Post by sydneypush101 on Jan 22, 2014 12:48:50 GMT
Wikipedia Goddam (with apologies to Nina Simone)
It was the investigating detectives' belief that the victims' bodies were covered not by a murderer, but by a 'third person' who covered them for modesty after discovering the bodies. An initial suspect was a voyeur who contacted police twice, using different names. After interrogation, he was quickly dismissed. The prime suspect was a greyhound trainer who slipped his dogs daily on a path that passed the site where the bodies were found. He came forward only after his car was identified and, when interviewed by police, claimed to have used a different path that day and denied seeing the bodies. His obituary in 1977, however, claimed he had been the first to find the bodies. The theory regarding a motive of modesty for covering the bodies was supported by claims that the man was known to be a prude.
A woman who was a child at the time came forward at the time of the film's screening. She claimed she had found Mrs Chandler's handbag 4 km away in bushland between three houses. One of those houses was discovered to belong to a relative of the greyhound trainer and was near to his own home. A veteran greyhound racing steward also came forward and said that he received a call from the suspect soon after the deaths during which he admitted that he did come across the bodies.
A look at the penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of the Bogle-Chandler Wiki entry is instructive.
For everything that it is not: truthful or fair, for two things.
In order for his hydrogen sulfide theory to hold water (sorry) filmmaker Peter Butt needed, desperately needed, to cast blame, i.e., needed someone to blame for covering the bodies. The river couldn't have done it; the river could only belch forth poisonous gas into a mangrove-laced depression beside itself.
Enter the whipping boy: the late Edwin Batiste.
A third person who covered them (see first sentence above) "for modesty." Why for modesty? Why not just as a way of perving the scene? Bogle was covered by his jacket and pants (and, oddly, an oily old boot rug). Modesty? Does one really, for modesty's sake, painstakingly follow the outline of a dead human form, draping the clothing just so?
Why not as a means of hiding the body, like a murderer might have done?
Which "investigating detectives" thought this? Source?
Which investigating detectives decided Margaret Chandler had been covered in moldy beer cartons "for modesty"? I mean, I remember some who thought she might have been able to cover herself "for modesty." But that doesn't fit with the Wiki rig-a-teur mocking history by inserting this poppycock -- no, that one has his heart set on blaming another. Can't really mix a modest dying woman with the actions of a modest living man.
That person had his heart set on plundering the reputation of a man dead nearly 30 years before the Butt film was released; one cannot slander them, the dead, especially if surviving relatives are few and far between.
An initial suspect was a voyeur, eh? Pray tell whom? Name here? Called twice, used different names -- what were those names? For someone who states this as a fact had in fact better know and name both of those names.
Otherwise this is worse than hearsay.
And it is worse than heresy.
The "prime suspect" (whose? Peter Butt's?), the greyhound trainer, Batiste -- he was known to exercise his dogs, mornings, at the river. By whose estimation is it known that he usually used the path and not the track? From what source do we know he "came forward only after his car was identified"? This information does not appear in either the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age when Batiste testified at coroner's inquest. Source?
This 1977 obit -- source? Is there a copy in Butt's book? From which newspaper? One can't even call this sorry scholarship. This is some squalid bullshit. Information like this does not appear in an obituary in the first place.
To say nothing of the statement that Batiste "was known to be a prude." A prude? Known by whom? A prude? Really? Pray tell by whom and on what basis. Pray tell the process by which one makes the leap from prude to one who stages the appearances of dead bodies in a public place.
And what of Mr. Batiste's dogs? What are those three doing all this while? A few yawps is all it takes to waken Mr. Cecil Styles's own dog, right there across the river. But no barking; the barking gone in the same fashion that the myriad things killed in an event cataclysmic enough to claim two human lives must have gone: goodbye, dead insects; goodbye, dead fishes; goodbye, furry or feathered denizens of that fatal riverbank.
And -- buckle your seat belts. A woman "who was a child at the time" (40+ years before) "came forward" (hands on wallets) to relate to the filmmaker, he of the qualitative need to besmirch the reputation of one -- just one! -- person known to be present at Lane Cove River on The Morning....the story ("story") of a purse found, one belonging to Margaret Chandler! Hey presto! And again -- hey bullshit!
From boglechandler.com's excellent SMH/The Age put-together of what transpired at the inquest:
Sergeant Goode asked Chandler about his wife's handbag. Chandler agreed she had it when she left her mother's home, but did not think she took it into the Nash home. He thought it was a brown handbag. It was eventually found in the suitcase in his car.
Chandler: The first time I would have seen it was when I removed it from the car when I arrived at Croydon. I may have noticed it when I put the children in the back of the car, but not consciously.
Sgt Goode: Will you agree that your wife's handbag was in your car when you left the Nash's that night?
Chandler: Yes.
There was no purse found belonging to Margaret Chandler. Let alone a purse of hers found "in bushland between three houses," one of which happened to belong to a relative of Batiste's who -- wait for it -- lived "near his own home."
From Edwin Batiste: prude, to Edwin Batiste: corpse plundering purse thief.
And as for the "veteran greyhound steward," so too for each bit of information above: more than forty years on, it is easy to find those whose memories may unclearly be pointed the way one wants them to point. It is easy to access or to invent other information and mold that information into anything one wants it to be.
With scholarship in abeyance the past becomes nothing more than a plunderable scrap heap.
All in the name of river gas, all in the name of Peter Butt, filmmaker, whose motives may have been to make a personal project about the Bogle-Chandler affair. Or whose motives may have been much darker. For two can play at this cover game.
For the only ones who could benefit by Butt's twisted post-event scenario are those who had a hand in the murders of Dr. Gilbert Bogle and Mrs. Margaret Chandler. What existent agency, eager to lay the past to rest, might have sponsored those events?
It was the investigating detectives' belief that the victims' bodies were covered not by a murderer, but by a 'third person' who covered them for modesty after discovering the bodies. An initial suspect was a voyeur who contacted police twice, using different names. After interrogation, he was quickly dismissed. The prime suspect was a greyhound trainer who slipped his dogs daily on a path that passed the site where the bodies were found. He came forward only after his car was identified and, when interviewed by police, claimed to have used a different path that day and denied seeing the bodies. His obituary in 1977, however, claimed he had been the first to find the bodies. The theory regarding a motive of modesty for covering the bodies was supported by claims that the man was known to be a prude.
A woman who was a child at the time came forward at the time of the film's screening. She claimed she had found Mrs Chandler's handbag 4 km away in bushland between three houses. One of those houses was discovered to belong to a relative of the greyhound trainer and was near to his own home. A veteran greyhound racing steward also came forward and said that he received a call from the suspect soon after the deaths during which he admitted that he did come across the bodies.
A look at the penultimate and ultimate paragraphs of the Bogle-Chandler Wiki entry is instructive.
For everything that it is not: truthful or fair, for two things.
In order for his hydrogen sulfide theory to hold water (sorry) filmmaker Peter Butt needed, desperately needed, to cast blame, i.e., needed someone to blame for covering the bodies. The river couldn't have done it; the river could only belch forth poisonous gas into a mangrove-laced depression beside itself.
Enter the whipping boy: the late Edwin Batiste.
A third person who covered them (see first sentence above) "for modesty." Why for modesty? Why not just as a way of perving the scene? Bogle was covered by his jacket and pants (and, oddly, an oily old boot rug). Modesty? Does one really, for modesty's sake, painstakingly follow the outline of a dead human form, draping the clothing just so?
Why not as a means of hiding the body, like a murderer might have done?
Which "investigating detectives" thought this? Source?
Which investigating detectives decided Margaret Chandler had been covered in moldy beer cartons "for modesty"? I mean, I remember some who thought she might have been able to cover herself "for modesty." But that doesn't fit with the Wiki rig-a-teur mocking history by inserting this poppycock -- no, that one has his heart set on blaming another. Can't really mix a modest dying woman with the actions of a modest living man.
That person had his heart set on plundering the reputation of a man dead nearly 30 years before the Butt film was released; one cannot slander them, the dead, especially if surviving relatives are few and far between.
An initial suspect was a voyeur, eh? Pray tell whom? Name here? Called twice, used different names -- what were those names? For someone who states this as a fact had in fact better know and name both of those names.
Otherwise this is worse than hearsay.
And it is worse than heresy.
The "prime suspect" (whose? Peter Butt's?), the greyhound trainer, Batiste -- he was known to exercise his dogs, mornings, at the river. By whose estimation is it known that he usually used the path and not the track? From what source do we know he "came forward only after his car was identified"? This information does not appear in either the Sydney Morning Herald or The Age when Batiste testified at coroner's inquest. Source?
This 1977 obit -- source? Is there a copy in Butt's book? From which newspaper? One can't even call this sorry scholarship. This is some squalid bullshit. Information like this does not appear in an obituary in the first place.
To say nothing of the statement that Batiste "was known to be a prude." A prude? Known by whom? A prude? Really? Pray tell by whom and on what basis. Pray tell the process by which one makes the leap from prude to one who stages the appearances of dead bodies in a public place.
And what of Mr. Batiste's dogs? What are those three doing all this while? A few yawps is all it takes to waken Mr. Cecil Styles's own dog, right there across the river. But no barking; the barking gone in the same fashion that the myriad things killed in an event cataclysmic enough to claim two human lives must have gone: goodbye, dead insects; goodbye, dead fishes; goodbye, furry or feathered denizens of that fatal riverbank.
And -- buckle your seat belts. A woman "who was a child at the time" (40+ years before) "came forward" (hands on wallets) to relate to the filmmaker, he of the qualitative need to besmirch the reputation of one -- just one! -- person known to be present at Lane Cove River on The Morning....the story ("story") of a purse found, one belonging to Margaret Chandler! Hey presto! And again -- hey bullshit!
From boglechandler.com's excellent SMH/The Age put-together of what transpired at the inquest:
Sergeant Goode asked Chandler about his wife's handbag. Chandler agreed she had it when she left her mother's home, but did not think she took it into the Nash home. He thought it was a brown handbag. It was eventually found in the suitcase in his car.
Chandler: The first time I would have seen it was when I removed it from the car when I arrived at Croydon. I may have noticed it when I put the children in the back of the car, but not consciously.
Sgt Goode: Will you agree that your wife's handbag was in your car when you left the Nash's that night?
Chandler: Yes.
There was no purse found belonging to Margaret Chandler. Let alone a purse of hers found "in bushland between three houses," one of which happened to belong to a relative of Batiste's who -- wait for it -- lived "near his own home."
From Edwin Batiste: prude, to Edwin Batiste: corpse plundering purse thief.
And as for the "veteran greyhound steward," so too for each bit of information above: more than forty years on, it is easy to find those whose memories may unclearly be pointed the way one wants them to point. It is easy to access or to invent other information and mold that information into anything one wants it to be.
With scholarship in abeyance the past becomes nothing more than a plunderable scrap heap.
All in the name of river gas, all in the name of Peter Butt, filmmaker, whose motives may have been to make a personal project about the Bogle-Chandler affair. Or whose motives may have been much darker. For two can play at this cover game.
For the only ones who could benefit by Butt's twisted post-event scenario are those who had a hand in the murders of Dr. Gilbert Bogle and Mrs. Margaret Chandler. What existent agency, eager to lay the past to rest, might have sponsored those events?
