!!! Finally After Years Of Research, Albeit Still Only A Theory.
I Am 99% Certain Who DUNNIT !!!
AT LAST YOU CAN FIND OUT BELOW
The Gatton Tragedy Exposed At Last. An Examination Of The Secrets And Lies.
Anyone with any information, assistance or ideas.
Please Contact: email@example.com
Or Phone FreeCall Steve: 1800 068 303
Alfred Robinson, a reporter on the "Queensland Times," Ipswich, called by the commission, stated he was the first Press representative on the scene of the Gatton tragedy.
He produced notes taken by Mr. James, chemist, who was present; but there was no statement in them concerning the probable presence of a bullet in the head of Michael Murphy.
Dr Von Lossberg and Mr Robinson were met at Gatton by Sergeant Arrell and they went with him to the Brian Boru Hotel.
Mr Robinson wished to get an accurate description of the injuries sustained by the victims and he also wished to visit the scene of the murders. He arranged with Mr James, the chemist, who, he believed, was to assist at the post mortem examination, to give him a description of the injuries.
Mr Robinson then left for Moran's paddock. When he returned he received from Mr James written notes of the injuries, which, he understood, were dictated by Dr Von Lossberg.
These notes were read by Mr Robinson to the Commission.
A post mortem examination was carried out on each of the three bodies.
Dr Von Lossberg's findings are set out in detail in his evidence at the Magisterial Inquiry and before the Commission. Here briefly are some of the more salient features. The body of Ellen was carried out from the bedroom in which the three bodies had been lying to a back room of the hotel where a post mortem examination was carried out on each body in turn.
Ellen's body was inspected by the doctor "in a good light"; he found the face and upper portions of the body were smeared with blood and the brain was protruding on the right side through a fracture.
The doctor was of the opinion that Ellen had been dead about twelve to sixteen hours-certainly less than twenty-four hours.
The hands of the girl were tied with a handkerchief behind her back.
The body showed marks of fingernails and there were abrasions of the skin on both hands. The skull was fractured in all the principal bones that is, the frontal bone, the parietal bone and the occipital bones were all fractured. They were all compound comminuted fractures.
The doctor then unloosed the hands, and saw that "they were greatly swelled. The nails were black."
The doctor was of the opinion that the swelling was due to "the tightness of the bandage".
Ellen's clothes were greatly spattered with blood, and the legs were "scratched with fingernails" and smeared with blood.
He was of the view that the injuries to the skull had been caused by a heavy blunt instrument.
He examined the dead girl internally and found she was not pregnant.
He saw what he believed to be fingernail scratches on the thighs, inside the thighs. He said he had not the least doubt about the girl having been violated. He said, in his view, the blood on her petticoat "was caused by the outraging of the girl; it was the effect of resistance. The labia of the vagina was very swollen and scratched.
The finger marks went right through to the anus. The blood came from the scratches on the labia. "From her appearance he would have deduced that the girl had resisted violently and he would have expected to see, at the place where she was ravished, marks of a struggle. He said he could say with absolute certainty that she had not been shot. The doctor also mentioned that, when he withdrew his finger after internally examining
Ellen, there were undoubtedly signs of semen. He almost certainly would not have had a microscope, but nevertheless was able to say that it was undoubtedly semen.
Dr Von Lossberg next examined Norah's body. Her hands were also tied with a handkerchief behind her back. He found in her case a very plethoric state of the face and body so much so that, before doing anything else, he looked to the upper part of the body, and found a strap quite tight round the neck-so tight that it had stopped the circulation. At the same time he found on her face, near the right eye, a sharp cut "one which turned out. This cut was about two inches [fifty millimetres] long, dividing the true skin. It was made by some sharp instrument very likely by a knife. It was a clean cut."
At the outset of the post mortem examinations he had been shown the big piece of timber, with blood and hair attached to it, which Arrell had taken possession of when it had been handed to him at the scene of the tragedy earlier that day.
The doctor was asked whether the injury near Norah's right eye could have been caused by that instrument and he replied "It could not possibly have been made by that." Nor did the doctor think that the injury could have been caused by a fist. Norah's clothes, the doctor found, were more disordered than Ellen's, her clothes, in fact, were torn open from the neck right to the waist.
The breastbone, hands, and arms showed a number of fingernail marks, and there were also abrasions on the hands.
The injury to the head was about the same as in the case of Ellen, all the principal bones being fractured; but in Norah's case, all the blood vessels were overfilled with blood, and he took that to be caused by the strangulation.
The doctor said that the strap round Norah's neck had been put on before death. It had sunk into the flesh and could not be seen. Nobody had seen it until the doctor had made "a very minute examination. If I had not found it nobody would have known there was a strap round her neck at all."
The doctor said he could say that Norah had not been shot. Dr Von Lossberg then examined the lower region of Norah and he found, principally on the left thigh, "great numbers of fingernail marks, and they went to the privates and right to the anus in fact, right to the constrictor anus. The marks were more plentiful than with the first girl. I examined her likewise internally, and found a swelling, but no blood of any kind.
The hymen was ruptured. I gave the opinion that she was not in a pregnant state."
The doctor was asked whether he would say the girl had been ravished and he answered "Yes, I gave that opinion at the time, and I am still of the same opinion."
The examination of the doctor before the Commission then proceeded in the following way:
Q. She was a nonconsenting party, struggling to prevent violation, and so received those injuries, in your opinion?
A. That is so.
Q. Would you say there must have been great struggling on her part?
A. I would.
Q. If she was lying on a rug, would you expect to see that rug all tossed about?
A. I would, but I would not expect she would keep on a rug. I would expect that the rug be all disordered, and that she would roll off.
Q. Would you expect the ground to be tom up with the movements of her feet and her struggles?
A. Certainly. She had on a pair of quite new, strong boots, with high heels, and those boots would have made an impression somehow on the ground.
Q. And if the ground was soft and strewn with leaves, would you expect to find it greatly disturbed?
A. I would.
Q. Did you inform Sergeant Arrell that she was outraged, and had struggled violently?
A. Yes; I said she must have struggled more violently than the other girl, because all her hands and face and everything were marked with fingernails. I forgot to say that on the left side of the throat there were the marks of three fingers of the hand just above the strap, a hames strap it was.
Q. Do you think it was possible for one man to have ravished both of those girls?
A. I do not think it was possible at all. I have said from the beginning that I did not think it possible for one man to have done it.
Q. Did you give your opinion to the police?
A. I did.
Q. To whom-do you recollect? Was it to Sergeant Arrell?
A. Yes. I said at the time to the gentleman who was present that it was not possible to outrage the girl, and at the same time to do this tying. If the tying was done after death it would have been another thing; but one man could not possibly tie the hands when alive, and at the same time outrage the girl.
Q. Do you think one man could have outraged both?
A. He could. A strong man could.
Q. Norah was a very strong girl, was she not?
Q. A man struggling with her on the ground would knock about the ground a great deal?
A. He would; but the girls were not so strong as was represented.
Q. Were they not?
A. Not for farmers' daughters.
Q. Do you not consider from the resistance those girls must have offered, and the force used by the man, that the ground must have been knocked about a great deal?
A. I would certainly expect that.
Q. Were you on the ground at all?
A. No I was not.
The doctor went on to give his opinion that Norah received the cut to the region near her right eye when she was standing up. He considered the man must have been standing close to her very close to her. He was of the view that it was a downward strike that caused that injury. He considered also that the girls were standing when they received the other injuries to their heads. He believed the girls were
ravished before the injuries were inflicted. He was asked "You believe that these girls were ravished before the injuries you speak of were inflicted the injuries to the head?" and he replied "Yes, I believe so."
Dr Von Lossberg then examined the body of Michael Murphy. He said that, when first looked at, Michael Murphy's body represented the same picture, except that his hands were only bent back and not tied. Nor was there any mark on either hand to show that they had been tied, but he had in one hand an empty purse. The doctor said "He had in one hand a quite loose purse and between the two hands there was
lying a strap." The doctor went on to say that, just behind the right ear, there was some blood that extended to the lower jaw and to the neck in a thin film and quite dark and dry. He cleared this blood away. It extended from three to three and a half inches [seventy-