On this day exactly 143 years ago, 26 October 1878, Sergeant Michael Kennedy, Constable Michael Scanlan, and Constable Thomas Lonigan were murdered in two separate ambushes by the Kelly Gang at Stringybark Creek in Victorias north-east region.
The offenders eluded police for nearly two years, three of the four dying at the Siege of Glenrowan.
Gang leader Ned Kelly was tried for and found guilty of the murder of Thomas Lonigan, and was hanged on 11 November 1880.
Romanticists and revisionists have spread much disinformation about Kelly, falsely claiming the was acting in self-defence and that he was not given a fair trial.
If you find yourself in Mansfield one day, go to the local cemetery and visit the graves of these three brave policemen who died at the hands of one of Australias most vicious murderers.
Mike Harding said
08:39 AM Oct 26, 2021
Hard to know what to believe with this story but, I suspect, like most it has two sides:
On this day exactly 143 years ago, 26 October 1878, Sergeant Michael Kennedy, Constable Michael Scanlan, and Constable Thomas Lonigan were murdered in two separate ambushes by the Kelly Gang at Stringybark Creek in Victorias north-east region.
The offenders eluded police for nearly two years, three of the four dying at the Siege of Glenrowan.
Gang leader Ned Kelly was tried for and found guilty of the murder of Thomas Lonigan, and was hanged on 11 November 1880.
Romanticists and revisionists have spread much disinformation about Kelly, falsely claiming the was acting in self-defence and that he was not given a fair trial.
If you find yourself in Mansfield one day, go to the local cemetery and visit the graves of these three brave policemen who died at the hands of one of Australias most vicious murderers.
My Great Grandfather , Constable McIntyre ,the fourth policeman at Stringbark Creek , escaped the slaughter and raised the alarm...........
KB
Dougwe said
12:52 PM Oct 27, 2021
Here ya go Possum, just for you mate,
Possum3 said
01:19 PM Oct 27, 2021
Sorry Doug, I would prefer a monument to Sergeant Michael Kennedy, Constable Michael Scanlan, and Constable Thomas Lonigan - not a murdering,thief.
Les_B said
07:32 PM Oct 27, 2021
We only know Constable McIntyre account ( no offence )
Santa said
10:44 PM Oct 27, 2021
We do know the Kelly family were hounded mercilessly by the Victorian police.
blaze said
11:52 PM Oct 27, 2021
I am a Ned supporter
cheers
blaze
dorian said
09:11 AM Oct 28, 2021
Here is just another of many reasons to despise the police:
Of course it will be the taxpayer, not the uniformed thugs, who will foot the bill.
Magnarc said
09:30 AM Oct 28, 2021
For years and years people have hero worshipped bad guys. I recall a bloke by the name of Dick Turpin who roamed the English highways in the middle 1700s apart from robbing people he also was not averse to the odd murder or two. Turpin was hanged at York in 1739.
With regard to Kelly certain Victorian towns have benefitted greatly over the years by promoting him as some sort of Robin Hood which, clearly he was not. The sad fact is that we humans love a good folklore tale and the more horrendous crimes of these people are too easily overlooked.
I am with you Possum on this topic.
-- Edited by Magnarc on Thursday 28th of October 2021 09:31:22 AM
DMaxer said
09:40 AM Oct 28, 2021
After reading the various accounts of the conduct of Kelly's trials over the ten years or so he was under notice, it seems that there may have been some pretty suspect evidence accepted along the way Possum. Although I don't accept that Ned Kelly was completely innocent it was also a time when the police of the day were not exactly the friends of the ordinary citizen. They had a an agenda and a considerable bias towards the landed gentry and the powers that be in that time. It is not doubted that he shot the police officer but the circumstances are somewhat questionable.
My grandmother was born in the early 1890s and grew up in the area around the NSW/Victorian border. Although Ned had been executed over ten years before her birth, she would tell us kids about the stories her father told her of Ned and his family. They would see the Kelly family during droving and his recollection was that they were unjustly persecuted by the government of the day and the police. It was not uncommon for the local homesteaders to give the Kelly gang a meal or a place to stay for a few nights whilst they were hiding out. He also said that no local person feared the Kellys as they treated the locals well and were most grateful for the help afforded them.
Who knows what really happened but he certainly has more fans than detractors.
dorian said
09:51 AM Oct 28, 2021
It seems to me that Kelly had a criminal record long before the police had reason to persecute him. As I see it, he and the police only differed in the clothes they wore.
As for Australians siding with criminals, is it any wonder that the song which stirs Australian hearts the most is about a bludger who steals a farmer's sheep?
For some historical perspective, it might be worth noting that Kelly was born in the year of the Eureka Stockade.
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 28th of October 2021 10:02:34 AM
Mike Harding said
10:14 AM Oct 28, 2021
dorian wrote:
Here is just another of many reasons to despise the police:
I see no mention of disciplinary action or criminal legal process against the office(s) involved... are police officers above the law perhaps?
It would appear so. It's enough to outrage public decency.
Possum3 said
10:27 AM Oct 28, 2021
Duplicated
-- Edited by Possum3 on Thursday 28th of October 2021 10:56:09 AM
Possum3 said
10:33 AM Oct 28, 2021
Zach Rolf case is a result of pandering to the woke - real story at www.youtube.com/watch
Buzz Lightbulb said
10:49 AM Oct 28, 2021
I wasn't there, but according to the movies and documentaries, I wondered why it took the coppers so long to work out to shoot Ned in the legs instead of the armour?
DMaxer said
10:50 AM Oct 28, 2021
The action taken against the police was a civil one Mike. it was settled without any admission of fault or wrong doing. Insurance companies settle matters all the time without admitting liability, in fact, it is pretty rare for them to do so. Governments also adopt this process and refer to them as ex gratia payments.
As this settlement has only just been approved, what action may or may not be taken against any officers involved is yet to be announced. I imagine this decision has already been made but would have been withheld so as not to impact on the civil litigation. If a decision to take disciplinary action was announced prior to the completion of the civil matter it would only have increased the damages to be awarded.
Mike Harding said
12:08 PM Oct 28, 2021
DMaxer wrote:
If a decision to take disciplinary action was announced prior to the completion of the civil matter it would only have increased the damages to be awarded.
Is that relevant? I thought governments were supposed to be model litigants?
I realise this was a civil action and appreciate the difference to criminal.
DMaxer said
12:46 PM Oct 28, 2021
It is standard procedure Mike. Because one is a model litigant does not mean they just cave in to every demand. They also have a responsibility to the taxpayers to limit their expenditure in meeting claims.
Mike Harding said
02:15 PM Oct 28, 2021
Emmm... "keep it all hidden until it's less damaging" doesn't sound very model to me.
DMaxer said
03:31 PM Oct 28, 2021
I don't think they went into evidence Mike. I think this was settled before the trial began. The claim does not hinge on whether someone was charged or dismissed, it all rests on whether excessive force was used or whether the action was unlawful. If no action was taken against the officers departmentally or criminally that would not prevent damages in a civil case.
I love a conspiracy more than anyone but there is none here. Trust me....you know the rest.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 28th of October 2021 03:32:13 PM
Santa said
05:59 PM Oct 28, 2021
There's a double standard under our legal system, The presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
However when it comes to officers of the law a significant portion of society believe the opposite applies, guilty until proven innocent.
It seems that a large section of modern society simply cant be trusted to do the right thing unless they are under constant observation, given that we are no longer a god fearing nation and wont be judged by a higher authority at the end of life, the task is now in the hands of the police.
A policeman's lot is not a happy one.
dorian said
06:38 AM Oct 29, 2021
Santa wrote:
... given that we are no longer a god fearing nation and wont be judged by a higher authority at the end of life, the task is now in the hands of the police.
LOL. So police are now God's agents?
As I see it, the police are the government's stormtroopers. Cast your mind back to the antiwar demonstrations of the '60s. Police were all too eager to beat up on the demonstrators of the time. Today's external behaviours may have changed, but inwardly I don't believe today's police are any different.
Possum3 said
09:00 AM Oct 29, 2021
I can cast my mind back to the anti war demonstrations of the sixties/seventies quite well - when the "Protesters" Tipped pig's blood over innocent junior sailors and bashed the sailors with hardwood "baby killer" signs.
Thuggish and brutal treatment of young lads by the righteous left.
-- Edited by Possum3 on Friday 29th of October 2021 09:01:26 AM
Santa said
05:18 PM Oct 29, 2021
dorian wrote:
Santa wrote:
... given that we are no longer a god fearing nation and wont be judged by a higher authority at the end of life, the task is now in the hands of the police.
LOL. So police are now God's agents?
As I see it, the police are the government's stormtroopers. Cast your mind back to the antiwar demonstrations of the '60s. Police were all too eager to beat up on the demonstrators of the time. Today's external behaviours may have changed, but inwardly I don't believe today's police are any different.
Instead of selective quoting why not attempt to address my point?
"However when it comes to officers of the law a significant portion of society believe the opposite applies, guilty until proven innocent"
"LOL", a trite response to a valid assertion.
You may well laugh, I see people with paranoid attitudes like yours. as a major part of the problem certainly not part of the solution.
On this day exactly 143 years ago, 26 October 1878, Sergeant Michael Kennedy, Constable Michael Scanlan, and Constable Thomas Lonigan were murdered in two separate ambushes by the Kelly Gang at Stringybark Creek in Victorias north-east region.
The offenders eluded police for nearly two years, three of the four dying at the Siege of Glenrowan.
Gang leader Ned Kelly was tried for and found guilty of the murder of Thomas Lonigan, and was hanged on 11 November 1880.
Romanticists and revisionists have spread much disinformation about Kelly, falsely claiming the was acting in self-defence and that he was not given a fair trial.
If you find yourself in Mansfield one day, go to the local cemetery and visit the graves of these three brave policemen who died at the hands of one of Australias most vicious murderers.
Hard to know what to believe with this story but, I suspect, like most it has two sides:
Wikipedia
My Great Grandfather , Constable McIntyre ,the fourth policeman at Stringbark Creek , escaped the slaughter and raised the alarm...........
KB
Here ya go Possum, just for you mate,
We do know the Kelly family were hounded mercilessly by the Victorian police.
cheers
blaze
Here is just another of many reasons to despise the police:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-26/victoria-police-to-pay-more-than-11-million-quadriplegic-man/100570152
Of course it will be the taxpayer, not the uniformed thugs, who will foot the bill.
For years and years people have hero worshipped bad guys. I recall a bloke by the name of Dick Turpin who roamed the English highways in the middle 1700s apart from robbing people he also was not averse to the odd murder or two. Turpin was hanged at York in 1739.
With regard to Kelly certain Victorian towns have benefitted greatly over the years by promoting him as some sort of Robin Hood which, clearly he was not. The sad fact is that we humans love a good folklore tale and the more horrendous crimes of these people are too easily overlooked.
I am with you Possum on this topic.
-- Edited by Magnarc on Thursday 28th of October 2021 09:31:22 AM
After reading the various accounts of the conduct of Kelly's trials over the ten years or so he was under notice, it seems that there may have been some pretty suspect evidence accepted along the way Possum. Although I don't accept that Ned Kelly was completely innocent it was also a time when the police of the day were not exactly the friends of the ordinary citizen. They had a an agenda and a considerable bias towards the landed gentry and the powers that be in that time. It is not doubted that he shot the police officer but the circumstances are somewhat questionable.
My grandmother was born in the early 1890s and grew up in the area around the NSW/Victorian border. Although Ned had been executed over ten years before her birth, she would tell us kids about the stories her father told her of Ned and his family. They would see the Kelly family during droving and his recollection was that they were unjustly persecuted by the government of the day and the police. It was not uncommon for the local homesteaders to give the Kelly gang a meal or a place to stay for a few nights whilst they were hiding out. He also said that no local person feared the Kellys as they treated the locals well and were most grateful for the help afforded them.
Who knows what really happened but he certainly has more fans than detractors.
It seems to me that Kelly had a criminal record long before the police had reason to persecute him. As I see it, he and the police only differed in the clothes they wore.
As for Australians siding with criminals, is it any wonder that the song which stirs Australian hearts the most is about a bludger who steals a farmer's sheep?
For some historical perspective, it might be worth noting that Kelly was born in the year of the Eureka Stockade.
-- Edited by dorian on Thursday 28th of October 2021 10:02:34 AM
I see no mention of disciplinary action or criminal legal process against the office(s) involved... are police officers above the law perhaps?
It would appear so. It's enough to outrage public decency.
Duplicated
-- Edited by Possum3 on Thursday 28th of October 2021 10:56:09 AM
I wasn't there, but according to the movies and documentaries, I wondered why it took the coppers so long to work out to shoot Ned in the legs instead of the armour?
The action taken against the police was a civil one Mike. it was settled without any admission of fault or wrong doing. Insurance companies settle matters all the time without admitting liability, in fact, it is pretty rare for them to do so. Governments also adopt this process and refer to them as ex gratia payments.
As this settlement has only just been approved, what action may or may not be taken against any officers involved is yet to be announced. I imagine this decision has already been made but would have been withheld so as not to impact on the civil litigation. If a decision to take disciplinary action was announced prior to the completion of the civil matter it would only have increased the damages to be awarded.
Is that relevant? I thought governments were supposed to be model litigants?
I realise this was a civil action and appreciate the difference to criminal.
It is standard procedure Mike. Because one is a model litigant does not mean they just cave in to every demand. They also have a responsibility to the taxpayers to limit their expenditure in meeting claims.
Emmm... "keep it all hidden until it's less damaging" doesn't sound very model to me.
I don't think they went into evidence Mike. I think this was settled before the trial began. The claim does not hinge on whether someone was charged or dismissed, it all rests on whether excessive force was used or whether the action was unlawful. If no action was taken against the officers departmentally or criminally that would not prevent damages in a civil case.
I love a conspiracy more than anyone but there is none here. Trust me....you know the rest.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 28th of October 2021 03:32:13 PM
There's a double standard under our legal system, The presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
However when it comes to officers of the law a significant portion of society believe the opposite applies, guilty until proven innocent.
It seems that a large section of modern society simply cant be trusted to do the right thing unless they are under constant observation, given that we are no longer a god fearing nation and wont be judged by a higher authority at the end of life, the task is now in the hands of the police.
A policeman's lot is not a happy one.
LOL. So police are now God's agents?
As I see it, the police are the government's stormtroopers. Cast your mind back to the antiwar demonstrations of the '60s. Police were all too eager to beat up on the demonstrators of the time. Today's external behaviours may have changed, but inwardly I don't believe today's police are any different.
I can cast my mind back to the anti war demonstrations of the sixties/seventies quite well - when the "Protesters" Tipped pig's blood over innocent junior sailors and bashed the sailors with hardwood "baby killer" signs.
Thuggish and brutal treatment of young lads by the righteous left.
-- Edited by Possum3 on Friday 29th of October 2021 09:01:26 AM
Instead of selective quoting why not attempt to address my point?
"However when it comes to officers of the law a significant portion of society believe the opposite applies, guilty until proven innocent"
"LOL", a trite response to a valid assertion.
You may well laugh, I see people with paranoid attitudes like yours. as a major part of the problem certainly not part of the solution.