Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Lilith Immaculate

The Gatton Murder Mystery

343 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Hi again,

Thanks for your input. Sorry about yet another long winded reply.

THE TIME OF DEATH. (They entered the paddock about 9:35 and would have arrived the spot at about 10:00

JOHN WIGGINS, a dairy farmer, living three miles (5 km) from Gatton along the Tent Hill-road, deposed that he left Gatton with his brother on horseback at 10 o'clock on Boxing Night, passing Moran's slip-rails at about twenty minutes past 10. They had three dogs with them, which went sniffing inside the rails,

WILLIAM WIGGINS, brother of the previous witness, deposed that when they came to Moran's slip-rails the black dog ran under the rails and sniffed.. This was about 10.30 o'clock.

(IT APPEARS THEY HEARD AND SAW NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY) Making it seem to me that death occurred between 10:00 and 10:30.

FATHER, FATHER.

LOUISA THEURKAUF, a domestic servant, now residing with her brother at Deep Gully, nine miles (14 km) from Gatton, aged about 20 years, said that at Christmas time she was in the employ of Mr. Clarke, a butcher, who lives on the Tent Hillroad, near Gatton. She knew Moran's paddock. It was not quite half-a-mile (0.8 km) from Clarke's to the sliprails. Clarke's paddock would adjoin Moran's except for a little lane between. One could see into part of Moran's from Clarke's.

She remembered Boxing Day. She stayed at home at Clarke's that evening, and went to bed at 9 o'clock. She stayed awake, and heard the clock strike 10. Mr. Clarke said the clock was right. After hearing the clock strike she got up to put the cat out of the kitchen, and opened the back door, facing Moran's paddock.

She heard a shot go off while at the door. It came from the direction of Moran's paddock. She also heard another shot. There was about a couple of minutes between them. She heard two screams, which came from the same direction as the shots. The screams were two or three minutes after the last shot. It was like a lady screaming. It was a still night. She thought all the screams were from the same voice, there being no difference in tone. The first scream was louder than the second. In the first the only word witness heard was "Father." That word was used both times. She did not hear it very plainly, but she was sure about it. She stood at the door listening for about ten minutes. She did not hear anything more, and did not wake any one up to tell them what she had heard, but went to bed.

She heard nothing further that night.

CATHERINE BYRNE, aged about 23 years, living with her parents at Lower Tent Hill. She said she knew Moran's paddock slip-rails. On the evening of last Boxing

Day she was at her home, about a mile and a quarter (2 km) from the slip-rails.

She knew the locality well.

Between half-past 9 and 10 o'clock that night she was on the veranda of her home, facing Moran's paddock. She went inside about 10 o'clock or a little after. While on the veranda she heard screams, which were loud at first, but they gradually died away, and the sound of a shot came from the direction of Moran's paddock. She only

heard one report of a firearm. The screams and the shot were very close together. She did not take any notice of the screams, as she thought they came from some children playing or from some young people going along the Tent Hill-road.

One could hear voices, if they were raised, from the Tent Hill-road at her home.

The clock was about right, She judged the time was correct by the train arriving while she was on the verandah, that would be the half past nine train, it was a calm, still night. She did not draw anyones' attention to what she heard.

Only her father was in the house, and he was asleep.

The shout was a loud and quick one.

A GANG. VOLUNTARY ENTRY.

THOMAS WILSON, a blacksmith and Magistrate. A thorough examination was made, but there was no indication of a struggle or how many persons had been engaged in the tragedy, or how the murderers came or went.

CHARLES GILBERT, licensee of the Brian Boru Hotel, Gatton, deposed. The slip-rails were on the ground, across the entrance. There were wheel tracks turning off the road into the paddock, the turn being gradual.

They got out of the buggy and the other two dismounted. M'Neill was looking at the rails, and said when he got there first the slip-rails were up, but when he came out he left them down. Witness noticed the rails, and saw that the cart had been driven over them. He could see marks on the rails.

SERGEANT WM. ARRELL, The wheel tracks where the rails were lying were disconnected, as if the trap wheels had passed over the rails on the ground.

He followed the wheel tracks back towards Gatton to see if he could find traces of a struggle or fight, but the trap appeared to have been driven without stoppage to the rails.

WM. M'NEILL said he had noticed the tracks before reaching the slip-rails, and saw them turning when some distance away. He did not at first know that they were his tracks. It did not appear as if the trap stopped before it turned in. It appeared as if driving home. He expressed a belief that Michael Murphy was coaxed, not forced, into the paddock where the murders were perpetrated.

THOMAS GEORGE BAILEY, aged 15, residing with his father at Deep Gully, deposed that he slept at his father's house on Boxing Night. He arose at 6 o'clock the following morning, and got a horse and rode into Gatton, passing Moran's slip-rails at half past 7 o'clock. He noticed the slip-rails all up, and also saw wheel tracks turning off into the paddock.

RICHARD JAMES, a chemist, of Gatton, The witness explained how they proceeded to the scene, and described the positions of the bodies. He said, as far as he could see, DEATH OCCURRED IN EACH CASE AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. He could find no footprints round about. (Again making it seem to me that death occurred between 10:00 and 10:30.)

9:30 Got 3 adults off the min road into a deserted paddock.

10:00 Arrived at the scene.

Laid out a rug.

Tied two girls

Shot the horse

Shot Michael

Raped 2 girls

Clubbed 1 girl twice

Clubbed 1 girl once

Clubbed Michael

Leaves undetected by 10:30

What was the motive?

Lust Rape?

If someone is going to go to all this trouble for sexual gratification you would think a lousy few minutes would be a poor result for the effort.

Robbery?

Michael’s gold watch and chain left intact.

Revenge?

Why kill the horse?

Edited by Budding Colombo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

I’m aware of all the information you provided. I think it just affirms my view.

We don’t know how long the murderer took for sure. We know they entered the paddock at 9.30 and the bodies were found the next morning - beyond that there are no facts. It might seem the deaths occurred between 10 and 10.30, and they probably did. I’m sure they were all dead within an hour of each other anyway. Michael and the horse were probably shot straight away – that leaves half an hour to rape and kill the girls. The horse was shot so no-one could attempt escape I would imagine.

Louisa heard 2 gunshots just after 10pm a few minutes apart, then screams (thought she heard “father”) – can’t be sure. Catherine heard screams first (loud then dying away) then one gunshot – very close together in time. So their stories aren’t the same. A little conflicting evidence there – who is right? Obviously there was 2 gunshots at least – we know that for a fact.

M’Neill believed Michael was coaxed not forced – fair enough. Just an opinion. Can’t be proved.

Given Richard James was a chemist, we shouldn’t hold too much weight as to his beliefs as to time of death. He was not a doctor. He might be right, probably is. He might not. I think the time frame is

9.30pm left the road

10pm arrived at scene, shot Michael and the horse.

Between 10 and 10.30 (although he could’ve been around longer) Raped and killed the two girls

Leaves undetected

What was the motive you ask. Who knows? Why did the guy just shoot 12 people dead he didn’t know in a movie theatre? Why did a young man just king hit and kill another young man he didn’t know and had never met before in Kings Cross - unprovoked? There’s a million examples of such attacks/rapes/deaths - are they Mad? Bad? Lust? Sociopathic? Unless they find out who the killer was, we can only speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

I’m aware of all the information you provided. I think it just affirms my view.

We don’t know how long the murderer took for sure. We know they entered the paddock at 9.30 and the bodies were found the next morning - beyond that there are no facts. It might seem the deaths occurred between 10 and 10.30, and they probably did. I’m sure they were all dead within an hour of each other anyway. Michael and the horse were probably shot straight away – that leaves half an hour to rape and kill the girls. The horse was shot so no-one could attempt escape I would imagine.

Louisa heard 2 gunshots just after 10pm a few minutes apart, then screams (thought she heard “father”) – can’t be sure. Catherine heard screams first (loud then dying away) then one gunshot – very close together in time. So their stories aren’t the same. A little conflicting evidence there – who is right? Obviously there was 2 gunshots at least – we know that for a fact.

M’Neill believed Michael was coaxed not forced – fair enough. Just an opinion. Can’t be proved.

Given Richard James was a chemist, we shouldn’t hold too much weight as to his beliefs as to time of death. He was not a doctor. He might be right, probably is. He might not. I think the time frame is

9.30pm left the road

10pm arrived at scene, shot Michael and the horse.

Between 10 and 10.30 (although he could’ve been around longer) Raped and killed the two girls

Leaves undetected

What was the motive you ask. Who knows? Why did the guy just shoot 12 people dead he didn’t know in a movie theatre? Why did a young man just king hit and kill another young man he didn’t know and had never met before in Kings Cross - unprovoked? There’s a million examples of such attacks/rapes/deaths - are they Mad? Bad? Lust? Sociopathic? Unless they find out who the killer was, we can only speculate.

Your hard to convince.

This may be of interest.

February 1973

Patrick Michael Quinn, born 22-11-1882, was interviewed by police detectives in 1973 at St. Vincents Hospital Toowoomba and stated that in 1898 he was residing with his parents at Gatton.

About 6 a.m. on the morning of the 27th December, 1898 QUINN left his home to collect two mares which were in a paddock near Gatton and later in the morning he had been told of the outrage and he went to the scene and assisted to load the bodies of the three deceased into wagons for transportation to Gatton.

He stated that the three persons were lying dead on the ground and the horse was also dead in the sulky and it had been tied to a tree.

He made a close inspection of the sulky and the horse and saw that there was no blood in the sulky and nothing to indicate that any of the three deceased had been injured in that sulky or conveyed in the sulky after injury elsewhere.

The only injury to the horse was the bullet hole to the head and its penis had not been removed or interfered with in any way. He stated that a person named Thomas DAY was employed at CLARKE's Butchery at that time and left the area a couple of weeks later. He was quite definite that DAY was not responsible for the murder, but a William McNEILL was the offender.

He is unable to give any definite reason but this is his sole belief.

Miss Catherine Murphy, born 5th December, 1885, of Winwill via Gatton, was also interviewed and stated that the murders were never discussed in the Murphy residence, and the only thing she knew about the murders was what she had read or what she had been told by outside people.

Upon The Death of Martin Donohoe A Famous Correspondent covered the murders for the West Australian. Written by Spencer Browne. Another Famous Correspondent of his day covered the murders for the Courier Mail.

We were together in South Africa many nights, and lying out under the stars we often talked of the Gatton tragedy, and we had the opinion that it was the job of one man and a bad 'un who had slipped through the hands of the police. And we both believed that if Inspector F. C. Urquhart had had his way the story of the tragedy would have been made plain. (Suggestion of a cover up).

Also the knots are also a bit of a puzzle.

M’NEILLS ACCOUNT OF THE KNOTS

During an interview with M'Neill he showed a reporter how the hands of Norah Murphy had been tied.

It was no novice who tied them. First the handkerchief was placed round one hand and crossed, but not knotted; the other hand was laid over it, crossing at the wrists and back to back; and then the handkerchief ends were brought over and tied.

This knot M'Neill believes was a "granny," and not a "reef" knot, but he is not sure.

It seems almost incredible that a person so ingenious in lashing the hands together so they could not be slipped would finish up with a "granny" unless, indeed, the weak knot was tied so as to avoid suspicion.

This is the type of loose knot used for tying documents as it is easy to undo. Like a knot a priest would tie around his bible or other documents.

Not the type of knot a you would expect to tie a person.

Regards,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having watched the ABC, Australian Story, last night, for the first time, I saw this ' Gatton Murder Mystery episode. Looking for more info I came across this forum. I was/am interested in the various opinions as to who might have committed something so evil. No disrespect, after reading the first many pages here, I was totally put off by some people who are into this personal attack mode on other peoples research/opinion that I had to ' fast forward',

BC, It was interesting reading your research, and it ended there due to Paintedfinch, who has a right to his opinion but his attitude was tedious & plain rude.

Hope more is discussed, as I am sure many people watched the ABC last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested you can listen to a Radio 4BC interview on the subject at http://www.gattonmurders.com/page5.php look for the link.

Regards,

Steve

I didn't think you were allowed to sell anything on this website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the whole thing is just gets weirder and weirder.For one thing, the call of supposedly "Father,Father" might have been one of the girls calling for their parent,their bological father,and not in reference to any priest. B. Secondly, regardless of the Irish in Queensland, and maybe an irish priest being the killer,what would be the motive to cover that fact up? Don't forget, this was still a time of ANTI CATHOLIC SENTIMENT. There were printed various anit-catholic books like Maria Monk's Awful Disclosures, and various others even into the 1900s both in America and England. Would be rather a trimuph to the protestants running the show to say,hey look at what their clergy did.It would disgust a lot of people and make fertile ground for protestant preachers to go around trying to convert Catholics .

Another thing is really strange. Why does Patrick Quinn mention about the horse. He says he saw the horse dead at the sulky,when he helped retrieve the bodies.

No blood in the sulky,and the horse was shot in the head.Fair enough.But here comes the really weird part. He states"The horse had a hole in its head.THE HORSE"S PENIS HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED NOR INTERFERRED WITH????!!!! What the Hades?Why would the killer or killers even if it was supposedly a priest,bother with the horse's penis? If the killer took a souvenir from at least the women,he might take a ribbon from their hair or dresses,a glove(women wore gloves in those days) a stocking , handkerchief, hat pin or some other article of clothing like their bloomers as a rememberance of his dirty deed. he wouldn't take a horse's penis.

The only reason that the whole subject about the horse's penis not being removed or interfered with only makes sense to me in one context. I don't know the area or the victims, but it gives me the idea that he knew something more about the victims than the rest of the public. Interfereing with the horses penis sounds like maybe someone was in the habit of masterbating the horse. All one has to do is type in bestiality in any search engine and one can get all kinds of porn images I imagine of women and men having sex with animals.There have been quite a few cases of this nature now and then in the news. Makes me wonder if the girls did so.maybe the brother also joined in .Or he watched them and later had sex with his sisters afterwords. Maybe the word "Father" was refering to their own father who somehow discovered what was going on and confronted them. Maybe he raped his daughters because he consisdered them whores for doing so. Wouldn't be the first father who sexually abused or raped his own flesh or blood. Not trying to damage the victims reputations, but that IF Quinn made the statement, it's so bizarre that that's the only thing that comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,on page 23 I put forth my theory based on what Patrick Michael Quinn supposedly told the police back in 1973 with regards to helping with the bodies of the Murphys and his obersvation of the horse's body.I wonder if no one has posted anything because I somehow hit a raw nerve, or uncovered something that shouldn't have been.Maybe a priest who has been mentioned before maybe was the killer,and did rape the girls for the reason I stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what significance it would have been in regards to the comments made about the horse in the police report.

In those years things were not as complicated as today, no forensics, no proper investigation so much speculation that a case like this turns into a real mystery.

In my opinion, I believe that the rage and force used in the murders were more personal. Even if this Quinn had an opportunity for a revenge, somehow the brutal attack towards the girls just doesn't seem right with what he was upset about. Another issue which comes to my mind is if this Quinn on the spur of the moment engaged some louts to help him out, I just don't see this happening, because one of them would have in some drunken stupor told someone or let it slip.

I believe that the murders were because of a woman. If Michael was a womaniser, he would have had I presume enough enemies, if he got his neighbor pregnant & ignored the fact in those days I think her family would not only have felt disgraced but p### off enough to hold a tremendous grudge. If the girl died having an abortion, I think the anger and rage would have been far greater than any union issue.

The neighbors had the opportunity to see them go by, they knew the area well. It was one thing to murder Michael, & whoever did it, if they did not want the girls to be witnesses they could have simply shot them, such rage, skull bashing, raping, it somehow sends a powerful message & the accumulated anger would have subsided to some extent with the murders.

Somehow it seems to easy to convict Quinn to the murders, because he was hiding his past, a murderer, held a grudge,? the brutality of the crime does not fit with this man, even with all of the mentioned theories, I find it hard to believe,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2 sisters were gang raped so there had to be more than one perp.

The brother was killed to stop him from trying to save his sisters which makes sense, as does killing the horse so no-one could try to use it to escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, killing the horse so no one escapes/stopping the horse from fleeing alone, logical, it is the other stuff about the horse which I wrote makes no sense, " penis " ect, in my point of view has no relevance

I strongly believe it was family member/s of the neighbor who died having an abortion. who were involved in the murders, that is why it remained a mystery, throughout history we can see that family secrets are the best kept ones, I believe that the family saw this as justice, if their daughter was not only disgraced, but died, this would explain the force & brutality used towards the sisters, they too would never have a family like their daughter, & would pay with their lives, just as their daughter did.

Again, theory that Quinn engaged these other men on the spur of the moment, just does not make sense, Quinn was already a murderer, etc, he was obviously devious and calculated enough to have kept his identity hidden for a long time until Michael outed him, Quinn was reported as saying he was going to kill Michael, does this prove he had something to do with his murder, I think not, in anger people say a lot of things, how many times have you heard a mother saying she was going to kill her kid as he/she didn't clean up his room, & yet that never happens, it is said in anger & despair. This perhaps is not the best of examples, but I merely wish to stress that in anger much is said, and calculated Quinn, if he planned murder would not have announced it, risk hanging?

Quinn told no one of his ' identity change' kept that a secret, why & how would he trust some drunken louts to keep quiet about such brutal murders ? what was he going to do to protect himself from being outed by these people/person, kill them all ? trust them? wait for one or all of them to blackmail him? These known hooligans were mischievous troublemakers, not murderers, how would Quinn get them to build up such a rage to commit such a crime, if they had already been drinking during the day, what would they have been like hours after into the night ? how cautious & willing to listen to Quinn? Why would these hooligans simply agree to do this for him? it was not their argument for them to have such blinding rage towards these girls.

I stress that I believe it would have had to be extreme and blinding rage for this kind of massacre to happen, Quinn had nothing to do with Michael's sisters, I believe that being involved with the union business, he believed himself to be something of a staunch authority, he dealt with men, I do not believe someone of his type would have bothered with arguments or revenge on women, women who at the time were by no means equal to men.

The girls were raped... is this concluded because in the report it stated there was ' semen', on what basis was this concluded? there were no tests done, the bodies were buried soon after. Perhaps it was a case of it looks like rape so it must be semen, conclude the obvious. What if they were not raped, raped as they would have thought in those days, what if the person, in rage, used an object to hurt them, to simply destroy the part of the body which would be able to bare children? it stated somewhere that they had visible deep scratch mark patterns inside the labia & further, if they were raped by these hooligans, who have been drinking at that, how is it possible 2/more people make the same/similar scratches, does this mean one of the drunkards raped both & made the same/similar marks? The smashing of the girls skulls, to the point that they could barely be recognized, this does not seem to align with Quinn's grudge and perhaps revenge seeking against Michael, this would more appear as if someone did not wish these girls to leave this earth in youthful beauty, but disfigured and in some bizarre way violated and disgraced for the whole world to see.

I believe, Michael was made to watch this horrendous action taken against his sisters, alive long enough to witness their pain for a reason. After this, Michael's family, too, were recluse, made to suffer and hurt

In the whole time that I have thought about this crime, I wondered what on earth could make me do something that is totally unimaginable to me, harm to my children would cause and perhaps make me capable of anything, in those days, I think that disgrace that was put upon that family was the start and the her death was the tipping point. Strong families keep secrets, especially if they believe it is for a just cause. Sorry for the long post, just trying to get my point across and I hope that I have not offended anyone with my theory in the process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that at least one of the sisters had been damaged internally as a result of the gang rape. There were bruises and scratch marks on both sets of thighs, which is consistent with their legs being forcibly held open.

I think that you have to believe in Quinn as being the instigator to make that theory work and that scenario, for me, just doesn't work. There were gangs of thugs roaming and terrorising the area.

You get some guys with enough booze in them, just looking to cause trouble. Along comes this guy with 2 women in his buggy and bam.

The perps may well have been from the area. It's not inconceivable that their families protected them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After many years of studying the case I now have pretty good circumstantial evidence as to who DUNNIT and if my theory is right if a similar crime happened again today comitted by a similar person he may well get away with it again, with the same cover up happening as happened back then.

If my theory and the true motive regarding the tragedy is correct almost everybody involved with the mystery will be vindicated including the perpertrator, and the police for their so called bungling (they were compelled to bungle by those in power and the timing of the event in what is now Australia’s history regarding federation). If the perpertrator were brought to justice at the time, Federation may not have happened.

They knew who DUNNIT and the perpertrator knew he would not, indeed could not be touched.

When you learn the true motive you will understand.

If you are interested and want to learn more listen to a radio interview I gave some time back http://www.gattonmurders.com/Radio4BCInterview.zip and visit http://www.gattonmurders.com/

I question wether rape even occurred, the main forensic guy at the time (Dr. Orr) wrote the following about the clothing of the trio he examined:

Was unsuccessful in satisfying myself as to the presence of semen in the first pieces removed from each on the 8th of January, 1899.

Then a month later he writes again:

An examination of the second pieces removed from each allowed me to discover the presence of spermatoe which is proof positive of the presence of semen in the stains.

Exhibit “B” (Cotton Chemise) No. 5. one piece removed; presence of spermatozoa—semen in stains.

Exhibit “B” (Drawers) No. 6. two pieces removed spermatozoa—semen in stain.

Exhibit “C” No. 4. (Shirt) two pieces removed presenting stains (1) (N)) Haemin crystals : blood in stain of one. (
B)
Spermatozoa—semen in stain of the other.

Exhibit “C” No. 1. (Trousers) inside of left side of fly was a milky white stain. Examination showed presence of spermatozoa—semen in stain.

Scraping from inside of left leg of trousers where peculiar mark on trousers is to be seen. (No) Haemin.

Haemin crystals found—Blood in stain.

Guaiacum? (Once used to treat syphilis) H2 O2 (Hydrogen peroxide) gave affirmative reaction.

I examined these garments of Exhibit “C” at the command of Chief-Inspector Stuart as he wished to know whether semen could be found in the stains on No’s 4 and 1 of Exhibit “C”.

Planting of evidence was then and is not now uncommon as all concerned wanted it to look like lust was the motive.

I could go on but won’t.

Regards,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This case remains open and the QPS should retain the clothing of the deceased. If it was semen deposited on the clothing then if well preserved it could be matched to the perpetrator (exhumation required) or a descendant through mitochondrial DNA (maternal relative). So this can be solved. An anagram of 'circumstantial evidence' is 'can ruin a selected victim'. Circumstantial evidence is for desperate prosecutors, lazy investigators and wannabe authors/sleuths. If anyone wants to throw money at solving this, donate the cost of analysing the clothing of the deceased to the QPS cold case division. Then find a descendant of whoever Thomas Day's mother/grandmother (etc) was, to compare it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This case remains open and the QPS should retain the clothing of the deceased. If it was semen deposited on the clothing then if well preserved it could be matched to the perpetrator (exhumation required) or a descendant through mitochondrial DNA (maternal relative). So this can be solved. An anagram of 'circumstantial evidence' is 'can ruin a selected victim'. Circumstantial evidence is for desperate prosecutors, lazy investigators and wannabe authors/sleuths. If anyone wants to throw money at solving this, donate the cost of analysing the clothing of the deceased to the QPS cold case division. Then find a descendant of whoever Thomas Day's mother/grandmother (etc) was, to compare it to.

Hi there are you related to the man at the sliprails, if so I would love to talk to you.

A guy who lived in gatton studied this case for 20 years or more he apparantly saw the clothing held by the police in the 1990’s he went again and asked to inspect them again and was told they had disappeared.

Just another mystery regarding this case.

If anyone can help I am trying to gain information on one John Thomas Day who was born in Beaudesert in the correct year. It appears that many of his family were butchers.

I don’t believe he had anything to do with the tragedy but he may very well have seen something.

It appears from the report of Dr. Orr the forensic guy at the time 1 day there is no sign of semen on any of the clothing and a few weeks later there was plenty. (See Previous Post)

This indicates to me that it was put there later for a reason.

I feel the reason evidence was planted was to divert attention away from the perpertrator who would be above suspicion if lust was the motive.

I also believe the police and many others knew who it was but were powerless to proceed and forced to cover up by higher powers.

If I am correct it will explain why so many including the devout catholic family members kept their mouths shut. Maybe under threat of damnation or maybe from complicity or maybe even both.

The family had a few very embarassing skeletons in their closet which in this day and age would not be a problem but very stigmatic way back then and they didn’t need another one and they understood that what was done to their children had to be done.

I may be well off the mark but complicity is the only reason I can think of for staying quiet when 3 of your children and siblings ar done away with.

If you want further information go to http://www.safespray.com.au/Murders/index.php

Regards,

Steve

Edited by Budding Colombo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Can someone tell me why the www.gattonmurders.com web site has been suspended please...?

ghosttours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Can someone tell me why the www.gattonmurders.com web site has been suspended please...?

ghosttours

The website www.gattonmurders.com.au is operational again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am rather late to the discussion but thought I would add my thoughts. I enjoyed reading the entire thread.

I don't buy the abortion theory.

If the girl did go to her brother for help, I highly doubt his roll would not go beyond simple transportation. I do not think he'd sit around for the procedure.

Women who preformed those services weren't murderous villains who would murder 2 other people to cover up for a botched job, it is far more likely that everyone would have come up with a story

to protect the girl's/family's reputation and then kept their mouths shut.

Abortion, even legal, safe, modern ones with zero complications cause quite a bit of bleeding, I can only imagine there would be a ton of blood if this was the case.

People have pointed out that more attention was given to Norah over Helen, that could simply be because the other girl was menstrating. Even psychopaths have turn offs.

The scratches on the legs aren't a mystery to me, their arms were restrained, they would have fought with their legs, thus they would be scratched. Not surprising.

The blood up in the tree does not surprise me, I would expect it if they were bashed in the skull with a blunt object. Where the blood was under the rug/blanket doesn't really mean much, the bodies were obviously moved/posed after death.

This killing wasn't "super human", there are tons of stories of men raping/murdering multiple women, sometimes without even a gun, whole families have been murdered. This is not even uncommon. Even with school/mass shootings, there are tons of people standing there and no one rushes the guy with the gun.

If "father" was yelled out, that doesn't surprise me, I am always heartbroken when a case has video of the murder and I read the person called for their father or mother, not uncommon and not just children, last I heard of was in her 20's begging her mother to save me. I can't imagine what the parent goes through hearing that, but it's common.

People like salcious gossip, I don't put much stock into the incest theories.

I also don't see why people assume it had to be personal at all. Strangers rape and kill in horrific ways all the time.

I don't think this is a one off kill, I think the person most likely murdered again, but he moved on and murdered somewhere else. Even today, we have truck drivers who murder for years and years without being caught because the killings are never tied to each other until much later and the person didn't stick around.

I don't really find this much of a mystery at all, more like a bungled investigation by inexperienced people who let the guy get away. People have other theories but they really are stretching their imaginations and the facts to support these theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess you need to decide if there was one perp or more. There's not enough evidence extant to definitively make that call. The guy at the sliprails, Thomas Day, would appear to me to have been involved. If one guy, then how did he get them off the road, through the sliprails then kill the horse and the brother before raping and murdering the girls? Easier with 2 but I don't think it's impossible for one guy to have committed the murders. The Gatton Mystery is a mystery because it was the only crime like that, in the area, at the time. It's not like Jack the Ripper where you have an obvious serial perp. Thomas Day disappeared shortly after the murders. Australians were enlisting for the Boer War which is what he supposedly did. Day was working as a butcher but the cops found a copy of Bulwer-Lytton's Rienzi in his effects when they searched. Not the usual sort of reading you'd expect a labourer to be reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.