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

[stevebehnke]

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 ?

I am now of the belief the cover up goes as high as Rome.

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

Thanks again, Dougie and you too, Bargle. I like to have my facts straight, even if I do speculate a lot (I find speculation sometimes leads to the right questions, even if it's pointed in the wrong direction).

Speaking of which - I find myself wondering about the fates of McNeill and Polly, in the years after the murders..

All I know so far is that some years after the murders, McNeill was once again in the news as a man of action, when he stopped a bolting carriage with a child in it..

She may have been illigitimate.
Left home about 1890.
Married M'Neill 17 Jun 1896
She moved to Gatton to stay at the Murphy's in late September 1898.
Her name was Mary M’Neill, wife of William M’Neill. Married in 1896
At the time of the tragedy she had two children: Beatrice born in (July) 1896 and Daniel Joseph born on the 27th May 1898.
Suffered from paralysis after the birth of Daniel.
Spent 3 months in Toowoomba hospital from 17th June, 1898 to late September.
When she left the hospital she was not cured, and was still in bad health.
Died age 38
Taken from The North Queensland Register (Townsville) 18th July 1904
We ("Darling Downs Gazette" of 2nd, inst.) regret to record the demise of Mrs. W. McNeil, who expired at her residence, Westbrook, on Thursday night, at the age of 38 years. Mrs. McNeil had been an invalid for more than six years, suffering from paralysis. A few days ago she received a chill, which brought on complications that resulted in death. She leaves a husband and two children to mourn their severe bereavement, and with them sympathy is expressed. Mrs. McNeil was a sister of the ill-fated brother and two sisters who met such a tragic end at Gatton nearly six years ago.

Butcher from Westbrook.
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 Dept.regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

Hey Guys, this is my very first post here, as I too am fascinated by the Gatton Murders. Firstly, can I ask what particular books you've read on the subject ? My best reference is "The Gatton Mystery" by James and Desmond Gibney (Angus & Robertson 1977) and I can thoroughly recommend this book as being very objective and analytical in its approach to the subject. The transcripts of the actual statements made during the following Inquiries are particularly enlightening, especially that of Clarke the butcher, who seems to have been wary of telling the whole truth. Whether this was just the old but staunch Aussie tradition of not telling the "traps" (police) anything, or not "dobbing" on a mate (especially when poor Irish vs. well educated English Mason's were involved) we are left to ponder. The prime suspect Thomas Day was also apparently well read, as when the police paid him a visit, he was found to be reading "Rienzi" by Sir Edward George Earle Bulwer-Lytton. Not the sort of reading material you would expect a (presumably) illiterate swagman to be reading ! Enough for now, quock

The Rienzi Story raises its head.
My thought js it was said in jest, by the police when asked what Thomas Day was reading, as if to say how the f*** would I know.
Interestingly the high brow book was written by the most likely perpetrator of the Oxley murder Edward Lytton Carus-Wilson's uncle.
The murder of a teenager at about the same time as the Gatton Affair.

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

Continuing right along - is it possible that "Thomas Day" was in fact a "black sheep" member of the British aristocracy, perhaps even with Royal connections, sent to the backblocks of the Empire to prevent embarrassment to his respected family at home ? We all know that Jack the Ripper supposedly came from a highly privileged background. Maybe that would explain the apparent great reluctance by the senior investigator, Inspector Urquhart (who had a typically upper-class British military education) to treat Thomas Day as even remotely suspect. Could it be possible that William McNeil (married to the semi-crippled Polly) was having an affair with Norah, who maybe was pregnant to him ? There seems to be a few small inconsistencies in his account of exactly what happened on the morning of the 27th December 1898.......

Very observant. To my mind pregnancy (or trying to end one) is what it was all about although I doubt the father was McNeill.
The perpetrator was called "Father" by the victims
I doubt murder was ever intended.
After it happened it was made to look like rape was the motive to throw suspicion away from the perp(s).
The murder of a horse and three people, two girls tied and raped, by all the evidence I have took place in under a half an hour. No rope brought to the scene, heaps of blood under Norah (too much for rape) the undisturbed scene, it was someone they knew and trusted who may have been trying to help until things got out of control. Who but a priest out of force of habit would face all the feet west?

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

... AHA.

I think I found the girl who died of the abortion.. From an interview with William Murphy.

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

The Police Magistrate: Have you always worked on your father's farm? -No; I was for two years at the Agricultural College. Witness, continuing, said he knew a man known as "Stuttering Billy Ryan," and also his daughter, Kate. Michael also knew her.
Inspector Urquhart: Do you remember when that girl was at Hyde's, at Dungar? -Yes.
Did Michael ever go to see her? - I could not say.
Did you ever go up there yourself? -No.
Were there any other girls there besides Kate Ryan? -I could not say.
Did you ever hear Michael was Kate Ryan's boy? - I don't think I did.
Did you ever see her and Michael together? -Yes, once; at our place.
Only on that occasion? -Yes.
Did he see her home? -I am not sure. Witness, continuing, said, he heard from Jerry aboutM'Neill's house being burnt down, but that he (Jerry) did not know whether it was insured or not.


Several other family members were asked about Kate Ryan, deceased. It seems the young ladies of Gatton were dropping like flies in the late 1890's..

From the same source linked above:

Continuing, witness said he knew Mrs. Cook,postmistress at Lower Tent Hill. She had two girls named Georgina and May, both of whom died. They were friendly with his girls. About twelve months before Christmas, soon after the Cook girls died, he remembered some one reading to him something about the Cook girls. It was said by Katie that it was a newspaper clipping; it was placed upon the dresser; but he did not know what became of it.

So the Cooks lost two daughters. To illness? Okay. Then why the frack was an apparently long-lost clipping of the Cook girls' funeral (about which the Murphys had a somewhat remarkable collective memory, considering they were hard pressed to recall much about anything else) found at the crime scene? Whyyyy??

Anyways, back to Kate Ryan:

Was it Kate Ryan's brothers who were immediately accused (and subsequently cleared..) of being the killers? Yup, I think so. And what was "Hyde's at Dungar?"

There is a Thomas Ryan questioned in court, who'd dated Polly for "seven or eight years" but it seems Mr. and Mrs. Murphy did not approve of the match. Tom didn't take their eventual break-up well at all, and they continued seeing and corresponding with each other for quite some time after.

There's also a Jimmy Ryan mentioned by Polly (and no-one else? odd.. not that I've found anyway..) in regard to the dance at Mount Sylvia:

She heard no one speak of a dance at tea time. Ellen had said, when at the races,that she had declined an invitation to the Mount Sylvia dance, and she was going to Gatton.

The invitation came from Jimmy Ryan, of Blackfellows’ Creek, and was given in witness’s hearing.
Ryan appeared to go on with the joke, and said, “Ah, do come.” Ellen replied, “I don’t think I will, Jimmy,” and Ryan said, “Do come; Michael will be there, and if not I will bring him.”
Ellen only laughed, and there seemed to be some joke which witness did not understand. Ryan then went away


--- I have found the whole debacle of Polly McNeill (nee Murphy) giving evidence quite interesting. It's pretty obvious that McNeill did not want his wife on that stand - he sent her off to Toowoomba on the train, stating she was not well enough to testify.

The court was "WTF - than how's she well enough to get a train to Toowoomba.."

After several subpoenas and much angsting from the court, Polly finally testified. McNeill insisted on being present, the court denied this request. Polly appeared very frail and couldn't seem to concentrate on the deposition. She kept glancing nervously at the door through which McNeill had exited.

Her testimony is interesting to say the least... Here's an excerpt I found particularly strange, for several reasons:

She was 32 years old.
Inspector Urquhart: But at the Inquest your brother William’s age was given as 32.Are you older or younger?
Witness said she was the younger; but she always understood she
was 32.
(Aus: WTH. How could she never think to question this oddity? Was Polly a bit 'simple'?)
She had been married about three years, but had been away from home some time before.
(Aus: The whole McNeill marriage thing is just weird. Polly was apparently about 8 months pregnant when she married Mcneill, if the notes I found are right, and she married 17th June 1996. Her baby was born in July. But McNeill never met the rest of the Murphys until 17th June 1898 (the date she was also admitted to Toowoomba hospital for a three month stay prior to moving back home with the parents)? Did none of her family attend the wedding? More to this than anyone's saying, methinks... )
She had been away from home about eight years altogether; but had visited it during that time.
Prior to meeting her present husband, there had been some sweethearting between witness and Tom Ryan. This had died out. They had often had rows, and witness had also had a beating from her mother for going with him. The sweet hearting continued after this. Ellen had carried letters between them, and Tom had lent her his horse, which she had kept at her place without her mother knowing. Tom did not seem annoyed when she married M’Neill. Norah was against her going with Tom, and she had told him that her mother was against a match. She did not remember telling him that Norah and Ellen were against it.
She might have told him that witness’s mother had told her that Ryan had said he would have Polly (meaning witness), in spite of her. The reason they objected to Tom was because he was fond of drink.
Witness did not know if Michael was against the match with Ryan. Tom had not told her so.
Ryan and M’Neill had not had a row over witness. Her mother did not want her to marry M’Neill, because he was a Protestant, and she was a Roman Catholic. The other members of the family did not know anything about the proposed match with M’Neill.
She had seen Tom Ryan at a distance since the murder, but not to speak to.
Witness and Tom Ryan had been sweethearting nine or ten years.
She did not know when it was that she finally told him she would have no more to do with him.
She had never heard Ryan say, and had never heard that he had said, he would be revenged for not getting her.
She did not know of her brothers or sisters ever having quarrels with anyone.
M’Neill ... was on good terms with the whole of the family since the 17th June, 1898, prior to which date he did not know them.

-- Anyway. Curiouser and curiouser, eh?

Kate Ryan's Story
MONDAY, JUNE 10. 1895 INCEST.-Michael Ryan was charged with this offence, the prosecuting witness being her granddaughter, a girl about fifteen years of age. Constable Bailey deposed to the arrest of Ryan, who, in auswor to the warrant, said : “l am as innocent as the child unborn of the charge that is being made against me,” he added, “ Come on, Mr. Bailey, I am willing to go with you.”
Catherine Ryan said she was with her grandfather (the accused) in Grafton-street; the offence was committed on Saturday night, the 18th May 1895. On cross-examination she admitted having had improper relations with other men whom she named. The case was heard with closed doors.
The cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, Katherine Ryan, continued. In answer to questioning, she stated that what she had previously stated as to her grandfather having had improper relations with her was not true; he had never assaulted her in any way. At this stage the Police Magistrate stated that he thought it was unnecessary to proceed any further with the case. She, was evidently incapable of speaking the truth, was unreliable and unworthy of credence. What she swore to on a previous occasion was now admitted by her to be untrue. In the face of such testimony he would like to know whether Senior-sergeant O’Loan intended to proceed. Sergeant O’Loan said that the witness’ last extrordinary statement had broken the case down. He did not intend to call any more witnesses, and would withdraw the charge. After consultation with his brother magistrates, the Police Magistrate, addressing the accused, said: Michael Ryan, it is my duty to convey to you the decision of the Bench that you are discharged without a stain upon your character. I am sure your family and your friends will be glad to learn that the terrible charge preferred against you was groundless. The Bench are unanimously of the opinion that you are innocent. I am sorry for you. You are now discharged. Accused: Thank you, your worship.
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1895. (Before the Police Magistrate.)
NEGLECTED CHILD. -Katherine Ryan appeared charged with being a neglected child and out of the control of her lawful guardians. After hearing the evidence the accused was committed to the Reformatory School At Toowoomba for 20½ months, until the 2nd March, 1897.
Mrs. Murphy said she knew Kate, a daughter of “stuttering Billy Ryan,” She had been dead about two years, but she (witness) did not know what she died from. Both the boys and girls knew her.
Why was incest hinted at at the Inquiry?

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

We all know that the doctor who performed the first post mortem (Dr. von Lossberg) was not the most observant person in the world, but this aspect of the P.M. is strange. Whilst probing with his finger for the bullet in Michaels head (I thought proper medical men would use a metal instrument for that) von Lossberg claimed that a bone splinter pricked his finger and he immediately (after washing his hands in a disinfectant fluid) felt a "numbness going up my arm, and a swelling of the finger." He stated later that he had got blood poisoning and (Quote) " I was three months ill, and I have still the effects on my body in blotches on the skin ; even my hands show still the marks of abscesses and all sorts of things. I felt regularly ill for three months from the blood poisoning." Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I put it to you that firstly - blood poisoning could not have presented symptoms as swiftly as it did (and last so long in the good Doctor's system) unless maybe there was an administered man-made poison in Michael's lifeless body. If poison was present in the body, perhaps all three Murphy siblings were first drugged with poison at another location and then transported dead to the "murder" site, where the horrific injuries were inflicted on site. That, at least, would explain the lack of signs of a life and death struggle at the scene. As there was no blood to be found in the Murphy's cart, it would suggest that at least two murderers were involved - one to convey the bodies, whilst the other (dropping the harness chin strap on the way) led the Murphy's horse back before shooting it at the scene. Whilst Thomas Day would seem to be the obvious candidate for being the murderer, this would only fit if he acted alone. From what we know of the man, he was a furtive loner who would barely speak much more than single syllable words, and he doesn't strike you as being a person who would "hunt with a pack." We have to eliminate Richard Burgess as having a part in this, simply because he basically had a cast iron alibi for not being around Gatton at the time of the murders. Yes, the police tried their hardest to pin it on him, even going to the lengths of travelling with him over his stated routes around the district, but all to no avail as his story was backed up by people he had claimed to have met on the way. Even so, Mr. Burgess made some interesting statements that would indicate he knew more about the crime (and the Murphy's) than he was letting on. When in the Dalby police cells on the 6th January 1899, (Quote)...."he is said to have spoken freely of the Gatton murders, saying that the eldest girl Murphy (presumably Norah, not Polly) was a great flirt, and that it was time she was put out of the road." Was the mother (Mary Murphy) perhaps a "back-yard" abortionist, maybe even assisted in that work by Norah ? If the story about Michael Murphy fathering a child is true, that might be reason enough for someone to want both Norah and Michael dead.

From the evidence I have it seems the original doctor was a drunkard and grossly incompetent.
He didn't even undress the bodies for examination.

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

Keep in mind that the bodies were less than 24 hours old here. Dr. von Lossberg left Ipswich on the 2 p.m. train on the afternoon of Tuesday 27th December, arriving in Gatton at 4 p.m. and went straight to the hotel to commence the post mortems. Ellen Murphy's body was the first to be examined, and Dr. von Lossberg was of the opinion that she had only been dead 12 to 16 hours "certainly less than 24 hours". The P.M. for all 3 bodies took something like 2 hours and 20 minutes, with Dr. von Lossberg departing Gatton on the 8 p.m. train that same night. Whilst being fairly vague on the subject, we are left to conclude that more than one male was involved in the crime, if only by the insinuation that a large quantity of sperm was present, both internally and on both girl's clothing.

From The Main Forensics Guy At The Time
A.M.P. Buildings Edward street, Brisbane 1st March 1899
To W.E Parry Okeden Esq., Commissioner of Police. Brisbane.
Sir,
The following notes should I trust give you the results obtained from an examination of certain clothes worn by the victims of the Gatton Tragedy.
Exhibit “A” Norah Murphy
“ “B” Theresa Ellen Murphy, usually called Ellen Murphy.
“ “C” Michael Murphy.
Exhibit “A” (Flannelette Singlet) No. 7
“ “ (Drawers) No. 5
Two pieces removed from each. Was unsuccessful in satisfying myself as to the presence of semen in the first pieces removed from each on the 8th of January, 1899.
Yet at a much later date. 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 and for abortion) 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”.
Yours faithfully. (Signed) A.W. Orr (Just another mystery regarding this case.)

It appears from the report of Dr. Orr the Number 1 forensic guy at the one day there is no sign of semen on any of the clothing and a few weeks later there was plenty. 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 perpetrator who would be above suspicion if lust was the motive as it was made to appear to be.
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 people 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 embarrassing 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 are done away with.
At a much later date when the mother and father died neither, although devout Catholics, allowed themselves a funeral service at the Catholic Church

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

24 hours of Aussie summer heat doesn't do a dead body any favours, though.. I just did a bit of research on sepsis onset (scary, as I have a compromised immune system and get it pretty regularly myself..) and I found that signs of severe sepsis can set in as soon as 30 mins from the introduction of bacteria into the blood stream. So maybe not so unfeasible that the doctor got sick not long after getting pricked by a bone smeared with rotting brain matter. (why do I suddenly not feel like eating lunch...)

I am not convinced there was more than one assailant. I don't discount it one bit, but I can't take it as hard fact. A single man with a gun pointed at somebody's head can very quickly turn a whole roomful of people passive and compliant. The East Area rapist managed to rape and kill women as they lay next to their husbands in bed. Dennis Rader was also good at multiple-victim rapes and homicides. It's not impossible that one man murdered all victims and raped both girls.

If the witness accounts are anywhere near accurate, it can be guessed that Michael and the horse both died fairly soon after 9.30 - 10pm but there's no indication of how quickly the girls died after that. He could have had them tied up for an hour, two hours, three... plenty of time to rape both.

EAR raped his victims multiple times per crime scene, two or three or more times in just an hour or two.

Binding is also a tool of the single perp.. not exclusively, but they do tend to employ it when there's multiple vics.

Not saying multiple perps didn't happen - just that a single man armed with a gun can control multiple unarmed people, too.

Question of the hour for me: why'd McNeill poop himself when they called his wife in to give evidence, and shunt her off to Toowoomba on a train, a far more physically tiring journey than taking a buggy a few mins down the road to the courthouse.. Like I said before, the man -makes- me want to suspect him. :\

Why was the family so reluctant to have Mary. “Polly” M’Neill. testify?
Shame and scandal in the family.
Mary. “Polly” Murphy was born some time prior to the 18th of July 1866. She left home about 1890.
Her name at the time of the Tragedy was Mary “Polly” M’Neill, wife of William M’Neill. They married on the 17th Jun 1896. Her mother Mary Holland married Daniel Murphy on the 10th of April 1866. (She was at the very least conceived out of wedlock.)
The stigmas the family bore regarding Polly:- She was conceived (or most likely born) out of wedlock (Mary Sen. left Ireland alone in 1864 at the age of 23 and married Daniel Sen. 18 months later in 1866. (Proof of her illegitimacy is that her name is not entered as a sibling on any of the other children's birth certificates and her birth certificate cannot be found.)
Her eldest child Beatrice born in (July) 1896 was 2 years and 5 months at the time of the tragedy. (She was also conceived out of wedlock.) Suffering from paralysis. She moved back to Gatton to stay at the Murphy’s in late September 1898.
Back in 1898, Conception out of wedlock resulted in major stigma being reflected on the entire families of the ones involved. Abortion carried even worse shame and was punishable by up to 15 years in jail for all involved or even knowing about it.

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

I really, really must read that book, Q.

I'd love to examine Clarke's statements re Day..

Will be scouring ebay this weekend for it..

Hi there You Can Read That Here
http://www.gattonmurders.com/ClarkeOnDay.pdf

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

EVIDENCE JOHN WIGGINS
"John Wiggins, a dairy farmer, living three miles 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 sliprails at about twenty minutes past 10. They had three dogs with them, which went sniffing inside the rails, especially a black kangaroo dog. He did not notice tracks leading up to the rails.
Inspector Urquhart: Were the rails up? I could not say.
Inspector Urquhart: What? -I could not say.
Inspector Urquhart: That is nonsense. You say you don't know, when the dogs went in? -They went into the paddock there.
You said they went through the rails? -They went into the paddock. I could not say where.
Then your evidence is wrong.
What are you swearing to? -I don't think they went through the rails. They were just inside the paddock.
Continuing, he said they met no one on the way home.
Before reaching the sliprails they met four boys walking. Of these he only knew one-Fred Mountain"
(this evidence obviously of no consequence !)

Maybe it tells you it was all over by then. Not much time for all that is supposed to have happened.

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

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 ?

"Touch not the Lord's Anointed"

Regards,
Steve

 

[stevebehnke]

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.

In those times ask yourself what would be a difficult theoty to act upon?
Ever hear of a priest being hung in those times?

Regards,
Steve

 

[STANDREID]

In those times ask yourself what would be a difficult theoty to act upon?
Ever hear of a priest being hung in those times?

Regards,
Steve

He wasn't hung but Hans Schmidt, a Roman Catholic Priest, went to the electric chair in NY for a 1913 murder.

 

[stevebehnke]

He wasn't hung but Hans Schmidt, a Roman Catholic Priest, went to the electric chair in NY for a 1913 murder.

Thanks for that Stan, there have been some very interesting and helpful posts by yourself an others.

As you will see by the below hanging an Irishman perhaps even an Irish priest would not, indeed could not happen. Federation was at stake.
By late 1898 it was becoming clear that in the upcoming election due in early 1899 the powerful Pastoralist led (Masonic) government of the day looked like losing its grip on power. A grip on power that it has held for many years, and losing it to the newly formed Andrew Dawson led, Labour Party.
This all came at a time when the colonies of Australia were looking to form the Commonwealth of Australia, they needed to stay in government or perhaps risk losing the referendum concerning Federation, resulting in the loss of years of work and careful planning.
The Colony of Queensland, formed in 1859 from New South Wales was to play an integral part in the formation of the planned Commonwealth of Australia.
The conservative (Masonic) government in 1898 was led by the 13th Premier of Queensland James Robert Dickson, an ardent supporter of the formation of the Commonwealth, he knew the elections in 1899 would be a close run affair. He had ambitions of being a member of the first federal parliament.
(He was later to become Sir James, and subsequently moved into the wider political arena as Minister for Defence in the first Commonwealth Parliament.)
After more than a decade of discussion, planning, campaigning, politicking and bickering, six of Great Britain's colonies in Australasia were on the brink of uniting as a nation. Dickson knew it was far too important an occurrence to risk having an upstart Labour government in the colony of Queensland.
It was known the path to Federation was to be far from smooth and the fortunes of both the supporters and opponents of a union of the colonies fluctuated throughout the 1890's. The debate generated both passion and indifference, reflecting a lack of consensus about the country's future and its place in the world.
The Federation proposal was soon to be put to the people in a series of referendums, although not all adults would have the right to participate, only land holding males.

Regards,
Steve

 

[quock]

Steve (and others), in the interim since I last posted, I have, of all things, been doing some serious research into the Roman Catholic Church. It is now becoming clear (thanks mainly to the Enquiry into Child Sex Abuse) that evil and perverted priests have long been hiding behind their "untouchable" status to commit horrendous crimes in the community. If you doubt this (and I challenge all Catholics who do) then get hold of a book entitled "A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt. It exposes some incredible facts about the Roman Popes, some of whom have been the most depraved, corrupt, insane, murderous and perverted men in all of recorded history. Yes, well that was back in the Dark Ages, Catholics will say - but now its different. Wrong ! An author called David Yallop has written several books on the corruption and evil within the Vatican eg. "The Power and the Glory" (Inside the Dark Heart of John Paul II's Vatican), "In God's Name" etc. It would seem that the current Holy Father, Pope Francis, is the Pope most likely to drag the Catholic Church out of (amongst other things) its murky association with the Mafia and the incredible wealth it has accumulated from centuries of theft and shady dealings. One other honest Pope, John Paul 1, tried this back in 1978, but criminals within the Vatican saw to it that he lasted only 33 days before he suffered a "sudden death". Murder ? You betcha ! quock

 

[quock]

Moving right along - if Steve is hinting at what I think he is, don't be too incredulous. The Catholic church has for many, many centuries held an iron grip on, particularly, the poor and un-educated people in Ireland and Third World Countries (Indonesia and South America in particular). Mother Church does this by indoctrinating children from an early age to believe that they will only gain entry to Heaven by good "works" done through the Church. This means the more money you give, the more chance that you will enter the Heavenly Realms, likewise, if you attend Mass every day, you will be streets ahead of the person who only goes once a month. The Protestant churches on the other hand, preach a very simple doctrine, ie. If you truly believe in God, and that Jesus died on the Cross for your sins, then you are forgiven and will enter Heaven. It's as simple as that ! What has all this got to do with the Gatton murders you say ? Well, suppose for a moment that Mrs. Murphy (being a devout Irish Catholic) one Sunday in the Confessional Box, told the local Catholic Priest the family "secret" (which they appeared to have). The Priest would throw up his hands in horror, and to stave off eternal damnation for the whole Murphy clan, would insist that some form of atonement (however severe) was urgently required. I will let you fill in the details, but I'll just say that the Priest would have had at least 2 others to do the dirty work for him, standing watching (and supervising God's work) while the screams of "Father! Father!" echoed around the moonlit paddock. quock

 

[othervee]

Interestingly, William McNeil suffered from a second suspicious fire later in his life - a boarding-house he owned was set alight in 1937, and police were of the opinion it was deliberately lit. McNeil didn't live in the house itself but slept in a shed at the back of the property. The article is on Trove: FIRE INQUIRY AT KINGAROY

 

[stevebehnke]

Interestingly, William McNeil suffered from a second suspicious fire later in his life - a boarding-house he owned was set alight in 1937, and police were of the opinion it was deliberately lit. McNeil didn't live in the house itself but slept in a shed at the back of the property. The article is on Trove: FIRE INQUIRY AT KINGAROY

WOW,
You Guys are amazing.
If anyone from this forum is truly interested in solving this case I am happy to make available FREE of charge all the information I have amassed after 7 years of research. Just maybe we can put this case to bed.
Anyone interested just e-mail me on [email protected].
I have always thought one person alone could never solve this mystery.

Regards,
Steve

 

[TootsieFootsie]

Cold case murder: Deaths of Michael, Norah and Ellen Murphy still a mystery 115 years later

Courier Mail November 19th 2014

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...128064230?nk=f4404844c2d46f23a530ddbace88d621

 

[Ausgirl]

Interestingly, William McNeil suffered from a second suspicious fire later in his life - a boarding-house he owned was set alight in 1937, and police were of the opinion it was deliberately lit. McNeil didn't live in the house itself but slept in a shed at the back of the property. The article is on Trove: FIRE INQUIRY AT KINGAROY

This case is on my subscription list - how'd I miss all these new posts? Anyway -- brilliant find, othervee! I just knew he'd burned his shop down.... now this! McNeill's still WAY up there on my suspect list for these murders. Just too many red flags there for him not to be.

I have to wonder how disappointed he was, that his wife's 'rich' farming family turned out to be tightwads with a pile of kids, and poor gullible Polly with the history of undesirable boyfriends (which, in that family, would have been any boyfriends at all, I think..) and then marrying in a cloud of disapproval and baby-bump as she did, being far from the one most likely to be favoured in the will.... And McNeill liked easy money, says two arson fires. I reckon he sucked up hard to Mrs Murphy, who ended up doting on him nearly, after the murders. The murders which gave him the perfect opportunity to act the "hero" (which he wasn't, not like Michael) and win the Murphy parents over.. I am compelled to eyeball him, hard.

There's been a few good suspects identified (Steve, I will take you up on those books, so I can better grasp on your theory, I think) including the shearer's strike crowd that wasn't fond of Michael at all.. But I just can't get past some of McNeill's behaviour. Packing Polly off, sick as she was, to avoid her giving evidence for just one of many examples (and her silence on the stand.. was she too scared to speak at all?). Totally suss.

Dunno about "solved", but I reckon delving into possible motives and such, for the suspects we have might be very useful.

And while her brothers were cleared as suspects at the time, I still think the 'shame' and subsequent death of Kate could have been a powerful motive as well. It would have been a deep wound and a deep shame inflicted on a family in those days, and then she died as a direct result of Michael's abandonment. Reason for bad blood, indeed... let alone how nasty Mrs. Murphy may have gotten over something like that.