327 replies to this topic

[paintedfinch]

i might babble Budding Colombo but i do know the facts. don't patronise me. a couple of days ago you challenged me about my reservations surrounding the conduct of the police investigation - today you are intimating they planted false evidence. anything to promote your position. doesn't matter how many times you study the case if you keep discarding sworn testimony & basic facts. Arrell, Durham, Toomey & Urquhart made massive blunders. Archibald Mestors & his black trackers were unanimous "about one man". the minister, the commissioner and Urquhart refused to act on their report. now i get condescending kissies - your character is apparently as flawed as your "misleading" frantic attempts to help you perpetuate the sordid mess. what facts have i wrong BD ? ian.

[paintedfinch]

another hundred or so folk are following this again today. but no contributions...i find that very sad. in my mind silence encourages manipulation by those who hold their opinion in high (no - indisputable) esteem. unlike BC/SB i'll throw my hands up & aplogise profusely if i've strayed from fact. his e-book must conclude that the ficticious "Thomas Day" or person/persons unknown committed this "hell on earth" for the three Murphy kids. if he intimates any member of the Murphy clan was present in Moran's paddock on that night, i will personally take legal action against such an outrage. simple as that. your call Budding Colombo - you didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to let the Murphy descendants know who their latest sniper really is. sleep in my friend - your crusade has reached conclusion....now you must be able to "PROVE" what you print publicly. i believe i know the sexually based tact you intend taking here. do so at your peril. people's lives aren't a little playground set aside for whimsical budding Colombos. ian.

[Budding Colombo]

paintedfinch, on 24 June 2010 - 10:55 AM, said:

another hundred or so folk are following this again today. but no contributions...i find that very sad. in my mind silence encourages manipulation by those who hold their opinion in high (no - indisputable) esteem. unlike BC/SB i'll throw my hands up & aplogise profusely if i've strayed from fact. his e-book must conclude that the ficticious "Thomas Day" or person/persons unknown committed this "hell on earth" for the three Murphy kids. if he intimates any member of the Murphy clan was present in Moran's paddock on that night, i will personally take legal action against such an outrage. simple as that. your call Budding Colombo - you didn't even have the intestinal fortitude to let the Murphy descendants know who their latest sniper really is. sleep in my friend - your crusade has reached conclusion....now you must be able to "PROVE" what you print publicly. i believe i know the sexually based tact you intend taking here. do so at your peril. people's lives aren't a little playground set aside for whimsical budding Colombos. ian.

Hi Ian, I really don't understand what has got you so pi**ed.
The information I have compiled is freely available and anyone who has a few hundred hour to spare can collect it for themselves all I intend doing is presenting the whole of the information with heaps of pics, in one spot and allowing the reader to make their mind up as to what occurred that night or early morning.
http://trove.nla.gov...=Gatton Murders
So I really don't see where you are coming from.
This tragedy happened over a hundred and 10 years ago as you well know with many books a song and poetry written about the tragedy, so I suppose you will take legal action against them also, or have you decided to single me out.
Why not take up my offer of a free copy and decide for yourself.
I have my own view and don't intend to recveal what that is unless I can prove it, which I think would be an impossibility all anyone can probably do is come up with a feasible theory at best.
And as you well know there are already plenty of those about.
Maenwhile good luck my friend.

[Budding Colombo]

Budding Colombo, on 24 June 2010 - 09:15 AM, said:

I truly do not get your point about an assault on the family.
I have simply disected the available information and analaysed it.
Time and time again.
You on the other hand just babble ****.
xxxx

Hi mate my eyes can see because I look.

[paintedfinch]

one must bow to mind-numbing disinterest Budding Colombo. i see you as a bit like the shooting gallery at the ekka. tin ducks going in circles just begging to be "knocked down". the readers here just sponge along, not even forking out the price of a "go" at the ducks or me. you have had the courage to carry this through...i have no alternative but to respect your dedication to your beliefs (although incorrect). obviously Murphy descendants, friends etc. have no past ghosts haunting them - i'll always accept the facts about the case..so we'll never gel Steve. the forum belongs to you and the silent folk here. don't want a free copy thanks. ian.

[paintedfinch]

obviously the hundred folk following this aren't Murphy people, but either 1) descendants of the 30 or 40 people who refused to abide by the lawful (at least 3 times) direction to stop trampling all over the evidence..or 2) those with hands down their undies eternally hoping something "hot" turns up. the biggest passion in my life is following Dylan tours around the world....remember "Like A Rolling Stone" - "you shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you". now you've let this issue die...go over & see if the gumnut fairies really did that with snugglepot & cuddlepie. my belief in others has simply evaporated. "babbling idiot".

[Budding Colombo]

paintedfinch, on 25 June 2010 - 10:25 AM, said:

one must bow to mind-numbing disinterest Budding Colombo. i see you as a bit like the shooting gallery at the ekka. tin ducks going in circles just begging to be "knocked down". the readers here just sponge along, not even forking out the price of a "go" at the ducks or me. you have had the courage to carry this through...i have no alternative but to respect your dedication to your beliefs (although incorrect). obviously Murphy descendants, friends etc. have no past ghosts haunting them - i'll always accept the facts about the case..so we'll never gel Steve. the forum belongs to you and the silent folk here. don't want a free copy thanks. ian.

Nobody alive today is responsible for the actions of their forebears.
I know the author of one of the books personally, and prior to reading the book about 3 years ago, I had never heard of the “Gatton Tragedy” or “Oxley Murder.”
As the boy Alfred Stephen Hill mentioned in the book was murdered not far from where I live it piqued my interest and at the time of reading I thought I’d do a bit of research and found that most of the stuff ever printed on his murder was BS.
I stopped that research when I was contacted by a person who knew much more than I did at the time about that case and is in fact writing a book about it.
As the “Gatton Tragedy” occcured about the same time in history I began researching that.
The hardest thing is to establish a motive and why the later bungles (police and medical and perhaps political.)
It finally became apparent that the first so called post-mortem was far from thorough.
And that the friction in the police force was astronomical (Masons V Irish.)
Set in a time when the Pasturalist government was in danger of losing its iron clad grip on power in the 1899 elections, the restructuring of the police and Gatton had been a jewels in its crown.
Also at a time when the colonies were contemplating federation which may be jepordised if a Labour government was elected.
To put it simply they needed the Irish vote if they were to have any chance of winning.
The “Gatton Tragedy” was initially seen as a great opportunity for the government to show its compassion for the Irish however this opportunity soon turned against them I feel when the facts of the case were revealed to them and they then needed the police to fail.
Why were most of the major so called bunglers later promoted and not demoted or banished from the force as the members of the police commission in 1889 advised?
Sorry for the long reply but it is all very complex.
Quack, Quack.

[Budding Colombo]

paintedfinch, on 25 June 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

obviously the hundred folk following this aren't Murphy people, but either 1) descendants of the 30 or 40 people who refused to abide by the lawful (at least 3 times) direction to stop trampling all over the evidence..or 2) those with hands down their undies eternally hoping something "hot" turns up. the biggest passion in my life is following Dylan tours around the world....remember "Like A Rolling Stone" - "you shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you". now you've let this issue die...go over & see if the gumnut fairies really did that with snugglepot & cuddlepie. my belief in others has simply evaporated. "babbling idiot".

In connection with the late visit of the Police Commission to Gatton, the special reporter of the "'Queensland Times," –who was present on the occasion, writes: The commissioners remarked that they were very glad indeed that they had been afforded an opportunity of visiting the spot, as they got an altogether different impression of the place and its environments from that which they had previously formed. Moreover, they added that it was absurd to talk of one man keeping a crowd of people off the ground at time when, such an awful discovery was made. "Why," said Mr. Garvin, "I question whether a score of armed policemen, could have succeeded in doing so."

[fatbadger2]

Just a minor point I feel I should raise. Paintedfinch you seem to want more than 1 thing from this tread and the many people reading it. You say people should take into account as much evidence as possible before making a comment on the case but then complain that nobody is commenting with what have to be, in my opinion, a quick decision on an ultimately very complex subject. I'm sure many people,like myself, are taking some of their free time (of which I have a very limited amount) to make at the very least an informed jumpin off point on which to start basing a conclusion.

I'm not trying to cause a ruckus or anything and I have only recently taken a deeper interest in this sort of subject so I and other may just need a little longer to start pieceing together the many,many very difficult,delicate and incredibly complex pieces of this case. I have much respect for you obviously very thourough interest in the subject but please give us amateurs a chance to catch up! I will be more than happy to throw my hat into the ring as soon as I'm sure I am not throwing around alegations or opinions without basis in absolute fact.

Cheers man

The fat badger

[Budding Colombo]

fatbadger2, on 28 June 2010 - 11:25 PM, said:

Just a minor point I feel I should raise. Paintedfinch you seem to want more than 1 thing from this tread and the many people reading it. You say people should take into account as much evidence as possible before making a comment on the case but then complain that nobody is commenting with what have to be, in my opinion, a quick decision on an ultimately very complex subject. I'm sure many people,like myself, are taking some of their free time (of which I have a very limited amount) to make at the very least an informed jumpin off point on which to start basing a conclusion.

I'm not trying to cause a ruckus or anything and I have only recently taken a deeper interest in this sort of subject so I and other may just need a little longer to start pieceing together the many,many very difficult,delicate and incredibly complex pieces of this case. I have much respect for you obviously very thourough interest in the subject but please give us amateurs a chance to catch up! I will be more than happy to throw my hat into the ring as soon as I'm sure I am not throwing around alegations or opinions without basis in absolute fact.

Cheers man

The fat badger

Hi mate. Thanks for your input. You are correct it is an extremely intricate case. I have gathered all the information I can on the subject and feel I have a pretty good idea as to what happened. Most of what I have gathered has been disected and is available free at gattonmurders.com. I intend putting up the full story as reported at the time for a small fee of about $15.00 to help support the cost of the site, it contains heaps of pics and is 336 pages of not so easy reading and is not everybodies cup of tea, but I feel the answer is there. I know the police have information that they are very reluctant to part with even to this day, and as soon as I get a chance I am going to see if I can get a look at what they have been sitting on for a long time.

[paintedfinch]

thanks for chipping in fatbadger2. i've been wrong far more often than right in this life...sad but very true. all i say is - eliminate the principal suspect in any crime - & you're then free to persue all even remotely involved. i only take exception at people wanting payment for their simple opinion. the bloke going by "tom day" was a fit, large, young (i believe armed) man. more than enough for unsuspecting passers-by. i have never read one recorded piece of evidence/testimony that could possibly eliminate him....but the police thankfully made a mess of it so far as the conspiracy theorists are concerned. look at the vast majority of insidious killers over the centuries on all continents. cunning like foxes...but usually get caught. so if "day" is out, we have the most intelligent, brilliantly planned & executed multiple murder history has seen apart from "the ripper". Gatton 1898 must have been the global hub of criminal activity & full of criminal masterminds.....i don't think so.

[paintedfinch]

i reckon your e-book hangs on one word Budding Colombo. one post you applaud the police...the next you attack them. Garvin had his outrageous say on the citizens & police in the paddock on that terrible day. Sergeant Arrell set the wheels of incompetence in motion...his sworn duty as a police officer was to preserve a crime (and this was a BIG one) scene for investigation. 30 or 40 people stomped all over it but Arrell didn't take one name or even get physically harmed defending that very "sacred" ground. a paid servant of the public can not behave in such a cowardly manner...but he did - as did Toomey, Urquhart & most civil servants afterwards. the "facts/testimony" show this to be irrefutable. we all love a lusty tale of revenge, family conflict, incest, mystery & carnage (actually i don't). this one is so very obvious. one word Budding Colombo......accident ? incest? misadventure ? you've no idea ?. it was "tom day" my friend....history, statistics, evidence & testimony (that the police didn't go out to taint) say so very loudly indeed.

[Budding Colombo]

paintedfinch, on 30 June 2010 - 11:34 AM, said:

i reckon your e-book hangs on one word Budding Colombo. one post you applaud the police...the next you attack them. Garvin had his outrageous say on the citizens & police in the paddock on that terrible day. Sergeant Arrell set the wheels of incompetence in motion...his sworn duty as a police officer was to preserve a crime (and this was a BIG one) scene for investigation. 30 or 40 people stomped all over it but Arrell didn't take one name or even get physically harmed defending that very "sacred" ground. a paid servant of the public can not behave in such a cowardly manner...but he did - as did Toomey, Urquhart & most civil servants afterwards. the "facts/testimony" show this to be irrefutable. we all love a lusty tale of revenge, family conflict, incest, mystery & carnage (actually i don't). this one is so very obvious. one word Budding Colombo......accident ? incest? misadventure ? you've no idea ?. it was "tom day" my friend....history, statistics, evidence & testimony (that the police didn't go out to taint) say so very loudly indeed.

Hello again.
You seem totally convinced it was day.
At the inquiry, Sergeant Walter King, stationed at Laidley, deposed to going to Gatton and making inquiries.
He did suspect some persons as a result; but he did not care (or was told not) to give names.
He reported the matter to both Sub-inspector Percy Dumas Fead Galbraith and Inspector Frederic Charles Urquhart, but he never gave any information about the man Day.
Mr. Meston was questioned at some length concerning the tracks, and he mentioned another track. He declined to indicate publicly what his theory was, and whom he suspected; but, he offered to place his report before the Police Commission. His theory was also held by some of the men in the force.
The Chairman said the Commission did not care for anything unless it was something that the police did not act upon.
Mr. Meston said it was for the trackers to give the information to the police.
Subsequently Mr. Meston came back, and said the track that went round the ridge to the bodies was the same track that came from the bodies in a triangular way to the sliprails.
The most important of which was that of Mr. Archibald Meston in charge of the black trackers. He said all the trackers came to the same conclusion.
Did T. Day have a horse?

[Budding Colombo]

Budding Colombo, on 30 June 2010 - 07:33 PM, said:

Hello again.
You seem totally convinced it was day.
At the inquiry, Sergeant Walter King, stationed at Laidley, deposed to going to Gatton and making inquiries.
He did suspect some persons as a result; but he did not care (or was told not) to give names.
He reported the matter to both Sub-inspector Percy Dumas Fead Galbraith and Inspector Frederic Charles Urquhart, but he never gave any information about the man Day.
Mr. Meston was questioned at some length concerning the tracks, and he mentioned another track. He declined to indicate publicly what his theory was, and whom he suspected; but, he offered to place his report before the Police Commission. His theory was also held by some of the men in the force.
The Chairman said the Commission did not care for anything unless it was something that the police did not act upon.
Mr. Meston said it was for the trackers to give the information to the police.
Subsequently Mr. Meston came back, and said the track that went round the ridge to the bodies was the same track that came from the bodies in a triangular way to the sliprails.
The most important of which was that of Mr. Archibald Meston in charge of the black trackers. He said all the trackers came to the same conclusion.
Did T. Day have a horse?

Did you put the rose or gerberas on the grave?

[paintedfinch]

sadly i did not Colombo - and i'm ashamed of it...i was to go to Gatton with my dear old mum & sister. but i didn't get there. seem to be getting out less & less these days. when i lay flowers i want something positive to offer those young folk. who knows if "day" had a gun, horse or sybian about..he wasn't in Gatton long enough for anyone to know. you keep quoting police "ramblings" which were always designed to divert attention away from their "brain explosion" in letting "day" potter off. if it was not "day" or a person/persons passing through the area without attracting attention....who the hell could you possibly incriminate with NO evidence. you promote your soap-opera solution, then go on to say you "feel the answer" is being deliberately retained by the police. you don't have that by your own admission - you have probably spent more time on this than most (obviously including me) but you've never chosen to admit the obvious & shake your head at the police disgrace which they made certain will be remebered as "The Gatton Mystery". no mystery my friend....if you have singular proof another did this thing, just type a name. i'll buy 20 copies myself if you can prove anyone other than "day" was the culprit. ian.