Australia Australia - Michael, 29, Norah, 27, & Ellen Murphy, 18, Gatton, Qld, 26 Dec 1898

[dougie]

It is patently obvious to anyone who reads through the questions asked of (and answers given by) the Murphy family as a whole, that they were all hiding something, which prevented them from answering fully and truthfully. It seems certain that the only reason they would protect a person suspected of brutally murdering three of their own is, the alternative (ie. the ugly secret they wished not to disclose) was of greater importance. Here, the prime object of our attention must turn now to the husband of Polly, the eldest daughter. Why did McNeil go to such great lengths to prevent his wife from giving evidence ? And why (when the police finally got her into the courtroom) did she twice refuse to swear that her husband never left the bed they shared with their child on the night of 26th December, 1898 ?

With respect,I think it might take a giant leap of faith to believe the Murphys were OBVIOUSLY hiding ANYTHING.Where is the evidence of anything other than the Murphy parents,barely literate,country folk,confused,overpowered and run ragged by the Press,the questions,innuendo etc at a time when they were trying to deal with the loss of their children in such a horrible manner?
Urquarts statement re Murphys at the Commission.
" I have never seen any reasonable ground for dsuspecting the complicity of the Murphy family in this tragedy.I have stated that in my report,and I have stated it all along"
"There is not a scintilla of evidence to arouse a suspicion as to the complicity of the Murphy family ..indeed every circ points to the contrary.Of that we have not the slightest doubt"
Not sure where this suspicion of Mcneil not wishing Polly to testify comes from to be honest. Id suggest its a misinterpretation of facts or half facts by some who are determined to see that which they want to see maybe.
"The man at the sliprails" seen by several ,but positively identified by none is really ,possibly, the key .That is if he really existed of course,which I sometimes doubt......Bit like the UFO syndrome...one person says hes seen it,and suddenly thousands of others come out of the wardrobe and say they have seen it too.

 

[dougie]

Was this Mr. Jones also Thomas Day ?

Jones was described as "apparently under 40",So I presume Jones wasnt aware of his true age ,and again Im presuming,looked around 35-40. Thomas Day was described as a beardless overgrown boy.
Jones had a tattoo "E J I LOVE" oN his left arm and a large wart on his right side......a red moustache.
None of these has appeared in any description of Thomas Day ,and Day was stripped and examined by the police In Gatton at time of Gatton murders.These marks would have been noticed Im sure.
Jones was of Sinewy ,spare and wiry build.Day apparently was the opposite.
Ive found no mention of Jones being in Gatton at the time of the Gatton murders ,other than in the newspaper article cited here.Poetic license by the reporter?If Jones had been the Thomas Day of Gatton fame then it stands to reason that not only would the Police have known that Jones had been there at the right time(Gatton murders),but also that he had been in Gatton under another name..i.e Day. And The police were still trying to trace Thomas Day for some time after the Gatton Murders.
If the police had known Jones/Day had been there at that time Its certain they would have looked into it.Theres no evidence to show they even considered it.And of course trying to connect the two murders because of the anniversary issue is reporting of the worst kind...........And the murders were of a different kind anyhow.The murder of a 8 yr old girl vs the murder of 2 grown women and an adult male.......

 

[Ausgirl]

Not sure where this suspicion of Mcneil not wishing Polly to testify comes from to be honest.

- He told the court he did not wish Polly to testify.

- He claimed she was too sick to attend court. But then he packed her on a train to Toowoomba, which the court found odd as it was a far longer and more strenuous journey.

- He demanded to be present when Polly testified, and was upset when refused.

Maybe that all had something to do with it?

 

[dougie]

- He told the court he did not wish Polly to testify.

- He claimed she was too sick to attend court. But then he packed her on a train to Toowoomba, which the court found odd as it was a far longer and more strenuous journey.

- He demanded to be present when Polly testified, and was upset when refused.

Maybe that all had something to do with it?

Ive never heard any of that before,Im pretty sure. If true,it still doesnt mean an awful lot.Polly might have been in a disturbed state of mind,terrified of being in court etc.Mcneil might have been trying to protect her.I mean,is the suggestion that Polly knew who committed the murders? was terrified of giving the game away?I cant see that IF mcneil had committed the murders hed have told anyone,let alone a family member anyhow.
There are several sources on the internet that Ive been to, which arent reliable ,on this case. And as for that documentary on australian tv the other week well.....talk about b.s speculation and conjecture. No evidence ,just what ifs and if sos and opinions .As an effort in information it was awful:scared:...and worse than useless.

 

[Ausgirl]

Nope, all of that was in the court records themselves.

The court was really annoyed by the fact McNeill was pleading illness for Polly and then stuck her on a train and ignored all the summonses, etc.. and was extremely reluctant to leave Polly alone while she testified - she did pretty well, actually, on the stand. Until they asked her whether she could swear to Mcneill being in bed all night and she couldn't - or wouldn't - swear either way.

He really did act oddly, that McNeill. Even one of the Murphy boys flat out stated in court that he considered McNeill to have done it. Several people did, actually. Doesn't mean he did -- but he wasn't doing himself any favours at all.

 

[dougie]

Nope, all of that was in the court records themselves.

The court was really annoyed by the fact McNeill was pleading illness for Polly and then stuck her on a train and ignored all the summonses, etc.. and was extremely reluctant to leave Polly alone while she testified - she did pretty well, actually, on the stand. Until they asked her whether she could swear to Mcneill being in bed all night and she couldn't - or wouldn't - swear either way.

He really did act oddly, that McNeill. Even one of the Murphy boys flat out stated in court that he considered McNeill to have done it. Several people did, actually. Doesn't mean he did -- but he wasn't doing himself any favours at all.

Could you give me the link to those records please..Id like to take a look if its possible. thanks

 

[quock]

With respect,I think it might take a giant leap of faith to believe the Murphys were OBVIOUSLY hiding ANYTHING.Where is the evidence of anything other than the Murphy parents,barely literate,country folk,confused,overpowered and run ragged by the Press,the questions,innuendo etc at a time when they were trying to deal with the loss of their children in such a horrible manner?
Urquarts statement re Murphys at the Commission.
" I have never seen any reasonable ground for dsuspecting the complicity of the Murphy family in this tragedy.I have stated that in my report,and I have stated it all along"
"There is not a scintilla of evidence to arouse a suspicion as to the complicity of the Murphy family ..indeed every circ points to the contrary.Of that we have not the slightest doubt"
Not sure where this suspicion of Mcneil not wishing Polly to testify comes from to be honest. Id suggest its a misinterpretation of facts or half facts by some who are determined to see that which they want to see maybe.
"The man at the sliprails" seen by several ,but positively identified by none is really ,possibly, the key .That is if he really existed of course,which I sometimes doubt......Bit like the UFO syndrome...one person says hes seen it,and suddenly thousands of others come out of the wardrobe and say they have seen it too.

page 52 here dougie http://www.gattonmurders.com/UrquhartInput.pdf
The very reticent answers (when they could remember !) given by all of the Murphy family under oath, had the police tearing their hair out !

 

[quock]

As far as I can figure, the crime had to fall into one of three possible categories or scenario's, and below I have listed them in order of likelihood (#1 being the most likely)

#1 The crime was an opportunistic, unplanned one based on lust, with the murderer selecting his victims at random.

#2 The crime was not planned before, but was carried out due to the Murphy's stumbling onto something they were not supposed to witness (ie. they may have pulled into Moran's paddock to view the Clarke's fireworks - enter McNeil here if he went out that night). And by saying "not supposed to witness" I don't mean the fireworks, but some sort of crime or unnatural act.

#3 The crime was meticulously planned, with revenge of some description being the motive.

 

[quock]

Shown below is just one example of the incredible ineptitude of the investigating police. The Mr. (Archibald) Meston mentioned held the title of Protector of Aboriginals for South Queensland, and was contacted very early in the investigation to bring some black-trackers to Gatton. Mr. Meston hand picked 3 of the very best trackers out of 50 available.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Okay, after watching the AS story, a few thoughts:

- Stephanie Bennet is an awesome old lady. Good on her for her dedication and vigour in pursuing the case, especially at her advanced age.

- Quinn certainly seems like a viable suspect. Man with a heavy grudge against Michael, in the area at the time..

I'm currently fascinated by the Edith May Cook obituary (inexplicably found near the crime scene). Was she the same girl, I wonder as the one that died of an abortion, according to Stephanie (from the AS transcript):

Because they were isolated so strictly from any male companionship the young fellows considered they were stuck up. That was the expression, the Murphy girls were stuck up. Michael was a non drinker and a very hard worker. He was a good looking young man and obviously very successful with women. One of his girlfriends, who lived next door, actually on the farm next door. um he made pregnant and then wouldn’t marry her and she died of an abortion. So Michael was certainly not regarded highly by some of the families.


The farm belonging to George Cook, Edith May's father, was just on the other side of Tenthill Road and a little bit north of the property where the Murphys lived. She died in 1896, at home "after a brief illness", age 18.

I think Edith May Cook might have been the neighbour girl Michael knocked up and then refused to marry and who died at home of a botched abortion...

And she died on (oops, correction!) 27th December, 1896.

The Murphys were murdered on 26th December, 1898.

And there's that clipping found not far from the murder scene....

I'd like to be 100% certain that Edith May was the same girl made pregnant by Micheal Murphy, before I take this line of thought any further.

Hi, Folks. Fascinating stuff and what work's gone into this!

This may have already been addressed (as I still have pages to read), but: As to the dates of the Edith Cook death and the Murphy murders...Wiki (yes I know, it's Wiki) says that the Murphies died between 10:00 p.m. on the 26th and 4:00 a.m. on the 27th...so it's entirely possible that they did die on the same day as Edith (which makes me lean toward a revenge motive). Again, this may have already been addressed and a more specific TOD may have been found from a better source than Wiki, but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

I'll go back to lurking and bookmarking now. Lots of interesting stuff to explore more thoroughly here! I'm looking forward to seeing what else ya'll come up with. :seeya:

 

[Ausgirl]

Awesome to see you here, MTM! Thanks for your post - and yup, the timing sure made my nose twitch..

I don't think the Murphys had any hand in the murders (tho Mcneill's not quite clear yet in my mind..) - but they sure had a laundry list of potential enemies. Particularly Mrs. Murphy and Michael. And at least a few of the locals knew full well by mid-afternoon that the Murphy kids were going be on the road to the dance that night.

That's what makes the "random stranger dunnit" theories harder to immediately side with, IMO.

 

[dougie]

page 52 here dougie http://www.gattonmurders.com/UrquhartInput.pdf
The very reticent answers (when they could remember !) given by all of the Murphy family under oath, had the police tearing their hair out !

Im not convinced the murphy were reticent in their answers. Annoyed maybe by some of the questions,and the manner in which they were put maybe,and almost certainly they were out of their depth in a court....as many would be.
By way of explanation of what I mean ,here is a little extract from the transcript.
Q we are inquiring, mrs murphy, into the general conduct of the police force.......will you tell us what you want to say?
A I want to say that I was accused of keeping something back.
Q BY WHOM?
A by the police and by the man on the bench.
Q who accused you of that?
A the police.
Q in what manner?
A they did not say it plainly ,but they wanted to make me say something that I did not know anything about.
Q
in what manner?
A bringing me in here and accusing me of something of which I did not know,and saying that I knew more than I wanted to say.
Q do you make a general accusation against the police?
A Yes,against a few of them.
Q in what way did they try?
A by asking me several things that happened that night-what I said to my childrenand what they said to me,where my husband was,when he went out-when he came in-Inever saw anything like it.

24TH march,
The bench....(to mrs murphy) you have been subpoenad to give further evidence
Urquart...did you kiss the book?
murphy..yes,what else would I do?
Urquart..did you?
murphy ...yes
Then question about how she put mrs mcneil to bed on the night of the murders..
Urquart...what side did you put her?
murphy...she always slept on the FRONT of the bed.
Urquart ...Dont fence with the question.what side did you put her?

another thread of testimony...
Q did you see mrs mcneil that day?
A (murphy) yes
Q do you remember anything she said?
A no
Q have you always a blank memory like this?
A it is not bad,but i cannot remember at a time like this.
Urquart ..It is just the time you ought to remember.

One might come to the conclusion that the police were attempting to browbeat the murphys,or at least there was an element of bullying in their approach.
I honestly cant see any justification for thinking that the murphys acted in any way strangely during the hearings.
I would be very interested in seeing the evidence and the sources,and the whole picture of of the "mcneil being terrified of polly testifying " saga...but can find no ref to it...


Mr Meston and his theory mentioned here...
Q at any rate your theory was not acted upon?
Meston....No.It is a difficult theory to act upon.
doesnt sound like gross incompetence by the police to me.....more like a theory that didnt have enough evidence to support it.

 

[Robin Hood]

Slightly off the above topic, but I want to mention this before I forgot.

http://www.gattonmurders.com/UrquhartInput.pdf

''He also examined the body of Michael Murphy. The skull was broken into fourteen or sixteen small pieces, some quite detached from the membranes. There was a large patch of blood about 4in. by 3in. behind the right ear, extending to the neck. It was a thin, layer, and quite dark. On cleaning this away he noticed a wound, which he thought, was caused by a bullet. On internal examination he found a channel to the base of the skull, which, in his opinion, was caused by a bullet. He looked for the bullet for a considerable time, but was hindered by bone splinters. Witness felt the effects of blood poisoning, and desisted from the examination. He stated positively that a bullet was in the head, but no exit .This was said to everyone in the room Sergeant Arrell, Mr. M’Neill, Mr. Wiggins, and others. The arms of the man were bent backwards, but not tied, and a purse was loose in one of the hands, and a strap between the hands. There were no marks of tying on the hands. The cause
of death in Michael Murphy’s case was a shot from a bullet.''

It looks like somebody was strong enough to hold Michael's arms behind him while holding a gun to his head, the downward angle suggests to me the bullet was shot from behind Michael. I would assume if a second person shot Micheal it would have been from the side, passing straight through. The fact he was holding his purse makes me think he was in the process of being robbed when the attacker took hold of him.

 

[quock]

It seems to me that every time the police had even a scrap of information under their noses, they suddenly lost interest or bungled the whole thing.
Also an example of a family member's reticence -

Witness Statement from Jeremiah Murphy

Had you any suspicion -No.
Have you since? -Yes.
The Police Magistrate: Don't give any names.
Inspector Urquhart: When your mother said it was not meant for her children, did she say who it was meant for? -No.
Have you told anyone your suspicions? -I have told a couple.
The Police Magistrate: Outside your own family? -Yes.
Inspector Urquhart: Did you tell the police? -No; but they have been told.
How do you know? -My brother Dan told them.
To which police? -I don't know.
You didn't tell me. Do you know he told somebody? -I know he told somebody.
The Police Magistrate: Did he tell you he had told somebody? -Yes.
Do your father and mother know Dan's suspicions? -Yes.
How long have they known? Three or four weeks.
Before they gave evidence here? -I don't know. I have known that length of time.
Do you know they knew he suspected somebody? -I don't know.
Do they know Dan suspects somebody? -I don't know.
What I want to know is whether your father and mother know of your suspicions? -I don’t know.
How long have you had these suspicions? -About three weeks.
And have you taken any action in consequence of these suspicions? Have you tried to do anything? -Dan told the police, and I don't know.
You don't know whether he told the police? Have you done anything yourself? -No.

 

[dougie]

Hi Quoick.....With respect again,I just cant see the reticence there. He isnt holding anything back,in fact wquite opposite. He isnt being precise perhaps,but he is relating someone elses suspicions,rumours etc.If he contradicted himself slightly thats understandable in circumstances.Surely if he had wanted to with hold evidence he could have merely not mentioned any suspicions regarding anyone or by anyone? Suspicions arent evidence,rumours arent evidence either
Again its easy to criticise the police,and,in truth,some criticism is due,particularly the issue concerning the locals tramping all over the crime scene within a few hours of the discovery of the murders. But to suggest the police lost interest every time there was a clue isnt borne out by the facts.For instance,every tramp on the road within a hundred miles was arrested and investigated.Most respectable and less respectable people in gatton area were interrogated .Over a 100 suspects were brought in and questioned. The police visited and questioned 1051 families..over 3000 written statements were taken by the police by middle of january.There was a complete check of firearms all over the district.
There is quite enough of a mystery involved in this case without adding innuendo,rumours and mere suspicion to the mix.
Kind regards

 

[quock]

dougie, if the police did such a great job, why did they let the No. 1 prime suspect (Thomas Day) walk away scot free and unhindered ? Why did they not even bother to check his background ?

 

[Ausgirl]

First person who can dig up detailed info on:

a. McNeill's butcher shop burning down, and/or

b. McNeill's movements in the years following the murders (particularly post-Polly's death at 38 - six years on? Who knows, even Polly didn't know how old she actually was...Let's just say after her death..)

- wins an internet tinny of Fosters and a home-made pav.

Cause I got bupkis.

 

[Ausgirl]

Oho - seems I get the tinny. Found this, on the gattonmurders.com site: (bbm)

Butcher from Westbrook.
At the time he had two children: Beatrice born in 1896 and Daniel Joseph born in 1898.
William McNeil in his later years moved to Kingaroy where he died at the age of eighty years on 12 September 1950.
One day in 1916 he displayed the horsemanship for which he was renowned when he rescued a three year old girl from a sulky drawn by a maddened horse as it bolted through the streets of Toowoomba.
McNeill was driving in the town when he saw the bolting horse with the child alone in the sulky.
He took in the situation at a glance, stood up in his own vehicle and, lashing his horse to a gallop, set out after and overtook the bolting horse. Reaching over, he plucked the child to safety.
For this notable act of bravery William McNeill was, awarded a bronze medal by the Royal Humane Society on 8 February 1917.
It appears he went on to become a linesman. William McNeill, Margaret Street Toowoomba, linesman Post and Telegraph

... but the pav's still on offer for info on the burned shop.

 

[Ausgirl]

The fact he was holding his purse makes me think he was in the process of being robbed when the attacker took hold of him.

Robin. I swear, we must have been separated at birth or something. Or we're, you know, a little bit creepy via murder case telepathy.

Because that purse has been on my mind all week. Was it really still in his hand though, after all the violence... or was it put there. Is the burning question.

And as Norah was posed.. we can't rule out that the others weren't.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Thoughts regarding the slaying of the horse:

About the only thing that makes me not look toward McNeill in all this is that was his horse, right? He loaned the young people his horse and rig? So to kill his own horse would be akin to pushing his own car off a mountain, yes? Of course if a person is enraged enough to kill their own family members, killing one's own animal could be considered "collateral damage," I suppose.

IMO possibilities as to why the horse was killed:

a) Intimidation of the young people;
b) To ensure it didn't get skittish and bolt home while the assaults/murders were taking place, thus alerting others that something was wrong;
c) To ensure none of the parties could break away and escape via horse and rig while he was assaulting/murdering the others;
d) To ensure that after the fact, the horse wouldn't bolt and run home, thus alerting others something was wrong, and giving the murderer more time to leave the scene and possibly establish an alibi elsewhere.