to search for the dead policemen the day after the ambush.
 |
| The ambush of Kennedy re-enacted, showing on the left, “McIntyre” seated on the log, “Kelly” crouched down hiding beside him, both looking towards the north at the returning Kennedy, and one of the posts of the burned hut on the right. |
Burman placed people into the clearing to recreate the ambush scene for his photos, but without McIntyre or his diagrams to help, his recreation was not entirely accurate. Burman has McIntyre seated at one end of a log with Kelly kneeling right next to him, but behind the log; McIntyres drawing shows they were at opposite ends of a log and the ‘north-south’ log was between them.(M3 and EK2 on McIntyres diagram shown below) Thus, McIntyres diagram identifies mistakes in Burmans re-enctment of the scene when Kennedy returned.
So, having excluded two places that were NOT the site of the ambush, could all these separate pieces of information be drawn together to find the place that WAS the ambush site?
Obviously 140 or more years after the Burman photos were taken, things at the site will have changed in many ways. There would be no point looking for the fallen logs for example. However, McIntyre said that the tent was 70 yards away from the creek and the creek wouldn’t have changed much. He also said the site was near ‘an old burnt hut’, and that would certainly be something that might have left discoverable traces of itself.
What else did McIntyre claim?
Following on from the quote cited above he writes: “Standing at the tent entrance and facing the creek there was upon the left front a felled tree nearly 4ft in diameter at the thickest part. It lay nearly east and 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 25 yards from the tent. On your right or 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 coarse herbage. These together with a slight declivity in the formation in that direction afforded good cover to within 20 yards of our tent for any party wishing to attack our camp and it was from this position we were attacked, the south side or up the creek.”
McIntyre drew a diagram to illustrate these points (above) but its important to notice that he did it somewhat inaccurately: McIntyre wrote that the north–south log joined the east-west one ‘midway’, and formed ‘two right angles’. From this description you would expect his diagram would show the logs arranged as a kind of “T” but what he drew was more like a “7”. He has drawn the north-south log meeting the east-west log at one end of it, not midway, and so his diagram shows only one ‘right angle’. When you look at the Burman photos of the scene you realize there are actually three big logs in the photo – two seem to be more or less in a line end to end, and lying roughly east to west, and the third lies behind them at an angle to these two, lying roughly north to south. The ‘north’ end of this log appears to be near where the other two meet – ‘midway’ along, and creating the two ‘right angles’ that McIntyre remembered.
The photos also show two prominent blackened posts, which must have been some of the ruins of the burnt hut McIntyre mentioned, though he didn’t include them in his map either. Behind the man with his raised arm, who represents the returning Kennedy, there is a clearly seen wooded slope. This is a distinctive feature of the site, and a key to locating it, as will be seen later.
So somewhat curiously, the diagram that revealed the inaccuracies in Burmans photos – in relation to where he placed the actors – is itself corrected by detail revealed in the photos – the true number and position of the logs in the clearing!.
It is clear from this that the two logs McIntyre included in his drawing are the ‘third’ log (the north-south one) and the log at the right of the photo, running roughly east-west. At M3 He indicated where he sat on this log as ‘ordered by Ea Kelly’ and at EK3 Kellys ‘place of concealment awaiting men on patrol’ on the other side of the north-south log, near where the fire was. His diagrams didn’t include the log nearest the camera.
The other critical information we can obtain from the Burman photos is the direction in which Burmans Camera was pointing. This task is made easy by the fact that Burman sat someone pretending to be McIntyre at the end of the log nearest the camera, and someone pretending to be Ned Kelly crouched down just behind him, both looking in the direction from where Kennedy and Scanlon returned, which was from the north. There is no logical explanation for the positioning and the posture of the people Burman placed in those photos, on and concealed behind logs, other than that they were looking northwards in anticipation of Kennedy and Scanlans return. He should have had ‘McIntyre’ seated at the end of the log on the right of the photo, near where these two logs are approached by the ‘north-south’ log, which is where McIntyre showed he was in his map. The log Burman had them seated on wasn’t shown in McIntyres maps. However that makes little difference to the clues they give about the direction the pictures were taken from – the camera, looking back towards them was facing in a south or south-westerly direction. The creek would have been behind and to the photographers left.
On his website Bill verifies the correctness of this interpretation of the photographs with a very detailed analysis of where shadows fall in the photos. By calculating the angle of the sun at that time of year and time of day Bill confirms that the photos could only have been taken with the camera looking in a more or less southerly direction. He also cleverly recreates the scene with scale model logs and the stumps and posts seen in Burmans photos.
On his website Bill verifies the correctness of this interpretation of the photographs with a very detailed analysis of where shadows fall in the photos. By calculating the angle of the sun at that time of year and time of day Bill confirms that the photos could only have been taken with the camera looking in a more or less southerly direction. He also cleverly recreates the scene with scale model logs and the stumps and posts seen in Burmans photos.
After all this careful analysis of Burmans Photos, McIntyres recollections and his diagrams, Bill and a group of like-minded amateur historians searched for a site on the western side of the creek, with a declivity to the south, ( a ‘declivity’ is a downward slope) a steeper rising slope behind and hopefully, evidence of a ruined hut. A number of sites were considered but at only one could a photo have been taken looking south that matched the Burman photos. At this site they also found evidence of not one but two ruined huts in the form of piles of stones that had once formed fireplaces, whereas no convincing evidence of huts was found at the others. The historical record reports there were indeed two huts at the ambush site! At Bills website he illustrates how he used a Laser and an ingenious device he calls the viewer-scope to show that the location they identified as the true site fits Burmans photos brilliantly, whereas at the others , the fit is non-existent.
Frankly I am mystified as to why the rest of the group Bill was a part of were unable to accept the site now known as the ‘two huts’ site as being the place where the Kelly gang ambushed the Police patrol. Identifying it relies firstly on recognition of errors in McIntyres diagram that are revealed by the Burman photos, and recognition of errors in Burmans re-enactment revealed by Mcntyres diagram. This in turn enables accurate orientation of the Burman photos, and identification of the orientation and spatial relations of the slope, the creek, the declivity and the ruined huts. The subsequent on-the-ground identification and close inspection of potential sites confirmed the two huts site as the only possible place.
What needs to happen now is a thorough professional archaological documentation of the Two Huts site, its official recognition and preservation as the actual ambush site, and an acknowledgement of the work of all the people who contributed to its recognition, the foremost of whom is Bill Denheld.
He has been and remains a persistent dogged and imaginative advocate for historical truth as well as for the Legend of Ned Kelly.
(Visited 279 times)
Who cares if we don’t know exactly where the SBC murders took place? The fact is most people couldn’t care less. But I’m one of those people who like to know these things, and have been intrigued by the work that Bill Denheld has done in locating the true site, and also at the alternate claims put forward by that CSI team.
Before really getting in deep with all this Kelly stuff, I remember standing at the Kelly tree thinking so this is where it happened. And then years after that when the east bank site was sign-posted, accepting this as the site because Ian Jones had said it was, even though it didn’t quite feel right (e.g. where was the slope in the Burman photograph?).
I was quite intrigued therefore when I saw the result of Bill’s work on his ‘Two Huts’ website and called him up, and he offered to take me out to the site. That first visit, I instantly knew Bill was correct. The slope was exactly as it is in the Burman photograph and there behind us were the rushes and the creek. And more importantly, there were the remains of the two huts that were referenced in the historical records.
The Australian bush can be a place of great beauty, but to my mind SBC is not one of those places. I find it a rather forlorn place and it is hard to fathom how Bill could have had the passion to have spent so many weekends over a period of years out here trying to find the site and then undertaking all that detailed analysis to prove it as the correct site. I find the attention to detail on Bill’s website quite intriguing, but agree with you Dee that it is heavy going and likely to be a turn-off to normal people. So thank you Dee for your reductionism in producing your ‘Idiot’s Guide to SBC’.
Bill’s research of course is disputed by this other group of amateur researches who call themselves the CSI team. I have looked at their work as well, and for the life of me it just doesn’t stack up in the way Bill’s does. But what really amazes me is the animosity that has been directed towards Bill by supporters of that CSI team (and perhaps by some members of that team as well). For years I would have liked to have contributed to sites like IO, but didn’t dare because I could see that anyone who took an alternative view to those who ran that site or sided with Bill would be in for a serve. Bill is much thicker skinned than me!
Going back to the Two Huts site at SBC, I like you wonder how anyone could still doubt this site given the intellectual rigour that Bill has brought to this and to the on-the-ground evidence that just screams out to you that this is the site. I really enjoy taking people out to the SBC and taking them around the circuit walk that the authorities have put in place at Ian Jones’ site, before asking them if they would like to see the real site, and sharing a laugh at how the authorities have just got it all so wrong.
Whilst I find SBC to be a forlorn place, it is however a place that has played a significant role in Victorian history and it would be good to see the Two Huts site properly identified, as well as the Kelly hut site at Bullock Creek which is presently so overgrown with blackberries and other weeds that it is almost inaccessible. The old bridle paths and trails in the area (which can still be discerned) could be cleared so that the relationship between these places could be properly appreciated. Importantly there should be a proper memorial to the slain policemen, including at the site where Michael Kennedy was murdered, as I agree that there is a lack of balance in the way the story is presently presented. The Two Huts site also certainly warrants a proper archaeological investigation, and I have to wonder why Heritage Victoria has not already commissioned this.
Dee, thanks for your commanding SBC overview – and careful, thoughtful championing of deserving site explorer Bill Denheld.
He has many high profile supporters including John Doyle and Tim Flannery, and many more, who have visited his SBC site and heard his persuasive evidence first hand.
You deserve greater recognition, Bill!
Yes, Peter, SBC is a forlorn and unhappy place…
Bill has done the in-depth fossicking and emu-bobbing over his site for 15 years in the cold and rain, and in the furnace of summer. He loves what he does.
The Nation owes him a helluva lot.
I too have been to Bill's SBC site. And there was lucky enough to hear Bill explainaing his research and showing a copy of the Burman contemporary photo that comprehensively proves his location.
Like Peter Newman, I can't figure out the antagonism from the pro-Kelly people. Some are CSI supporters, but some just dislike Bill. Anyone who has met Bill and Carla find the Kelly people's views peculiar and strange. There have been years of vile undermining and criticism. And what for? It should hardly matter to them where the 'Police Murders' took place.
The Two Huts website has honest and inescapable logic.
No-one else has spent the same time and effort in the bush.
Without doubt Dee's succinct definitive explanation for the true location at SBC is very admirable.
I often ask yourself- ' How can dozens of historians can get it so wrong and only one be correct?
You know the saying 'Oh yes you're right and the world is wrong- right ? Yes that's right.
I always thought it puzzling, but a jigsaw puzzle of pieces just needs to be put together.
Dee has demonstrated a way to present the facts and comes up with the same conclusion.
The problem with weighing up variants of any argument, which over time saw many subsequent webpage forums discussing these same points with meaningless errors thrown in, all mean confusion to the reader.
Take for instance Ian Jones's East bank scenario at SBC. In the early days I figured the East bank could work if the Burman photos were printed back to front? I thought that highly unlikely though.
Finding the fireplaces on the western bank of the creek supported Jones's site 'vicinity', and the records said the police camped near the ruins of two small huts, so that was all OK too.
Records that Jones seized upon were that a 'Constable James' wrote he followed horse tracks through swampy ground crossing SBC all the way to discover the abandoned Kelly camp at Bullock Creek to the North west of SBC one month later.
Horse tracks crossing SBC all seems to support the East bank scenario except I you could not place the Burman photos there? The answer was of course these horse tracks went from the West bank across the swampy ground of SBC to the East bank and later further down the creek crossing again as where Thomas McIntyre went on Sergeant Kennedy's horse to the west only just missing Kelly camp.
Jones also concluded that these same horse tracks crossed Germans Creek about 400 yards N. west as being where Sergeant Kennedy was killed at Germans Ck, all a most convincing account, except we have all been led astray. Sergeant Kennedy was killed on the east bank of SBC. The site area has been identified awaiting further archaeological investigations.
Thanks Dee, Peter, Jim, Carol, Mark and Wes for your supportive commendations, and yes Mark, I do remember you with that large group meeting at SBC.
Bill, you did the hard yards in the bush. And you are a gentleman in comparison to your critics. Keep it up!
The past accounts of SBC by Jones et al won't ever be corrected in the light of Bill's superlative first-hand research. Those books will continue to mislead readers into the distant future.
Like the others here Bill I find your research and findings on SBC to be the most accurate to date. But like most evidence which contradicts theories put out by Kelly disciples, it is not popular nor acceptable to those in organisations who should know better.
Bill has been right since the beginning. The Kelly nuts tried to kill him off. But Bill is right and he will eventually see them all off. Great blog, Dee!
Ned Kelly Central is a no show when it comes to SB Creek.
Following the publication of this thread, Dee had made the announcement on NKCentral 7 days ago.
Within days there was a string of comments by Mick Fitzsimons, Dee and a few others but was then deleted overnight ?
A second string of comments began where in I thought it appropriate to bring notice of the CSI@SBC the report I have on my webpage http://www.ironicon.com.au
Fitzy defending the csi@sbc report but could not say where he thought the shootout had occurred but it was not at the two huts site. He then used a lame duck copyright issue to suggest there was a breach of copyright with my showing the sloppy research in the CSI report. After a few more attempts by me to inform Admin this copyright issue was a red herring, all my messages were ignored by admin.
Then overnight the whole 2nd thread of comments were again deleted.
This was commented on by Dee who said she was still confident of NKCentral facilitating an open discussion about SBC, because its now quite apparent as predicted it won't be happening on this page.
I may have missed quite a few comments in the interim but this morning decided I would make a final posting as a constructive re start.
This is what I wrote –
________________________________________
Hello admin,
I hope my contribution, the URL link to that CSI@SBC report was not the reason you deleted my postings?
At issue is the acceptance by all including the 'authorities' of the proper place where the police were shot by the Kellys and the gang.
As a researcher I am happy to contribute where I can but will only do so here if NKCentral has an open charter to allow criticism for what is a poorly researched publication the CSI@SBC report that now seems to be defended by NKCentral. Please let it be known I was the instigator of that SBC investigation, my name is in the document that was published without everyone's full agreement and that NO Copyright has been breached. The document has been in the public domain since March 2010, and variants are available today. My copy linked below shows but a few pages with ridiculous assumptions like the current Kelly tree being in the Burman photos. And then the orientation of the Burman photos said by csi@sbc report to be taken looking North East when all the written and physical evidence points to the South. This is not good research.
Every Kelly student should read my main document on the subject freely available at http://www.ironicon.com.au
Or for a more succinct précis by Dee – 'Bill is right about StringyBark Creek'- see
http://kellylegend.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/bill-is-right-about-stringy-bark-creek_13.html
For those that are not aware,
" The Copyright Act allows you to use copyright material without permission if your use is a 'fair dealing' for one of the following purposes: • research or study; • criticism or review. "
csi at sbc Bills comments
http://www.ironicon.com.au/csi@sbc_bills_comments.pdf
______________________________________
By this no show, perhaps NKC Admin, who remains anonymous like Dee, is run off his /her feet vetting all the comments on FB, and maybe my comment will SHOW once Admin has decided it is a reasonable discussion to be had. And, if this does not happen we can only assume this Anonymous Admin is not as impartial as made out.
Bill, can you tell me which direction McIntyre said he was facing while sitting on the log (M3 is his diagram) as Kennedy was coming back towards the camp?
Was he facing towards or away from Kennedy? Looking north or south? Thanks NML
McIntyre was the only survivor of the Police Murders at SBC. From his accounts there is no mention in which direction he was facing at various moments. Lawyers didn't ask him. Why would he have said so? But I leave it all to Bill to better explain this.
NML I've been wondering when we would hear from you again? Could you explain why it might be important to know the answer to your question? I am wondering if you are going to write something about the orientation of the Burman photos? If you are I think that's a good question, but if Bill doesn't answer or if there is no clear answer to your question would you please say why you're asking it?
Hello NML,
I recal you asking this question a while ago or similar.
" Bill, can you tell me which direction McIntyre said he was facing while sitting on the log (M3 is his diagram) as Kennedy was coming back towards the camp? Was he facing towards or away from Kennedy? Looking north or south? Thanks NML"
There are several things wrong with McIntyre's map. If I'm not mistaken the map was part of McIntyre's evidence at Kelly's trial, but is also referenced in his Memiors dated around 1904, or twenty four years after the event, I stand to be corrected.
In early 2013 -McIntyre's map and 'M3' was discussed at infinite item.
Please open this link in another browser –
McIntyre's-map-corrected.
http://www.ironicon.com.au/images/mcintyre-map-corrected.jpg
or click on my name with link to the picture.
In general McIntyre stated thus-
Kelly told him to sit on that log over there about ten yards off (from his previous position close to Kelly) I went there (M3) – and no sooner had I done so saw the returning police coming back to camp. (up the creek from the north)
While waiting for the police return Mc also said Kelly was on his right the creek side, and the sun was setting to the west. So, McIntyre, Kelly and his gang were all looking down the creek and to the north.
Mc simply scribed M3 on the wrong side of the log if he sat there looking north.
That's not to say he did not sit on that log 'over there' at some short time looking South, but he sure must have crossed that log and advanced towards SGT Kennedy suggesting he surrender and moments later grabing hold of Kennedy's horse M4.
Here are the notations on McIntyre's map
M1 position of Mc at first attack.
M2 Position of Mc during conversation with K
M3 " Where McIntyre sat upon the log as ordered by Ea Kelly"
M4 " Position of McIntyre when he seized the horse"
L1 Lonigan at first attack L2 Where Lonigan shot.
K Where Sergt Kennedy dismounted and last seen by Mc
Bill, thank you for you’re reply. However, I think you have made some errors with your analogy. The following information may be useful to you.
M2 Position of Mc during conversation with K. "He called me over and directed me to standing in almost the same place I had occupied when first stuck up. Kelly was in one angle formed by the logs, on the creek side” Page 21 of McIntyre's Narrative
It was in this position he noted that: “The sun had sunk behind the tall trees on our left, where the ground was elevated” Page 23 of McIntyre’s Narrative.
M3 Where McIntyre sat upon the log as ordered by E. Kelly. McIntyre’s statement before W.Foster. P.M. Beechworth. 11th August 1880. To Mr Gaunston. Reference .… Page 438 Edward “Ned” Kelly The Historical Record. Kelvyn Gill.
"(Witness here describes by diagram the arrival of Kennedy and Scanlan) I was sitting on the log with my back towards Kennedy when he was coming up. I addressed him first when about six or eight yards away. The accused then was about ten or twelve yards at my right rear.”
While McIntyre was sitting on the log (M3) facing south. Ned was on his left side or creek side (east). (As per his diagram)
When comparing McIntyre’s diagram and descriptions to the Burman photos they match remarkably well.
His diagram, combined with his Narrative and official statements, demonstrate that he was a consistent and reliable witness. With a clear eye for detail.
NML
NML you will have to explain to me what particular point you are trying to make. Your quotes here don’t seem to me to make a difference to anything important to Bills case. I hope you’re not trying to suggest McIntyres memory and testimony was faultless? He did after all describe things that we know he didnt see in relation to Lonigans death…
Dee, if I recall in the beginning both you and Bill accused McIntyre of being mistaken when he said only one shot was fired at Lonigan. You have since changed your views on that. NML
Yes thats correct I have changed my views because I was trying to reconcile Ned Kellys claim to have fired once as Lonigan raised his head above a log, and killed him, yet Lonigan had at last three gunshot injuries. No witness is infallible so I suggested perhaps McIntyre in his stress had ‘mis-remembered’ the number of shots fired but eventually I realised that the problem was not McIntyre misremembering but Ned Kelly telling lies. Its still not clear to anyone exactly what point you’re trying to make.
MNL writes-
" It was in this position he noted that:"
“The sun had sunk behind the tall trees on our left, where the ground was elevated” Page 23 of McIntyre’s Narrative."
Nowhere on page 23 of 'The Manuscript of T McIntyre' does it mention about McIntyre's position in relation to his map.
On P23, first Para – Mc states that during a conversation with Kelly, he was on Kelly's left with a log between them. Mc thinks there is a chance to take Ned off his guard being so close to him while Ned was looking down the creek. Mc realises Steve Hart was behind him in the tent when there were these words "Ned look out or that fellow will be on top of you"
The third Para opens with " The sun sank behind the tall trees on our left" where the ground was elevated.
On Page 24 Para four, they hear the approching horses and Kelly sang out " Hist lads here they come. Mc describes how he would try and get Kennedy and Scanlan to surrender, and Ned instructs Mc to sit on that log indicated about ten yards off and to give no alarm.
From my perspective Mc is sitting on that log and they are all looking down the creek.
MNL, In reference to McIntyre's statement to W.Foster at Beechworth, We would all like to see this in context. Can you please provide the relevant texts.
As I have said above, higher up on this page,
"That's not to say he did not sit on that log 'over there' at some short time looking South."
Lets not forget the Burman photo was presented as A post card 'Wombat Ranges where the police were shot' caused a lot of confusion when presented to the court by Ned's lawyer Gaunson. Perhaps this is when W Foster asked McIntyre to correlate the photo with his map.
Of course his two logs on his map would be seen as the same logs facing the viewer in the photo, and if Mc had to explain it properly he would have himself sitting on the log looking south if the photo was to be believed. The fact remains Mc placed his M3 on wrong place probably because his map had to fit in with the photo, and photos do tell the truth.
Yesterday I finally managed to go to SBC. As other visitors have mentioned, to me there is a strange 'feel' about the place. As wife and I began the official walk, we spoke to and were joined by a young bloke who had been trail-biking in the area. He was a nice young fellow with an interest in the Kelly story because his Pop was a retired Victoria Police superintendent. Anyway we followed the trail to the 'official' police camp and shooting site where I produced copies of maps and diagrams prepared by the indomitable Bill Denheld. My new young friend was inspired and as he was a former infantryman, we decided to make our way to SBC, which was running. We found a suitable crossing point, made our way through the boggy area mentioned by Bill on his website and eventually, to our great delight, found the 2 old fireplaces which Bill believes mark the sites of the former huts. The 2 piles of stones are obviously arranged and appear to have formed part of the fireplace of the 2 huts which were here at one time. The way the rocks are laid out is not natural.
As we checked the area, it soon became obvious that this would have been an ideal location for the Mansfield police to have camped. The spot is just a few metres in from the road and as Bill describes, there is a timbered rise on the other side of the road which accords with the Burmann photo.
To me Bill's findings were confirmed and like him I am convinced that this is the actual police camp site and where the shooting took place. Great work Bill and once again, congratulations.