... 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?
I do see your POV on the likelihood of this ever being solved - but respectfully, and even though I am not fond of claims re solving when the proof is tenuous at best (ie, Patricia Cornwell and the Ripper), I must disagree with your opinion that aiming to solve is pointless. Old cases can be solved, not often and maybe without hard DNA evidence, but solid proof of guilt is not beyond the realm of possibility.. Also, every person who decides they've solved a really old case digs up a bit more info for the rest of us to ponder.. and the crime and its victims are remembered, for a little bit longer.
