The news article that Sharon drew to our attention the other day, about a plan to ‘upgrade’ the Police Killing Ground at Stringybark Creek, says that ‘the Police and other stakeholders’ were consulted, and as a result a plan for a new walkway and new ‘signage’ was developed for activation later this year.
‘‘The project includes the construction of a new walking trail in the locality of where the fourth member of the police party, Constable McIntyre, escaped and Sgt Kennedy was later killed,’’ DELWP Goulburn District manager Lucas Russell said.
‘‘This is an extremely important site from both a historical perspective and for the families of the policemen who were killed,’’ Mr Russell said.
Now everyone who knows anything about Stringybark Creek knows that for many years the Signage was wrong. It identified a place that Ian Jones nominated as the actual site of the murders, but now everyone accepts he was wrong, and so it needs to be upgraded. However, where exactly should the signage be pointing to?
Two groups of amateur researchers have narrowed the debate down to two nominated alternative sites a few hundred meters apart. One is known as the Two Huts site and the other as the CSI site. There have been many fierce debates between the CSI group, and former member of that team Bill Denheld, who discovered the Two Huts site in 2009. On this Blog last year I critically reviewed both sets of claims and there is no doubt in my mind, and the minds of many others that Bill Denheld is right. Thats why I called my Blog post about the Two Huts site “Bill is right about Stringybark Creek” I labelled the Report of the CSI team “Pseudoscience” for reasons that will be obvious to anyone who reads it or my critique of it HERE.
Where the CSI Team is winning however, is in the political battle to get Heritage Victoria to recognise THEIR site as THE site. I have no doubt that the new Signage mentioned in this newspaper article will be directing Tourists not to the wrong site once promoted by Ian Jones, but to the wrong site now promoted by the CSI Team, who I believe now have the blessing of Ian Jones, the powerfully influential Kelly go-to man of yesteryear.
On reading this news article I was immediately reminded of an email conversation I had at the very beginning of the year, with Kelvyn Gill, one of the authors of the CSI@SBC Report. He told me that “In the latter half of 2017 it will become quite clear as to the site that merits endorsement as the most likely site for the police camp as there is work already commenced by independent organisation(s) and which will verify the claims of the respective champions of particular locations.”
I asked him for more detail but he said that it would all be made public later this year, and as he was only one member of the CSI group he didnt have authority to divulge anything else about this investigation. I then decided to email Bill Denheld directly to get more , as I assumed he would have been one of the ‘respective champions’ referred to by Kelvyn but Bill replied saying he knew nothing about such an investigation.
The newspaper article says that Police and other stakeholders were consulted in formulating their plans for the new look SBC. This is exactly what Kelvyn Gill said earlier in the year, and both are saying the results will be made later this year. However, though its clear from what Kelvyn told me, and by what “Anonymous” posted to this Blog in the last 48 hours, that the CSI people are” in the know” about whats going on, and someone in the Police is also in the know, it’s also very clear that one of the most important ‘stakeholders’ or “champions” in the SBC debate, Bill Denheld has been deliberately excluded. Nothing more loudly speaks to whats going on with Heritage Victoria and the DELWP as being a swindle, as this fact, that a widely acknowledged SBC expert and obvious major stakeholder has been deliberately excluded. This is a scandal! And we have, as usual, an anonymous poster to the Blog announcing yesterday that we need to ‘prepare to be blasted by a SBC revelation’ in a couple of months. This Anonymous appears to have insider information so must be one of the CSI team or supporters who are in the secret loop of insider knowledge, part of the sneaky and unscientific team who have so little confidence in their Site they wont allow it be subjected to open scrutiny or go one-to-one with the Two Huts site.
The Public are being told “stakeholders” have been consulted, and Kelvyn told me that ‘independant organistion/s’ have been conducting an evaluation ‘of the claims of the respective champions” , implying that something unbiased and even handed is taking place to resolve the arguments, but in fact, by excluding Bill Denheld and the Two Huts site from consideration, the ‘evaluation’ is really just a charade engaged in for Public benefit, but behind closed doors. It is a disgraceful pretence at fairness when all along, the CSI team, now with Ian Jones backing appears to have has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of Heritage Victoria and convinced them with pseudoscience, and the illegitimate authority of Ian Jones that the CSI site is where the Signage should be.
Their Report is a joke. It really is Pseudoscience , and Heritage Victoria will be rightly subject to public abuse anger and derision if once again their Signage directs the Public to yet another Kelly historical blunder under the authority of Ian Jones, a person whose public record of wrong endorsements of Kelly related phenomena is well known. The important problem with the CSI report is that it claims to be and sort of looks like “science”, but it isn’t. The arguments in it could be bad science, but the critical reason their report is NOT science is because the CSI team won’t engage in open discussion with other interested people about their findings, which is a vital hallmark of actual science. Actual science involves placing your theory and argument in the public space and engaging in debate and argument with like minded people about it. Instead it’s a report you have to buy if you want to see it, whereas Bill Denhelds every thought, every idea and calculation, photo, diagram and reconstruction is freely available for public scrutiny on his WebSite – the amount of detailed information at times is overwhelming. So whilst most people can at least try to understand Bills arguments, most cannot even read the CSI case let alone engage in debate about it. Petty arguments about whether a creek is a spring, which is the sort of argument they engaged in on a Forum I once created, is not genuine open debate. Notably that forum was destroyed by a CSI supporter. Their approach is completely unscientific – no openness, no willingness to engage and defend, a readiness to stifle and wreck alternative arguments, to cheat and to do political deals to advance their case illegitimately.
On my Blog last year, when I posted the only comprehensive independent point by point critique of the CSI report ever published , the CSI team pretended they never saw it, and made no attempt to answer the many important questions raised in it.
When the Public begin to ask Heritage Victoria why they’ve changed the place they identify as the site of the Ambush to the CSI site they will be forced to direct them to the CSI Report and then the fun will start! Burls on trees? Piles of rocks? “Near” meaning 100 yards away? A photographer at the scene within a few days of the murders got it COMPLETELY wrong but the CSI pseudo scientists didn’t?? Heritage Victoria will become a laughing stock about a site that is almost sacred ground, a site they’ve allowed themselves to be tricked into yet again misidentifying because they’ve accepted pseudoscience and the authority of Ian Jones rather than consider the evidence, the logic and the genius of Bill Denheld. I suspect Bill will have been dismissed by Heritage Viuctoria and DEWLP on the say-so of Ian Jones, just as Ian MacFarlane was dismissed by Ian Jones when he was advising Peter Fitzsimons, telling him just to ignore the book. And why did Ian advise Peter thus? – because, according to Peter, Ian Jones “hated it”. And why did he hate it? – because it challenged pet theories of his, which is exactly what Bill is doing too.And so Bill is getting exactly the same treatment; dare I call it ‘un-Australian’?
People will be aghast to think Heritage Victoria and DELWP accepted an absurd argument based on trees in old photos, and unprovable assumptions about huts drawn on maps, and that their claimed consultation with “stakeholders” was a pretence, that a little guy like Bill who challenged the powerful Mr Jones was swept aside because he upset their cosy monopoly of the Kelly story.
This is not a pro or anti-Kelly subject. It is about the pure facts of geography and history, about historical accuracy and giving the utmost respect to slain police. It has also become a story about one man battling the authorities and a powerfully connected lobby group doing their best to silence and sideline him, because they want to be defeat his argument by every means possible, by hook or by crook, by fair means or foul if need be. By excluding Bill Denhelds findings for reasons of personal pride and ego, the CSI team may well pull off some sort of “win” if the new signage doesn’t point to the Two Huts site.However the win will be illegitimate, it will have been achieved by cheating, by unfairly excluding the only possible competition, and will be dishonourable to fallen police, because further generations of people will be paying their respects to them at the wrong place, yet again.
- I call upon Heritage Victoria and DELWP to step back from the brink, and to genuinely include the Two Huts site and its “champion” It will NOT be good enough to say we considered the Two Huts site but didn’t involve Bill, especially as it’s clear that you considered the CSI site and DID include the CSI team. They’re in the know but Bill isn’t, which is a disgrace. He hasnt been given a fair go.
- I would urge all involved to read my Critique of the CSI Report and my other exposition of the Two Huts site.
- I also call on the CSI team to stop trying to gain legitimacy for your site by engaging in secret political subterfuge and the non-scientific tactic of freezing out opposition. If you were truly confident in the rightness of your argument you wouldn’t hesitate to defend them publicly, and to answer the many important obstacles that I raised in my Critique last year. Hiding from them suggests you’re afraid they don’t stand up to scrutiny.
I would also encourage readers to protest to Heritage Victoria, and to DELWP Goulburn District Manager Mr Lucas Russell (lucas.j.russell@delwp.vic.gov.au ), to send him and to anyone else who is interested in historical truth when it comes to Victoria and the Kellys printed copies of my Critiques. What we are asking for is not that Bills site be recognised in preference to the other one, but that Bill be given an EQUAL opportunity to make his case and that all investigations and evaluations be made openly, publicly and in a way that is fair to ALL “stakeholders” .That is the Australian way.
(Visited 90 times)
Below Ive reposted the Comments from the earlier thread that are relevant to this discussion.
Sharon Hollingsworth10 March 2017 at 06:41
I just saw a google alert from the Riverine Herald for an article entitled "Kelly Site to Get Upgrade." It said they were going to "enhance infrastructure and signage at the historic Stringy Bark Creek reserve" and there would be a new walking trail near where Mac escaped and Kennedy was killed, etc. Of course, it would only begin after the proper consultations and approval.
http://www.riverineherald.com.au/rural/2017/03/09/77968/kelly-site-to-get-upgrade
Spudee Murphy10 March 2017 at 14:03
Thank you for that Sharon it does look interesting. However, I wasn't aware that the site of where Kennedy was finally killed by Ned had been determined. I think from Bill's SBC site there were 2 options as to the likely location. So does this article suggest that it has now been discovered? Bill might like to comment.
Dee10 March 2017 at 14:41
Kelvyn Gill the compiler of the Historical Record is also one of the co-authors of the CSI Report about SBC. He told me earlier this year that an investigation was underway to evaluate the various sites and would be publishing their findings later this year. I wrote to Bill to find out what he knew and he said he was completely in the dark. I think this is a disgraceful attempt by the CSI mob along with Ian Jones to try to push Bill aside, to refuse to acknowledge the brilliance of his work and to trick the authorities into believing they know what they're talking about. As I showed in my Blog post last year about the CSI Report, its a document more akin to pseudoscience than academic research. Their argument rests on absurd non scientific contrivances such as a claim that a tree in one photo is the same tree seen in the background of another fuzzy photo taken years later. Its incredibly poor science, but the authorities are once again being hypnotised by Ian Jones and the pseudo-scientists of the CSI team.
read my posts from last year here: http://kellylegend.blogspot.co.nz/2016/09/the-csi-sbc-report-is-pseudo-science.html
What can we do to support Bill and stop this classic example of 'might' being right, the little guy being pushed aside by the lobby group who got in the ear of the Government? We really have to oppose this – thats why Ive submitted a Comment not the end of that article discovered by Sharon, and I suggest other who feel the same way should do the same, and someone needs to consider writing to this Mr Russell and seeing if he understands how he has had the wool pooled over his eyes bye the CSI team who are desperate to slap Bill down because he's shown them up big time.
Anonymous10 March 2017 at 16:45
Who is Mr Russell?
Dee10 March 2017 at 18:11
My apologies. Lucas Russell, quoted in the article about SBC mentioned by Sharon is "DELWP Goulburn District manager‘‘ The quote is "This is an extremely important site from both a historical perspective and for the families of the policemen who were killed,’’
Anonymous10 March 2017 at 19:05
Be prepared to be blasted by a SBC revelation….you may not be so impressed Dee by Bill's so called 'scientific' SBC location findings in a couple of months from now.
Harry Ferguson10 March 2017 at 20:51
I wonder who is the Police rep on the mostly anonymous group seeking to upgrade the SBC site (which in my opinion is an utter shambles with paths leading nowhere). To hear Bill is excluded is an absolute scandal. It would be an additional scandal if Leo Kennedy was excluded also… Is there a trained, experienced, open-minded field archaeologist available?
I will, among other things be contacting DELWP Goulburn District manager, pollies and other people who would, I think, explode with rage if there is any more tampering and misleading at SBC.
Mark Perry11 March 2017 at 15:48
Maybe getting Adam Ford involved again would be beneficial?
Horrie10 March 2017 at 21:19
The bland leading the blind again.
I don't want any more taxpayers' money being squandered on discredited SBC sites. DELWP should dump their dud committee, and call in Bill Denheld as its Leading Consultant.
He can lead DELWP to the exact spot of the SBC police camp.
Norm Regan10 March 2017 at 22:16
A 2008 Department of Sustainability and Environment pamphlet shows Bill's SBC police camp site but does not attribute it to him. DSE is a precursor to
Scroll down to the map and past and below the Kelly Tree site to the area marked "Kelly Gang & Police Shoot out Site". That's Bill's site.
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/225734/The_Kelly_Tree_and_Stringybark_Camping_Reserve.pdf
Came across this 2009 Bill image tonight which I hadn't seen before:
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1RH9Y_the-shootout-at-stringybark-creek
There is endless evidence Bill Denheld is right.
Spudee Murphy11 March 2017 at 09:21
Norm, had a look at the first link you supplied. By the look of the location marked on the map as "Kelly Gang & Police Shootout Site", I don't think that is where Bill says it is. He puts it on the other side of Stringybark Creek. You can see this in the other link you provided. But I do support Bill's identification of the shootout site.
Horrie11 March 2017 at 23:15
Spudee, Bill's site is just up the road northwards past the "Kelly tree" as shown in the map. Ian Jones's wrong site is on the other, western side, of Stringybark Creek. CSI@SBC's wrong site is somewhere beside the "Kelly tree".
Mark, I understand Adam Ford may be part of the problem leading to the exclusion of Bill by the forthcoming Genepool tv production. I may be wrong – but in my opinion, anything that excludes Bill Denheld's SBC police camp site is deficient, negligent, and a gross historical error that will be endlessly criticised in future. I will be one of those critics.
Its high time Bill's decisive research was accepted by all instead of white-anted by ignorant people who have done none of the hard yards in the bush as Bill has done.
Spudee Murphy12 March 2017 at 09:04
Horrie, very interested to hear of the forthcoming Genepool TV production. What is this about? If anyone comes up with the supposed site of Kennedy's death, how is it possible to categorically confirm the location? I support Bill's hypothesis about a general area but I can't see how anyone can be precise. But of course we have vested interests at play here as was the case in the 'official' location of the police camp site and shootout. If it is the same group involved we will probably see another travesty connected to the story.
Delete
Horrie12 March 2017 at 09:38
Spudee, I can't help much because my corres with them was taking up too much email space. However, this might help a bit:
https://www.facebook.com/Ned.Kelly.Legend/posts/1806178796311683
Sharon Hollingsworth12 March 2017 at 14:40
From what I can gather from googling, it seems it is going to be a part of a 4 part documentary series called Lawless: The Real Bushrangers.
You will have to scroll down to find the pertinent info –
https://decidertv.com/page/2016/12/12/australian-productions-on-foxtel-in-2017-include
Also info here –
https://australiaonscreen.com/film/lawless-the-real-bushrangers-at-aidc-2017/
Mark Perry12 March 2017 at 14:53
Hi Horrie. Interesting. I didn't know about Fords possible involvement. It will indeed be a travesty if Bills site is not given due consideration. He certainly bloody deserves it. His research has been fascinating to track at SBC.
Horrie11 March 2017 at 23:58
It is abundantly obvious that Bill Denheld's SBC police camp has all the required evidence of the two huts, fireplaces, logs and conforms to the contemporary Burman photo.
NONE of the other sites have this evidence.
End of story.
Bill is right!
Anonymous12 March 2017 at 06:49
Horrie, you seem so sure about a Bill's SBC site, and it is true that he has worked hard to determine a plausible area and theory, but what if Adam Ford has located the actual site? Surely you and Bill would concede that real science and archeology supersedes guess work and ego.
Dee12 March 2017 at 07:24
Anonymous, and I am guessing you're a CSI member or someone linked to them, if Adam Ford is a real archaeologist and not just a journalist with a degree, he should publish his findings in a reputable Scientific journal for everyone to examine, to critique and to agree or disagree with his findings and his argument. If Adam Ford is a real archaeologist he wouldn't be doing his 'research' in secret and requiring everyone involved to keep quiet about it, he would be looking at ALL the possible sites and talking to ALL the interested parties and proponents of theories about where the actual site is, and he wouldn't be encouraging "Signage" to be erected until well after his findings had been revealed and ALL the actual stakeholders and interested parties had been offered an opportunity to comment on them. THAT is how Science works anonymous. It doesn't work by secretly devising a pseudo-scientific story and using your name and reputation to trick officials who know nothing about Archaeology or Science into believing what you've done was genuine science. If what we are all getting a sense of, is actually happening, that the CSI team site is about to be the subject of new "Signage" then that will be yet another kick in the guts for the slain Police from that place, whose memory is once again being used for political purposes as visitor will once again be going to the WRONG PLACE.
If you really have proof Bill is wrong and there's actual proof that another place is THE site, then put it up NOW. What are hiding from? Why are you so scared to say exactly what's happening? I can only conclude its because you are not confident in your arguments but you don't want the Authorities finding out what a sham the CSI report is and that what you're actually doing is just trying to silence Bill, who got it right and left you guys for dead.
Anonymous12 March 2017 at 15:20
I was actually referring my question to Horrie, Dee unless you are actually Horrie? By the way where has Bill Denheld gone? Perhaps Bill now is Horrie?
This site is very confusing, what is meant by CSI member? I'm not a member of this group.
Dee12 March 2017 at 15:54
My apologies Anonymous. I mistook you for someone who was familiar with the debate but obviously you're not. CSI refers to a team of amateur historians that once included Bill Denheld, who published a document that I reviewed last year on this Blog. It was report of their investigation into the "crime scene" at Stringybark Creek, and they abbreviated it to CSI@SBC, meaning the Crime Scene Investigation at Stringy Bark Creek.
And no I am not Horrie or Bill or Ian or Warren. For the billion and one more time I am Dee, I post as Dee I never post as anyone else, I have no idea who Warren is and so now could you perhaps enlighten us as to what you know about Adam Ford and SBC.?
Its a real David and Goliath battle, Dee!
Bill or his supporters should just go there and erect signage. I hope it will be large signage that is Neon or visible miles away in Mansfield.
The site could be despoiled by the loonies. It should be comprehensibly protected by DELWP.
Dee you are absolutely right. The Vic govt, Heritage Victoria and DELWP would be exceedingly unwise to arrive at a conclusion different to Bill Denheld's without even consulting him. Much public money and effort has been expended pointing visitors to Stringybark Creek to the wrong spot for the police camp site.
As I pointed out earlier, Bill could lead investigators straight to the place and give his brief presentation of the evidence that convinced John Doyle, Tim Flannery, Ian MacFarlane and dozens of others that this is the E X A C T place where the police murders took place in 1878.
Mark, thanks for your comment "It will indeed be a travesty if Bills site is not given due consideration. He certainly bloody deserves it. His research has been fascinating to track at SBC".
Sharon, thanks for the additional info on Genepool productions.
Anonymous, you know that I know who you are. There is only one person who consistently misidentifies commenters. You've met me many times before over 5 years. You are a notorious serial internet pest. I doubt CSI would welcome your support.
I emailed Mr Russell last week after reading the article Sharon alerted us to. I was the contacted by another DELWP employee who offered to include me on the “stakeholders” list of people to be kept informed of the project. DELWP knows there are different opinions about the site of the SBC murders. They also know of Bill Denheld, but I was told he was not included as a stakeholder even though they had been contacted by him in the past.
DELWP advised me that further work on the SBC Project would not occur until after the release of the Genepool Productions documentary featuring Adam Ford. If Bill has been excluded from this it’s probably because Adam Ford needs to be the star and not Bill.
One of your posters said “someone in the Police who is in the know” is likely to be involved with the documentary. I suspect this might be Leo Kennedy, a descendent of Sergeant Kennedy but not a member of Victoria Police. I know Bill was contacted by Leo several years ago to seek his help in establishing the likely location of his great grandfather’s murder. I know Bill spent a lot of time and effort assisting Leo to locate the likely site.
Bill was keen to see his Two Huts site investigations acknowledged and Leo was keen to change public perceptions of Ned Kelly. The journalist Lisa Clausen was contacted with a view to producing an article for The Age / Sydney Morning Herald. I assisted that by arranging for two archaeologists associated with a group called Past Masters to accompany us on a visit to SBC. Bill took us all to the Two Huts site and the site where Kennedy was likely murdered. The distance the gang had pursued Kennedy made quite an impression on us all and reinforces that Kennedy’s death had nothing to do with self-defence but was simply cold blooded murder. Bill thought the shot pellets that killed Kennedy could be found with a metal detector and that this would confirm the murder site. Lisa’s article “The true history of the Kelly victims” was published on April 11, 2015. The article was built around Leo’s story, but also acknowledged Bill’s investigations and the vitriol and threats directed towards him by competing camps of “Kelly purists”.
If Leo Kennedy is involved in the documentary and the documentary pinpoints where his great-grandfather was murdered, then this will be due to the efforts by Bill to identify this site. That work should be acknowledged.
I find it interesting DELWP is not strating its SBC Project until after the screening of the documentary and that Bill has not been included as a stakeholder. This indicates they have been influenced by the CSI team.
I know Bill has made repeated attempts to have the Two Huts site investigated by Heritage Victoria, but this has come to nothing. And yet I understand that Heritage Victoria is involved with the DELWP project which indicates it has perhaps been overly influenced by Ian Jones and the CSI crew.
The SBC site is important and DELWP needs to get it right this time. I would like to think any track upgrading might also embrace the Kelly camp site at Bullock Creek, which is presently overgrown with blackberries and weeds. If the Two Huts site, Kelly Camp site and Kennedy murder site were all incorporated it would add considerably to peoples’ understanding and appreciation of the events that happened that day back in October 1878. There would also perhaps be scope for a walking trail that utilised the remnants of some of the old bridle trails, with links through to Mansfield and perhaps north towards Greta. Now wouldn’t that be something!
Peter, those are very important points that you're making about whats going on, and they highlight the really unprofessional way that DELWP is managing this thing, knowing that Bill is a major stakeholder in the issue but excluding him, allowing themselves to somehow be dependant on a commercial outfit producing a private Documentary in secret, and allowing the CSI team insider status because Ian Jones has aligned himself with their work. It is truly scandalous and unjust that Bills huge contributions to everyone's understanding of the historical site at SBC, and to figuring out where Kennedy was killed , is being trampled on and disrespected by factions eager to be in the limelight. Its clear from comments Ive seen in various places such as the Forum of mine that a CSI supporter destroyed, that the thing that they wish to achieve more than anything else is to shut Bill up. We cant let this happen. We must protest at every level, we must challenge all the other stakeholders and we must expose the pseudoscience of the CSI teams arguments at every opportunity. When the public learn whats been happening in secret, and how disgracefully Bill has been treated and how becasue of political reasons the Police muder site is yet again about to be mis-identified by Ian Jones and the CSI people, my hope is the DEWLP will stop and think again.
I wonder if Dee, Horrie and Peter have all considered that perhaps the archaeological team may have found something new and valid to add to the SBC site.
I have never seen so many Kelly 'egos' wanting a slice of the glory – pushing and 'yelling' their agendas with intent as stakeholders or political tribes worshipping their territorial claims – obviously worried that their previous site analysis will be seen as only amateur guess work.
Now they are having a go at Adam Ford, Genepool productions and the DELWP.
How fortunate we are to have an independent team in determining the actual site/s and overseeing its upgrade. It appears that descendants of both the police and the Kelly's are also involved with this sensitive site issue as well, and that is how it should be.
If others have well documented theories that's fine but at least show some decorum and let this DELWP team handle it how they see fit without attacking the management.
No "swindle" happening here Dee nor is it David and Goliath either, just some keen and miffed 'egos' wanting some recognition.
Yes of course I have considered that possibility. But if they have, why is it a secret? What reason would there be not to make available the evidence, if something new has been found, so that ALL the stakeholders can offer an opinion as to its significance? The problem I have is that we have people saying evaluations are being undertaken involving the "stakeholders" and it's very clear that the CSI group are included in that group, but Bill, who is at least as importnat a stakeholder as the CSI group, has been excluded. You cannot avoid the accusation that by excluding a significant stakeholder, and including a group whose report is pseudoscience, that the "evaluation" is a sham. If it's not a sham, open it up so everyone can participate.
As for Adam Ford, he was the guy whose excavation at Glenrown showed there had been a gunfight, and that an Inn was burned down. The one thing he might have done that would have made that excavation useful, rather than just an exercise in Mythological showmanship and self publicity, would have been to exclude or confirm there was a cellar at the Inn, but he seemed to have been so poorly informed he missed the opportunity to do something useful. I hope he has been much more comprehensively informed in his latest Kelly saga publicity stunt, but given the way the CSI team and Ian Jones seem to be in his inner circle and Bill has been excluded, I Have very serious doubts.
What evidence do you have Dee that Ian Jones and the CSI team are even involved with this independent analysis? You say it's very clear….where is it clear? I believe this is a very presumptuous and a misleading inference stated to your readers of this blog with a somewhat paranoid bias against others.
You are also character assassinating and attacking the credentials of a well respected archeologist and presenter Adam Ford.
Just my point as previous, the SBC site debaters (CSI, BiIl, Peter….etc) need to show some decorum towards the descendants of both the police and the Kelly's, and let it be managed independently by the DELWP. Stirring up the troops Dee is not helping the issue but it does show your allegiances.
The CSI team are involved because Kelvyn Gill and the CSI team know all about it but have been sworn to silence and secrecy. We also have people posting here as Anonymous – you or someone else I have no idea – but claiming we are all about to be "blasted" by a revelation that will damage the Two Huts site . I can't recall where exactly it was but i have read somewhere some sort of suggestion that Ian Jones had aligned himself with this investigation – hopefully another reader will inform us.
In regard to Adam Ford, I am simply advising caution when it comes to mindlessly accepting the view of a celebrity journalist and documentary maker. The Glenrowan excavation was a lot of hype and very little substance – perhaps you could name something he discovered there that we didn't already know?
One other thing : my allegiances are to historical truth, openness and a fair go. I dont really care WHO is right, but I do care that the RIGHT place is identified, for the sake of historical accuracy and the honour of the slain Police. So far, the CSI case as presented by them, is entirely and utterly unconvincing, whereas Bills is the exact opposite. An open and accessible debate with ALL stakeholders would be a commendable way to correct the acknowledged errors at SBC but this is NOT whats happening at present. Its a sham where eminence has replaced evidence, and the CSI faction is determined to smother and exclude Bills voice by whatever means it can, and while it goes about its business in secret, the Public are being falsely informed with half truths that an 'evaluation' is being undertaken involving 'stakeholders'. Whats happening I am guessing is that an argument is being fabricated to justify signage directing the public to what will eventually be shown once again to be the wrong site.
Well if it's such a sham Dee than I would hope that you would welcome an independent investigation by the DELWP.
I'm not convinced because someone is secretive about the disclosures of the findings that it means they are aligned with CSI, Bill or whoever, that is purely your provocative interpretation.
Your loyalty (allegiance) is obviously to Bill's hard work and claims that he is right. You have discredited CSI and everyone else. Yet you have no proof that any recent findings are aligned to Ian Jones, CSI, Bill…etc.
You are quite vocal in declaring that every Tom, James and Horrie should protest to the DELWP. Perhaps it is best to get your facts straight before heading off half cocked with your rebel protest march.
Indeed I WOULD welcome an independent investigation by the DELWP, but that's not what we are getting. How can it be independent when it specifically EXCLUDES one of the major stakeholders in SBC, and specifically INCLUDES one side of a highly partisan debate about the true site? The sham is the PROCESS, and we do indeed have the facts that are relevant to the process : it's one sided, being conducted in secret and is publicly being touted as an evaluation, incorrectly said by one of the CSI members to be involving the respective "champions".
Are you denying Ian Jones and the CSI team have anything at all to do with this?
You seem to have some good inside knowledge on what is going on. So how do you know that it is '…an independent team…'? If you have that knowledge, please enlighten us to its membership.
How do you know the process has excluded Bill's analysis from the new independent investigation by the DELWP? Do you know more than you are letting on?
What evidence have you got that Ian Jones (an elderly, frail man suffering ill health) is behind such an investigation?
It's all very unsubstantiated Dee and Spudee, maybe wait until you have the facts as I explained before.
"I wonder if Dee, Horrie and Peter have all considered that perhaps the archaeological team may have found something new and valid to add to the SBC site". Well if Bill was included as a stakeholder then we would be aware wouldn't we (assuming there is no need for secrecy). And I agree it would be great if they have found something new.
I can answer that. I had to cut back my previous post because it exceeded the maximum number of words allowed. One of the points I cut out was that the DELWP person who contacted me was unaware of "two huts" being referenced in any of the Kelly literature. If that is the case, then Bill's site is obviously not in contention.
As I've said before, you seem to have your finger on the pulse with this particular issue. But why is there such secrecy about it? Is it something to do with the fact that apparently nothing will be revealed until after the Foxtel series The Real Bushrangers has been aired? Sounds like there is some sort of commercial aspect to this mystery. I would also have to assume that as Adam Ford has an involvement in the 'project' that there may also be an archaeological aspect to it. If so, has some sort of permit been issued by DELWP? I am still digging (excuse pun) but as yet I have been unable to locate anything relating to permission for anything like this at SBC. As they say, the plot thickens!
DELWP are not independent or investigators. They manage parks.
Bill, when he reappears here, will tell Anonymous he has been excluded.
Genepool has excluded him also. They wanted a volunteer to get a Ned Kelly tattoo by a renowned tattooist. Everyone except Genepool knows what happens when you get a Ned tattoo. Very irresponsible.
Horrie of course the DELPW manage parks that is why they are doing this SBC park project upgrade.
We know who is managing this upgrade and it's obviously deliberately removed from egos and the politics of pseudo science guess work.
I'm sure anyone who sees themselves as a stakeholder of this project (for example….police descendants, Kelly descendants and SBC theorists) would no doubt be welcome to register their interest.
Bill must be sitting back waiting for his phone call.
Ned Kelly tattoos – a short life and a merry one! Orr has it become a rebel yell? Genepool had my "Ned Kelly's Last Words" article, so they knew the statistics from Roger Byard's research, if they didn't previously. But we have the "live fast, die young" crowd, and the "hope I die before I get old" gang from the 60's. People are people…
Sorry Stuart you have lost me?
I now have the proof it's a con job.
I was told by CSI team member that " there is work already commenced by independent organisations which WILL verify the claims of the respective champions of Particular locations" . I took this at face value,to mean that there is currently an investigation underway of the two sites – there ARE only two sites and only TWO 'champions' namely CSI and Bill – and that a conclusion was yet to be arrived at. The newspaper article also gave the impression the stakeholders were being consulted , and after that, works were "expected to start later this year"
My concern to start with was that the process was going ahead and Bill was being excluded. That impression was allowed to stand by Anonymous commenters who clearly are keeping secrets about what they know.
But now look what has appeared in my Inbox : quotes from a Forum that no longer accepts new members but is clearly a place where CSI members and supporters converse. This is from over TWO YEARS AGO: (abridged)
Thomas McIntyre 29/12/2014 5.23pm
OHMS A telegram has arrived…reads as follows:
Have you heard? The police murder site has at last been agreed by the forces at play. The site will be officially signposted sometime 2016 or 2017, the signposts have been commissioned …..
Fitzy 31/12/14 1142am
A Big and hearty congratulations to the CSI@SBC team. …How can we get a picture of the look on a certain persons face when this is officially done
Kelvyn 31/12/14 5.19pm
So it seems there is appropriate actions to have the Stringybark Creek site correctly identified. The CSI team thank all of you who provided help and information whch has been used to ensure that every thing known about the site has been used in the teams deliberations
And of course too the teams thanks for those "true believers" who reached the same conclusion as the team….."
So it appears this was all sorted out two years ago behind closed doors between CSI and the "true believers", long before Adam Ford was ever involved, and what's happening now is indeed a swindle. There's no evaluation going on, no genuine scientific investigations of the claims of the " respective champions" just a search for something to try to provide a fig leaf of scientific respectability to the absurd pseudoscientific garbage produced by the duds of the CSI team. Sorry Kelvyn, I still admire your dedication in producing the Definitive Record, but the CSI report is nonsense, and I am disappointed in the subterfuge and secrecy that you and your team have been engaged in for the last couple of years to try to discredit your former colleague Bill, who has worked tirelessly and with great openness and honesty to explain his discoveries to everyone without favour. Engaging documentary maker celebrities to promote your cause was a masterly tactic, if silencing Bill was your sole aim, but it does nothing for the failed logic and the muddled reasoning and pseudoscience of the Report.
You're busted, CSI.
At last that excellent band of sleuths going by the name of CSI@SBC will be well recognised for their work. I thank them for their perseverance and diligence"
That last comment was part of Kelvyns post on the Members Only Forum. They've been sitting on this for two years.
It had to be our new time-wasting pest, didn't it:
Anonymous 10 March 2017 at 19:05
Be prepared to be blasted by a SBC revelation….you may not be so impressed Dee by Bill's so called 'scientific' SBC location findings in a couple of months from now.
Nasty stuff. Its on the mrs-kelly-by-grantlee-kieza page.
Oh Dee, you super sleuth and conspiracy generater…but you still have not accepted that CSI, Bill or others may not have anything to do with possibly a new theory. You are now hanging onto something you have dredged up from over a year ago.
If there's a new theory, neither the Two Huts nor the CSI site, lets hear it. So is there one or is this just a diversionary tactic? And explain the secrecy you're sworn to, the remarks from the KC2000 forum from over two years ago, and your attempts to pass off what's currently happening as some sort of evaluation of the claims of the various champions,when it clearly is NOT. A conspiracy is when a group of people agree among themselves to engage in activity they keep secret from everyone else. Sounds like the CSI lot to me – closed membership forum, disinformation,
Kelly students deserved better than the csi@sbc' contrived 'Kelly Tree' SBC site which is woefully inadequate. Listening to Bill would have saved them a tons of grief. But you can't save fools from themselves.
csi@sbc is an unmitigated disaster.
There can't be any 'new theory' Dee. As you have said (and so have I) Bill is right. His 'Two Huts' site has the necessary evidence and the backdrop that matches the contemporary Burman photograph taken just days after the police murders at SBC. None of the two other sites have this. We are being deceived by a small bunch of idiots fixated on imaginary sites.
csi@sbc are just a bunch of old fogeys who couldn't find their backsides using both hands! Their findings are laughably daft. Their 'Kelly Tree' site has NONE of the required evidence – that's ALL at Bill's 'Two Huts' site.
DELWP and Heritage Victoria should get csi@sbc and Genepool to sign contracts that they will make reparations if their new site is wrong. No more wastage of public money.
Its a lot worse than that, Dee. There is considerable deep malevolence involved, and a shocking level of duplicity. Genepool, Heritage Victoria and DELWP would be smart to drop this like a hot potato. Otherwise they will look like the Chinese zoo worker washing the rear of an elephant on tonight's 'World's Most Amazing Videos' (ch 73) when, as described by the show "the elehant backed up and sat on his head". He nearly suffocated, and when pulled out was covered in elephant doo.
Dee you forgot the Ian Jones site which is well signposted, and proof DELWP can't get it right. I don't know of anyone who thinks it is the site of the police camp.
I'm think the metro newspapers might be interested in this spiteful conspiracy. And another nail in Ned's legend coffin.
Sorry Anonymous, it was a reply to Horrie above at 16:53, re the Ned Kelly tatts. Very irresponsible (of me)!
….this definitely is starting to look a lot like the same treatment as last years Ned photo received. "Demanding", "nasty", "personal", "assumptions", "discredit other possible information without letting things take its course", etc.
Just what if there IS other historical evidence, and why are people here trying to hijack that possibility? Shouldn't we be asking other questions and be welcoming potentially new information (in due time)? Why should the rest of Australia believe the fluffed up evidence from here, when it to, still can't actually be scientifically and conclusively proven either? Are some of you worried you might just be proven wrong. Maybe Bill has been sworn to secrecy as well, and he can't say anything either, have you actually considered that? I'm not dismissing any of Bills research, but I am open to other possibilities as well.
Please get over all the negativity and try and be a lot more open minded, and friendlier in your discussions here, because just maybe you might change your minds, maybe!
If this blog/post is any indication no wonder the DELWP have organised an independent investigation….'SBC WARS' are getting a bit boring and it looks like it's more about 'egos' than supporting a new investigation of the site which may reveal to us all some conclusion to the various theories.
Horrie, some very nasty stuff from you…"a bunch of old fogeys who couldn't find their backsides using both hands".
If there is to be an 'independent investigation' who will be carrying it out and why the need for secrecy?
James, you have been taken in if you think there actually is an independent organisation making an evaluation of the various sites, consulting all the 'stakeholders' and has new evidence and a new site to be revealed. That because over TWO YEARS AGO CSI were told it was all done and dusted. Whats happening now is an attempt to clothe the decision made over two years ago in some sort of legitimacy, by pretending that a fair process of evaluation has been entered into. But the result was decided upon two years ago. Adam Ford has been wheeled in to make a Documentary and give further credibility, by the adoption of his eminence and celebrity status, to the decision that was made long ago, presumably then on the basis of Ian Jones lending his own weight to the issue, and on the basis of some politicking by CSI – it certainly couldn't be on the basis that their Report was regarded as credible. I'll put up a new Post a little later which explains what I mean, and I will be most interested to read your response to it.
I say again, I am not afraid of Bill being wrong. or the CSI team being right, or there being evidence that places the Campsite somewhere else. What I am really incensed about is the secretive way this debate has been hijacked by CSI who are now pretending theres a process of evaluation going on, and when its done we will have an answer. James, they already have their answer and it was decided two years ago. What I am afraid of is the suppression of a theory and of facts and argunents that make sense by a group who have a different and non-sensical theory, determined to advance their ideas at all cost.And the cost here is that once again the sacred site of Police murder at SBC is going to misidentified.
Perhaps Dee as has been explained before any others who consider themselves stakeholders only need to make contact.
What is the issue?… do you think the DELWP has a list of private emails and phone contact numbers for Bill, CSI, Dee, Horrie and James….etc.
This is very irresponsible blogging Dee, although it does give your blog some click bait drama.
One thing that has me puzzled is why is Bill so quiet on this? I would assume that by now he is well aware of what we are discussing here.
You're quite wrong. The issue is that if an independent organisation decides that it wants to 'verify the claims of the respective champions' if it intends to a thorough and professional job it ought to make sure it involves all the stakeholders. How else is any stakeholder supposed to know that an organisation is doing such an investigation unless the organisation contacts them, or publicly advertises for expressions of interest from 'stakeholders'? If the organisation doing the investigation only involves stakeholders who contact it, and makes no attempt to ensure all the relevant stakeholders are involved, and more or less goes about its work in secret, then the investigation becomes a sham, and its results meaningless. Thats whats happening here.
Dee the information about the upgrade is from a public media statement from DELWP. Sharon and Ned Kelly Central have alerted us to this. Stakeholders would no doubt be welcome to make contact. DELWP would not have individual potential stakeholders contact details and if people are waiting to be contacted then they will most probably be disappointed.
The TV documentary may reveal more, as suggested by anonymous, I think we wait and see what develops from this first.
I do not support your histrionic posting and maintain that it is irresponsible to create unnecessary divisions with those that have different views. It is not some conspiracy by a government department but I believe more a fantasy by a blogger with intent to create reaction.
Please can you explain why CSI members on their members only Blog were congratulating themselves TWO YEARS ago that it had ben decided that the CSI site was to be recognised, and were gloating about how Bill would react when he finally got to hear about it? And also, please explain why those same people lately are saying there is an ongoing 'evaluation' involving Stakeholders? Either their gloating and self-congratulations were premature, or if not, the claims about a current evaluation are a sham. Whats it to be?
And then maybe you can defend the CSI teams interpretation of the Burman photo?
Yes Dee it's all very political isn't it.
I would explain it as similar to how you and others appear to gloat on this site when defaming or character assassinating others….all very childish and histrionic really.
Why don't you adddress the point? Were they celebrating prematurely or is the 'evaluation' involving stakeholders a sham? What you really want to happen is for there to be no public awareness of whats going on behind closed doors until such time as its all a fait accompli, and as we all know with Government departments, change happens at glacial pace, so once the signs are up, nothing will change again for years. It will be an absolute disgrace and dishonouring to slain police if the visitors are directed to the wrong place YET AGAIN , to a site, 'identified' by shonky science, like the example I posted yesterday of their absurd analysis of the Burman photos.
The point has been addressed Dee, your are scaremongering without all the facts – just assumptions.
Are you in politics? If not I think you should be. You are impressively good at not answering simple, direct questions.
I have just received the following email from Lucas Russell: "Thank-you for your interest in the project to enhance infrastructure and signage at Stringybark Creek. The project is in its infancy. The media release, which was issued by DELWP recently, aimed to inform the community of the project and also help identify interested stakeholders.
It’s important to note no decisions have been made about potential changes to the site and the views of stakeholders will be considered prior to the commencement of any works. The stakeholder engagement will be run in a transparent way and every effort will be made to present the rationale for decisions made.
As you are aware, it is unlikely a unanimous view will ever be reached regarding the events that took place at Stringybark Creek in 1878, however this project is very much about appropriately reflecting the differing views and perspectives at the Stringybark Creek site. The project will not attempt to make definitive judgements about where events took place. It is hoped the project will provide a relative representation of how events unfolded and present historically accurate information at the existing visitor area.
No new information has been presented to determine the precise location of Sergeant Kennedy's death and the proposal for a new walking track in the vicinity of Sergeant Kennedy's death is one idea stakeholders will be asked to contemplate. While the intent of the project is to enhance infrastructure and signage at Stringybark Creek, the idea of a walk to the Kelly camp can be included as an option for stakeholders to think about.
If you do not have any objection, you will be added to the list of stakeholders we will consult and work with to undertake the project.
Bill Denheld has made contact with the project team and will be consulted as part of the process. We look forward to his valuable insights.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions about the project.
Regards
Lucas"
I suppose we have to take Lucas's word that "… no decisions have been made about potential changes to the site and the views of stakeholders will be considered prior to the commencement of any works. The stakeholder engagement will be run in a transparent way and every effort will be made to present the rationale for decisions made." So I am feeling somewhat more comfortable about the project. I have requested that i be added to the stakeholder's list and kept informed.
Spudee well done, this is terrific news, exactly what we have all been hoping for, and a major setback for the CSI people. I asked the question of anonymous, were they celebrating prematurely or was the evaluation a sham and now we know – they were congratulating themselves two years ago that it was all done and dusted and that their site was about to be recognised formally, but now we learn from Official sources the investigation is still in its infancy! – its not a sham, and the CSI people were way out of line patting themselves on the back 2 years ago! The documentary is a side issue – its a commercial venture, no doubt will sensationalise various aspects of all the Outlaw stories, and like most commercial entertainments of this kind may well play rather loosely with the truth. Nothing new in that – Kelly documentaries have forever been loose with the truth, but ti will be interesting to see what they come up with.
I think we should thank Sharon for bringing this news release to our attention, because as a result DELWP have received a wealth of information that the CSI people would never have given them, they will I think now realise the genuine merits of Bills research and how widely its supported, and they are also being made aware of the dubious nature of the CSI 'research' and hopefully in the fullness of time will not be persuaded by their burls, their smudgy photo interpretation and unscientific approach to the site.
What we have been wanting all along, and it seems will now get is a fair and balanced hearing for the Two Huts site. It will beat the CSI site hands down in a fair contest!
Bring it on!
Well there you go Spudee, the DELWP are not operating behind closed doors! Stakeholders are welcome, so are new theories and old theories of the site. (Dee I hope your listening now and not reading more into this harmless reply from Lucas)
Although Spudee, whether Bill was involved or not is really his private information and I feel perhaps you could have asked him first if he wanted this to be known.
My mistake was to think that the CSI people knew what they were talking about when they shared amongst themselves some news that it was all done and dusted late 2014. I thought at least Kelvyn wouldn't have been taken in by gossip and 'fake news' but seems I was mistaken.
However I believe that by bringing this issue to everyone's attention on the Blog Two Huts might now get a fair hearing after all. Remember when Peter Newman wrote to them only a few days ago they denied knowing who Bill Denheld was? Now they know about him, they know about the Two Huts site and they know the CSI site is totally dodgy.
Spudee's quote from DELWP, that "It is hoped the project will provide a relative representation of how events unfolded and present historically accurate information at the existing visitor area", raises a new kettle of fish. There are only 2 versions of what took place. One is McIntyre's, which pro-Kelly enthusiasts have tried to discredit for years as self-contradictory, mostly over the question of whether or not Lonigan drew his revolver, or made a move to do so from it's buttoned down holster. This apparently affects the "self-defence" argument advanced by Ned Kelly; although it is hard to see how Kelly thinks that his advancing on someone with a rifle aimed at them becomes self-defence for the assailant when the target reaches for his weapon. If anyone acted in self-defence in that scenario, logically it was Lonigan trying unsuccessfully to draw his revolver.
The other version is Ned Kelly's. That suggests that a "relative representation" of events likely means giving Kelly's statements equal weight with McIntyre's. I can't see this blowing over soon!
Anonymous, I have changed my mind. I don't think you are or were in politics, it sounds more like some sort of secret service given your obvious propensity for the world of mirrors. If Bill's involvement is some sort of secret squirrel stuff, why would Lucas Russell have acknowledged Bill's apparent involvement.
I had also asked the Heritage Council, in light of the recent DELWP press release, if it, the Council, had received any application for archaeological work to be carried out in the SBC Heritage area. I asked this as there had been mention of Adam Ford being associated with the Foxtel series, The Real Bushrangers.
I have just received the following from Jeremy Smith, Principal Archeologist with the DELWP and Heritage Victoria:
" Your email about proposed works at Stringybark Creek was forwarded to the archaeology team at Heritage Victoria for comment.
It will be necessary for a Heritage Act permit to be obtained to authorise any significant changes at the Stringybark Creek site. As you are aware it is included on the Victorian Heritage Register. Heritage Act permits are assessed and issued by the Executive Director, Heritage Victoria.
I understand that DELWP have been working with various stakeholders, including Victoria Police and police descendants, with a view to updating some of the interpretative elements at Stringybark and perhaps introducing some new features and infrastructure.
Heritage Victoria has not received any application for a permit, and has not received details of the proposed changes.
It is likely that Heritage Victoria will require the details of the proposal to be publicly advertised when it is received, and I'm sure there will be a high level of public and stakeholder interest, from across the Kelly spectrum!
From my preliminary understanding of the proposed changes, I do not think that a reconsideration of the signage in relation to the location of key events is one of the main issues being considered – it is more about a more respectful or sensitive presentation of the police story.
I encourage you to make a submission once the permit is advertised, and the details of the proposal are known.
regards
Jeremy."
This seems to be an assurance that should Adam Ford, or anyone else connected to Foxtel's series, or in fact any archaeological works at SBC, will need to apply for an appropriate permit. This in turn will be advertised. To me this augurs well for any future projects at SBC.
" This apparently affects the "self-defence" argument advanced by Ned Kelly; although it is hard to see how Kelly thinks that his advancing on someone with a rifle aimed at them becomes self-defence for the assailant when the target reaches for his weapon. If anyone acted in self-defence in that scenario, logically it was Lonigan trying unsuccessfully to draw his revolver." How come nobody has raised this very basic and simple element of the Kelly 'self-defence' argument before? Nice one Stuart.
"The Kelly Gang Unmasked" book denounced this very issue. Justice Barry also mentioned this furphy in his summing up (also discussed in the book). I can't provide page numbers to help you, as I have lent my copy to a pal.
Gary, Barry's comment is at p.141. Here Berry doesn't specifically address 'self defence' but talks about the 4 outlaws being involved in a joint enterprise; that is, to hold up and rob the police. So if murder occurred during this enterprise, then all four were equally guilty of murder. Barry also pointed out the fact that the evidence showed that Ned had taken (bird) shot from the police shotgun cartridges, replacing it with round shot. While the judge didn't specifically mention it, by doing this Kelly had converted the gun from one that could wound, to one that could kill. Good evidence of premeditation.
But the point Stuart is making and one which I support, is that in the moment when Ned pointed a weapon at Lonigan in a firing position, demanding the officer surrender, Lonigan was well within the law to fire first in self defence. This is the only example of 'self defence' which can be raised about what happened at SBC.
My pal faxed me page 141. I see there that Barrister Bindon never advanced a self-defence plea at the trial, but later authors like John Phillips (a later Chief Justice of Victoria) did so in his 'The Trial of Ned Kelly' in 1987. The lame self-defence theory was thus concocted by later pro-Kelly writers, and had never been presented at Ned's trial. We were misled almost from the beginning of the modern Kelly hoax era.
No wonder Ian Jones hated that book and foolishly advised author Peter Fitzsimons to ignore it. Then there's that guy who started a FB hate page against the book…groan.
On Ned Kelly Central I see there is some further discussion.
Mick Fitzy thinks it will be up DELWP to decide on historical sites. Leigh Olver assumes the Herald Sun article was initiated by persons with a particular point of view like me!
Apparently the Herald Sun took up the story following the Riverine Herald – DELWP article 9 Mar, and Dee's Ned Kelly Blog write-up 12Mar all very visible on the web. The journalist Aaron contacted Leo and myself. He was aware of the Age article 'Kelly Victims' 11April 2015. I emphasised he should contact all involved including CSI group, Adam Ford- Dig International, and DELWP. Since that time Lucas Russell -DELWP revised its position in the northern papers.
DELWP are managers of the forest and don't make any decisions about historical sites. DELWP take instructions from Heritage Victoria who issue permits for any historical site works. Any work is strictly under supervision of a qualified archaeologist approved by Heritage Vic. Heritage principle Jeremy Smith has said no permits have been issued, so if that's the case no works should have taken place on which DELWP could have announced their plans in the Riverine Herald article of the 9 Mar, wherein it clearly states walking trails are planned to the Kennedy site to be completed later this year, but from where do they start, that is the question?
Without a proper evaluation of all the evidence by impartial archaeologists and photo forensic experts, as well as primary source evidence, there is always a danger of popular TV program production companies 'who pay archaeologists' to perform investigations that looks sciency, the public and the authorities could well be hoodwinked again, as seems currently the case with SBC.
Its quite clear whatever announcements made about the walking trails extensions by DELWP, these have originated from the work Leo and I conducted three years ago and reported in The Age April 2015.
Like you Bill, I too have concerns about the impartiality of any archaeologist used for a reexamination of the SBC. The fact that the newspaper article about what the DELWP was proposing to do at the site surfaced around the same time as media announcements about the Foxtel bushrangers series is a little suspicious. I personally have fears that if Foxtel uses a contracted archaeologist such as Adam Ford in relation to the Kelly aspect of the series, any findings may be seen as commercially tainted and biased. As you say, a TV production might give an impression of professional archaeological work but be superficial in its findings. To my way of thinking there needs to be some serious unbiased historical input into whatever research is carried out at the site.
Click here to read two versions of Doubt on Kelly site
The Herald Sun article ran in Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, and NT.