STANDREID
A slacker when slacker wasn't cool
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,618
- Reaction score
- 600
Anything is possible but I think doctors would know whether the swelling was from infection or 'vigorous connection.'
Australia Australia - Michael, 29, Norah, 27, & Ellen Murphy, 18, Gatton, Qld, 26 Dec 1898
- Thread starter gaia227
- Start date
Anything is possible but I think doctors would know whether the swelling was from infection or 'vigorous connection.'
Some rather random thoughts, put here so I don't forget them mainly - busy day, today! Too many chores for sleuthin'. 
1. Mrs. Murphy seemed disinclined to allow her brood to marry. She successfully fended off several of Polly's prior suitors before being talked around to allowing her to marry McNeill, quite begrudgingly. Unmarried kids, 29, 27, 18, in a time and place where it wasn't uncommon for girls to marry at 16. Seems to me the kids were well-educated, and education was a priority in that family, as was "appearances". Yet, they weren't particularly rich folks - albeit much better off than many. I get the feeling no-one was quite good enough for the offspring of Mrs. Murphy, who was a bit of a dragon by the sound of it...
Maybe this 'snootiness' was a reason for the Murphys being targetted.
- I say 'targetted' because I am currently inclined to believe that their murders were not random at all. Perhaps even planned... albeit perhaps planned at short notice.
Some further thoughts on McNeill"
- It was reported (true or not, idk, but it -was- reported) that McNeill once saved a child in a bolting buggy by racing alongside the runaway horse and stopping it. Grand heroics, indeed.. but for some reason, I am not very inclined to applaud him for it just yet. /eyeball
- More heroics the morning he found the bodies and onward far into the investigation, while the Murphys themselves did not a lot -- this was pointed out at the inquest, where the family was criticised for doing so little. Sharp contrast, then, to McNeill the Valiant Butcher. But was he? Or was he able to find bodies and evidence so readily because he put them there.... I just dunno, yet. But my gut says -something- was up with him, which the Too-Proud Murphys might not wish to have had publically discussed.
- Maybe he just felt he had something to prove to the Murphys, considering he was generally despised by most of them. However, showing them up (along with the police) by doing more for the investigation than they did surely did the opposite..
Some thoughts on Michael:
- He is said to have been oddly devoted to his sisters and not very interested in other women (despite the state of his foreskin), which led to all kinds of speculation about incest, him being gay, etc... But atm I think the lot were just a bit cowed by their mum.
On the crime itself:
- Shots were heard not long after 9.30, which is estimated about the time they'd have reached the paddock. More than one shot, and maybe 20 mins apart. One for the horse. One for Michael. This proved an accurate assessment much later, when Michael was confirmed to have been shot.
However! I am pretty sure the woman who reported this also reported having -found the bodies- at 7am, and having rearranged the clothing on one of the girls (for modesty's sake, one would assume).
So this muddles thing re McNeill a bit, doesn't it!? I mean WHO discovered the bodies, really, and raised the alarm - the neighbour at 7am or McNeill some time later? Why would the woman lie about something like that? And her statements as to the shots seem to match the crime.
Very odd, and well worth looking at a bit harder, IMO.
1. Mrs. Murphy seemed disinclined to allow her brood to marry. She successfully fended off several of Polly's prior suitors before being talked around to allowing her to marry McNeill, quite begrudgingly. Unmarried kids, 29, 27, 18, in a time and place where it wasn't uncommon for girls to marry at 16. Seems to me the kids were well-educated, and education was a priority in that family, as was "appearances". Yet, they weren't particularly rich folks - albeit much better off than many. I get the feeling no-one was quite good enough for the offspring of Mrs. Murphy, who was a bit of a dragon by the sound of it...
Maybe this 'snootiness' was a reason for the Murphys being targetted.
- I say 'targetted' because I am currently inclined to believe that their murders were not random at all. Perhaps even planned... albeit perhaps planned at short notice.
Some further thoughts on McNeill"
- It was reported (true or not, idk, but it -was- reported) that McNeill once saved a child in a bolting buggy by racing alongside the runaway horse and stopping it. Grand heroics, indeed.. but for some reason, I am not very inclined to applaud him for it just yet. /eyeball
- More heroics the morning he found the bodies and onward far into the investigation, while the Murphys themselves did not a lot -- this was pointed out at the inquest, where the family was criticised for doing so little. Sharp contrast, then, to McNeill the Valiant Butcher. But was he? Or was he able to find bodies and evidence so readily because he put them there.... I just dunno, yet. But my gut says -something- was up with him, which the Too-Proud Murphys might not wish to have had publically discussed.
- Maybe he just felt he had something to prove to the Murphys, considering he was generally despised by most of them. However, showing them up (along with the police) by doing more for the investigation than they did surely did the opposite..
Some thoughts on Michael:
- He is said to have been oddly devoted to his sisters and not very interested in other women (despite the state of his foreskin), which led to all kinds of speculation about incest, him being gay, etc... But atm I think the lot were just a bit cowed by their mum.
On the crime itself:
- Shots were heard not long after 9.30, which is estimated about the time they'd have reached the paddock. More than one shot, and maybe 20 mins apart. One for the horse. One for Michael. This proved an accurate assessment much later, when Michael was confirmed to have been shot.
However! I am pretty sure the woman who reported this also reported having -found the bodies- at 7am, and having rearranged the clothing on one of the girls (for modesty's sake, one would assume).
So this muddles thing re McNeill a bit, doesn't it!? I mean WHO discovered the bodies, really, and raised the alarm - the neighbour at 7am or McNeill some time later? Why would the woman lie about something like that? And her statements as to the shots seem to match the crime.
Very odd, and well worth looking at a bit harder, IMO.
Sorry - I forgot to mention...
I don't think Michael was the focus of the crime. He was shot (according to two independant neighbours who heard two lots of gunfire, not far apart) about 20 mins, maybe, after the horse... or maybe even -before- the horse (but I don't think so).
This puts him out of the picture for the rest of the crime. Once the were all under control, Michael was disposed of. If he was the focus, he may have been kept alive longer (maybe to watch his sisters harmed) or himself molested sexually. But nope, 20 mins in, he's shot. The state of the girls suggests the killer spent much more time with them.
Noting that Ellen was placed near Michael, back to back.. like they were "extras" where Norah was the one laid on a blanket several feet apart from them, and savaged more than either of her siblings.
Norah was the killer's "chosen one".
The blanket may have been a central staging area for all three murders, though.. there was a lot of blood under it, far too much to have come from Norah, it was thought.
Norah was probably the last to die, IMO. Thus, on top of being the one chosen for the majority of sexual abuse, she also had to watch the horse, and then her siblings, die violently. But why Norah? Random choice? Scorned, spurned suitor, hating on the proud Murphys? Simple psychotic lust? I think the motive's visible in the crime scene, just not right now to me, dammit..
Terrorising got this guy off, I think. He loved the control he had - didn't even tie thier feet. Maybe didn't have to, using threats and the gun and violence to keep the victims subdued. I know I'd be well subdued, seeing a horse and then my brother shot before my eyes... Maybe he wanted a struggle...
Anyway, /end babble (for now)
I don't think Michael was the focus of the crime. He was shot (according to two independant neighbours who heard two lots of gunfire, not far apart) about 20 mins, maybe, after the horse... or maybe even -before- the horse (but I don't think so).
This puts him out of the picture for the rest of the crime. Once the were all under control, Michael was disposed of. If he was the focus, he may have been kept alive longer (maybe to watch his sisters harmed) or himself molested sexually. But nope, 20 mins in, he's shot. The state of the girls suggests the killer spent much more time with them.
Noting that Ellen was placed near Michael, back to back.. like they were "extras" where Norah was the one laid on a blanket several feet apart from them, and savaged more than either of her siblings.
Norah was the killer's "chosen one".
The blanket may have been a central staging area for all three murders, though.. there was a lot of blood under it, far too much to have come from Norah, it was thought.
Norah was probably the last to die, IMO. Thus, on top of being the one chosen for the majority of sexual abuse, she also had to watch the horse, and then her siblings, die violently. But why Norah? Random choice? Scorned, spurned suitor, hating on the proud Murphys? Simple psychotic lust? I think the motive's visible in the crime scene, just not right now to me, dammit..
Terrorising got this guy off, I think. He loved the control he had - didn't even tie thier feet. Maybe didn't have to, using threats and the gun and violence to keep the victims subdued. I know I'd be well subdued, seeing a horse and then my brother shot before my eyes... Maybe he wanted a struggle...
Anyway, /end babble (for now)
The semen stain on inside of Michaels fly buttons didnt really indicate much.Apparently its not unusual for someone to ejaculate at the moment death according to medical experts.
William Mcneil is a bit of a mystery. He lied about the timing of several things on that morning.Said he rode to paddock where he found the bodies,but according to some there is evidence he didnt go to the paddock at all that morning,but instead rode straight through to inform the authorities,which of course ,if true, meant he allready knew of the murders before anyone else.
The odd bits of seemingly unconnected evidence found there. i.e the newspaper clippings which had gone missing from Ellens scrapbook a few years earlier found at the scene etc seems to indicate maybe someone with access at least to Murphy house. Of course the main piece of evidence was the imprint of a certain cloth pattern on one of the victims thighs which would have impressed itself upon the skin during whatever struggle took place. That particular cloth pattern was never matchedto any clothes known to belong to any of the suspects.Which interestingly enough would surely rule out Burgess who only possessed the clothes he stood up in.
William Mcneil is a bit of a mystery. He lied about the timing of several things on that morning.Said he rode to paddock where he found the bodies,but according to some there is evidence he didnt go to the paddock at all that morning,but instead rode straight through to inform the authorities,which of course ,if true, meant he allready knew of the murders before anyone else.
The odd bits of seemingly unconnected evidence found there. i.e the newspaper clippings which had gone missing from Ellens scrapbook a few years earlier found at the scene etc seems to indicate maybe someone with access at least to Murphy house. Of course the main piece of evidence was the imprint of a certain cloth pattern on one of the victims thighs which would have impressed itself upon the skin during whatever struggle took place. That particular cloth pattern was never matchedto any clothes known to belong to any of the suspects.Which interestingly enough would surely rule out Burgess who only possessed the clothes he stood up in.
Dougie - wow, thank you so much for this post! You've given me two facts I haven't seen before - the clippings and the fabric-print..
The clippings are just weird - was the killer a local stalker, then? How else did those clippings get there.. so strange.
As for the cloth-print.. from what I have learned about bodies and marks left on them - the victim must have been either lying on the fabric for a long time, including post-mortem, or had something of substantial weight covered in the cloth lying ON the victim for a considerable time...
Skin is elastic, especially in the young, and we all know how those prints we get from fabric on our skin take a while to make, and a smaller while to go away. In short, I don't think brief contact with cloth would leave marks indented in the skin of a corpse. So the body must have been in contact with the cloth pre-death and for some time after, I think.
I'd LOVE to know what kind of pattern it was, Dougie, if you have that info at all. Also, any info at all about the nature of those clippings..
Cheers~!
marlywings
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,282
- Reaction score
- 143
There was a discussion on Brisbane ABC radio this morning about this case. I didn't hear the entire discussion although I'm sure I heard the guest speaker say he'd solved the case.
Hoping ABC's Warren Boland will post the recording of the discussion on his blog tomorrow.
Hoping ABC's Warren Boland will post the recording of the discussion on his blog tomorrow.
Hello Ausgirl,
As regards the cloth imprint...At the COmmission hearings Inspector Urquart said "I inspected the clothing and saw things there which were gone into afterwards ,but unfortunately with no result.There is one striking matter which I do not think should be made public even now"
At the same hearings Dr von Lossberg gave evidence.Inspector Galbraith asked him "Would it surprise you to know that on Murphys left forearm and on Norahs Thighs there was a distinct impression,and the facsimile of that was marked in blood on the petticoat?" The chairman interrupted ,whereby Galbraith replied"very well ,I will not ask any more"
Seargant toomey being interviewed.
Question "yOU know that imprints of a certain kind of cloth were found at the scene?"
A "yes"
Q " would it be well if you could find any cloth like that?"
A I believe a good many articles of clothing might make an impression ,but it would want to be of a particular pattern"
Q Would it not be necessary to search for that pattern?"
Dr William Orr gave evidence at the Commission and said among other things."When I was told I ewould be called here ,I saw the commissioner ,and he distinctly gave me the impression that there were certain points that he does not want mentioned.They are ,I suppose still under consideration" Dr Orr was in fact an analyst ,and its reasonable to assume he would have conducted tests on the facsimiles or imprints on the petticoats.
The evidence regarding this imprint or facsimile is pretty fragmented and disjointed,but it crops up several times during the commission hearings.It seems there was an effort to keep it from being made public.But I guess thats police procedure then and now.
The clippings......In Morans paddock constable Portley found a strap and buckle and a piece of paper on 31 dec 1898.The paper was a newspaper cutting of a memorial notice of a May Cook who had died at Gattonon 27 dec 1896. It was found on the right of the sliprails which led to the murder scene. The odd thing was that 12 months before the murders Norah had cut this clipping out of the paper,put it into a box in her room and never removed it.Six months before the murders occured ,she noticed it had gone missing.
The police inquiry commission regarding this is as follows...
Seargant Toomey was being questioned.
Q "there was a piece of paper found tied up in a strap?"
A "It was an" in memorium "notice about a person in the district who had died. I questioned everybody about this notice ,nobody knew of it,but knew the girl referred to. On the day of the enquiry Katie Murphy said "I forget to tell you that Norah cut that clipping out of the paper because it would be nice to have.It was put into a box in Norahs room.It is not there now ,and it was not there when the victims were killed.
Q how far was this paper from the bodies?"
A 800 yards.
hope this helps
regards
Dougie
Flinders
Active Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,194
- Reaction score
- 37
The Gatton Murders for Australian Story
Peter Foley 14th June 2013 3:00 PM
Stephanie Bennett has spent years painstakingly trawling through archival evidence and she now believes she's cracked the case. Others are less convinced.
But some Murphy descendants say the crime scarred the family down the generations. They are grateful for her efforts and believe she may have delivered 'the truth'.
Australian Story is on Monday at 8pm on ABC1.
http://m.qt.com.au/news/gatton-murders-australian-story/1907908/
Peter Foley 14th June 2013 3:00 PM
Stephanie Bennett has spent years painstakingly trawling through archival evidence and she now believes she's cracked the case. Others are less convinced.
But some Murphy descendants say the crime scarred the family down the generations. They are grateful for her efforts and believe she may have delivered 'the truth'.
Australian Story is on Monday at 8pm on ABC1.
http://m.qt.com.au/news/gatton-murders-australian-story/1907908/
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 2
I'll be watching Australian Story.
What do you all think about this woman's conclusions? You can listen to a summary here. Australian Story will have more details.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/06/have-the-brutal-gatton-murders-been-solved-.html
What do you all think about this woman's conclusions? You can listen to a summary here. Australian Story will have more details.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/06/have-the-brutal-gatton-murders-been-solved-.html
fruity
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,300
- Reaction score
- 96
Oh NOOOOOOOO!!!!! This clashes with House Rules!
I'll record Australian Story and add it to my list of things to watch. I forgot to watch A Place to Call Home last night, so the list is growing quickly.
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 2
It can be watched online. I think you might have to be resident in Australia. I'd be very interested in what people think about this.
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.src...&gclid=CP3VjYL66rcCFQRapQod-BAA-Q#/view/39979
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?WT.src...&gclid=CP3VjYL66rcCFQRapQod-BAA-Q#/view/39979
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 2
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 2
It is an interesting theory but I personally find it hard to believe that this is a revenge murder. There is just too much overkill and brutality to this crime. The crime to me appears sexually motivated and I don't think that Micheal was the target.
What does everyone else think?
What does everyone else think?
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 2
If Quinn and his younger drunken relatives were involved I think someone would not have been able to keep this to themselves. Someone would have talked. This was a brutal crime and Michael was supposed to have been the focus. Why would they rape and murder the two women and shoot and cut the horse's throat? Why not kill Michael on his own somewhere else if he was the target?
Too many people involved for someone not to have talked or shown some remorse. It also appears to me that the girls were the focus of this crime.
Too many people involved for someone not to have talked or shown some remorse. It also appears to me that the girls were the focus of this crime.
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 2
JACK SIM: The Gatton murders isn’t something that just should be forgotten. Proving beyond reasonable doubt is impossible. This far out, it’s just not possible. However, I think that a solution is possible. Stephanie, I’ve got to give her absolute credit for her doggedness in pursuing it. I don’t think she’s quite on the right track. It doesn’t mean I don’t respect her for giving it a red hot go.
The above is a quote from the program. I would love to know Jack Sim's theory.
The above is a quote from the program. I would love to know Jack Sim's theory.
Just more B.S conjecture in my opinion, designed to sell another book or publicise another tv quasi documentary.These people never know when to stop. The solution to the mystery is unavailable and undiscoverable to anyone. Too much time has passed,too little evidence even at the time let alone now.Its easy to pick someone out of the Gatton "cast" and build a tale of guilt around them 115 years later.....but of course first you have to have a gullible audience for this nonsense to succeed. Theories are fine,it all adds to the fun,but to state mystery solved? is utterly inane.
According to the Wikipedia article referenced above, Michael Murphy and his two sisters went to the dance in their brother-in-law's sulky. Did the two girls ride the horse while Michael drove the horse-and-sulky from the sulky's seat? Being from Kentucky, I wonder about the seating arrangement.