Talk:Ronald Ryan/Archive 1

WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE CONSIDER PERMANENT DELETION

Administrators, please consider permanently deleting this article. History shows this article has become a laughing stock. The constant promotion of two books (contradiciting each other) by Purrum is a total joke. Escapeeyes (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

God help Ronald Ryan!!! User:Purrum continues to vandalize this article by making false allegations, false references, distorting the facts, deleting the facts, deleting factual information, deleting mega-references, vandalizing the facts, and manipulating the facts merely to satisfy its own personal opinion/views on the Ryan case. I suggest permanently deleting this article. While it remains, I will continue to cleanup Purrum's trash. Escapeeyes (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Today, I have added links to various newspaper articles, which add support to Ryan's wrongful conviction. I won't be surprised if these links are soon vandalized/deleted by Purrum, as usual. This article on Ryan cannot possibly be improved while Purrum continues to delete/vandalize/distort/manipulate/corrupt the many referenced factual information and replacing the facts with false allegations against Ryan. I note this article on Ronald Ryan was primarily created for promotion of an unreliable book The Hanged Man. The book is without doubt unreliable because it contains bias allegations against various dead people, which they cannot confirm as fact. A reminder to everybody that a book, any book, does not always contain the facts, is not always free of bias, make false allegations, make false accusations, and may contain false or distorted information. Many books, including Richards book, are very unreliable, especially when written/published decades after an event. Many authors gain profits and notoriety by creating false ideas, confusion, alarm, and anything else that will entice the public to purchase - hence, creating wealthy authors.
Escapeeyes (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A Scene of Noise and Confusion

There were fourteen eyewitnesses who testified in the Ryan case. ALL fourteen witnesses testified at trial of hearing one single shot. Some eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan aim his rifle. Some eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle, but in fact the rifle was recoiless. Some witnesses testified seeing smoke from Ryan's rifle, but in fact the rifle contained smokless cartridges. At this exact time that this one single shot was heard among scenes of noise and confusion, there were also many prison guards in uniform with rifles on the road, outside the prison, standing on prison towers and on prison walls. No eyewitnesses was focused on all these prison guards in uniforms with rifles aimed in the direction of Ryan, Walker and Hodson, because naturally the eyewitnesses were all focused on the naughty man (Ryan) not in uniform with a rifle. One prison officer testified he fired a single shot. The evidence at trial was very inconsistent, several pieces of evidence that may have cleared Ryan went missing, no ballistic or scientific forensics of Ryan's rifle was conducted, and the downward trajectory path of the fatal bullet could not have possibly been fired by Ryan. Was Ronald Ryan guilty beyond reasonable doubt? The criminal justice system failed Ronald Ryan without doubt.
PurrumShotHodson (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've alway like the line many prison guards in uniform with rifles, standing on prison towers and on prison walls. Guards would be in prison sentry posts and certainly not on the prison walls. The prison walls were designed so no prisoner could climb up so how could a guard? In order to climb 10 metre walls you would need a ladder, but a ladder would be a security risk.Purrum (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares what YOU like Purrum. Wikipedia is not based on YOUR likes or opinions. The fact - in the documentary film, Last Man Hanged, including various newspaper articles, describe the scene of noise and confusion with many prison guards in uniform with rifles standing and running around on the road, on prison guard towers and prison walls (the small walls surrounding the main entrance of Pentridge Prison), exactly were prison guard Paterson fired a shot). If you don't like it, then too bad!
Escapeeyes (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The comment from the documentary film, Last Man Hanged, many prison guards in uniform with rifles standing and running around on the roadetc, came from Peter Walker , the man who testified that he was too busy avoiding getting his head bashed in to see what was going on.Purrum (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Read the newspaper archives Purrum, there were literally dozens of prison officers with rifles (typically with a prison escape), aiming in the direction of Ryan, Walker and Hodson. Richards, Prior and Purrum are too busy trying to profit by misrepresenting the facts and the truth. Not only wasn't Ryan's rifle tested by forensics to prove it fired a shot, but neither were the rifles of prison officers tested to prove their rifles hadn't fired a shot..... a case of profound crook, shady, rotten, stealth, unscrupulous, foul and murky police investigations. Escapeeyes (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In Richard's book, Homicide squad detectives checked all of the prison's rifles and found only Paterson's rifle had been fired so they took it away as evidence.Purrum (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Purrum, I don't give a rat's about Richards or Prior's books-for-profits. Any idiot can write a book of bull decades after the event. Both books are in direct contrast to the mega of articles, stories and documentary films on the Ryan case. I go by the "facts" - the lack of forensic evidence, the inconsistencies of witnesses evidence, the vital missing pieces of evidence, the downward trajectory angle of the fatal wound, prison officers' contradictory statements, witnesses hearing only one shot (Paterson's shot), the unsigned verbal confessions, which Ryan denied, Ryan's eleventh-hour handwritten letters maintaining his innocence, and more importantly the nineteen days of daily front-page newspaper/television reports that Ryan had shot Hodson dead. The media frenzy had virtually tried and convicted Ryan, prior to him being charged with murder and prior to the trial. So, for what reason, do you Purrum, continue to vandalize or delete the "referenced facts" concerning the Ryan case? Escapeeyes (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for Escapeeyes

If the rifle was never recovered, i.e. Walker had thrown it into Albert Park Lake, does it strengthens or weakens Ryans defense ? Purrum (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Purrum is "again" making unproven allegations! Fact is, Ryan's rifle was recovered in Sydney with Ryan and Walker after 19 days on the run. Instead of the rifle being subject to careful storage for forensic examination, it had been inadequately stored in the boot of a police officer's car where it was subject to contamination by dirt and dust. Ryan's rifle remained and was forgotten in the boot of a cop's car. At trial, police testified that Ryan's rifle "looked as if" it had been fired, but there was no scientific proof, no forensic evidence, nothing. No evidence means no evidence! Escapeeyes (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not making an allegation , I was asking you a question ?Purrum (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If the rifle was never recovered what would be the evidence? Eleven people saying I saw Ryan shoot Hobson against one man who said Most Emphatically no. Purrum (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Answer TO Purrum

THE ABOVE IS A LIE. AN OUTRIGHT LIE ... AND PURRUM KNOWS IT!
All fourteen eyewitnesses testified "different" accounts of what they saw. ONLY "FOUR" EYEWITNESSES TESTIFIED THEY SAW RYAN FIRE A SHOT (a spent cartridge would have had to spill on the ground, when in fact a spent cartridge was never found despite extensive search by police.) TWO eyewitnesses testified they saw smoke coming from Ryan's rifle, when in fact that type of rifle contained smokeless cartridges. TWO eyewitnesses testified they saw Ryan recoil his rifle, when in fact that type of rifle was recoiless. There were also contradicitions in evidence by all fourteen eyewitnesses, of whether Ryan was to the East or West of Hodson, and whether Ryan was standing, walking or squatting at the time one single shot was heard. All fourteen eyewitnesses testified that they saw Ryan waving and aiming his rifle. All fourteen eyewitnesses heard only one shot - no person heard two shots. Prison officer Paterson testified he fired a shot, and he was also the only person to claim he heard two shots fired. At trial, Paterson was questioned about how he used his rifle when he fired a shot. Paterson replied; "I took aim, I took the first pressure that you take on the trigger, and I was beginning to squeeze the trigger when a woman got into my sights, and I could not withdraw my pressure from the trigger, so I had to let the shot go in the air, and I don't know where the woman came from, she just appeared in my sights." Also, Paterson had contradicted in several statements he made to police about what he saw, heard, and did on that day. (Reference: Trial Transcript; The Queen v. Ryan and Walker, March 15-30, 1966) 60.224.64.166 (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

new play

Purrum should quit promoting fiction and go see the current dramatised Australian true crime case, "The Blood On Helmut Lange". Yet another account, to the many previous collections, of the true story behind what many people claim to be the unjustified execution of Ronald Ryan in 1967.
Synposis: A gaol break! Alarm! Pandemonium! A prison guard is killed. The Victorian State Premier wants blood. Ronald Ryan is about to be convicted of the murder. A prison guard, Helmut Lange, might have evidence to prove Ryan is innocent, but producing the evidence will jeopardise his future and those of his fellow prison guards. Helmut needs courage to do what is right, but childhood memories torture him as he wrestles with the conflict between self-preservation, loyalty, and courage. Misplaced ideals always exact a price. Finally, the emotional burden becomes unbearable for Lange and he shoots himself in the head whilst on duty at Pentridge Prison. "The Blood On Helmut Lange" is Lange’s story, based on the true case of Ronald Ryan and his execution in 1967. ----- Julieannwells (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh Julieannwells , I never thought you would stoop so low to blatantly advertise a commercial venture that a few persons have taken the advantage of the passing of time to push for the innocent angle, Are you going to send me free tickets? Purrum (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh User:Purrum, I never thought you would stoop lower than ocean manure to insult contributors, ask a person to pay for your tickets, and arrogantly continue to advertise a ficticious, unreliable, unconfirmed book. You have cunningly taken the passing of time (42 years) to persue your hidden agenda by pushing false allegations and accusations. You blatently continue to alter the "facts" in the Ryan case - the inconsistencies in evidence, missing key pieces of evidence (Lange possibly took to his grave), lack of scientific forensics to prove Ryan fired a shot. Another fact; Only three eyewitnesses testified they actually saw Ryan fire a shot and smoke coming from the barrel of the rifle. That's curious - the rifle contained smokeless cartridges. Of the many dozens of people on that busy road, everyone (except three) did not see Ryan fire at all. Every person (except three) did not see who fired and only "heard" one single shot. Prison officer Paterson testified he fired one single shot. Yet another fact; the 12-man jury later admitted they originally wanted to find Ryan not-guilty, but 2 jurors who thought Ryan was guilty convinced the others to bring in a guilty verdict. The jury did so, for two reasons, because they all wanted to go home and because they all believed the death penalty would be commuted to life (as with previous 35 death senctences). The jury members admitted they did not want Ryan to hang. In fact, seven jury members signed a seperate petition of their own, requesting the Victorian Premier Bolte for clemency. What is really your agenda Purrum? Escapeeyes (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There were eyewitnesses who testified seeing Ryan recoil when he fired his rifle, the rifle is virtually recoilless, not recoilless as Opas claimed, there is a difference. . Some of those eyewitnesses testified seeing smoke from Ryan's rifle, the rifle contained smokeless cartridges, smokeless cartridges are not smoke free as the name implies. Ryan’s gun barrel smoked , he must have fired .

Also

If Hodson’s torso was leaning 7 degrees forward, then the bullet would have passed through him without elevation, at eight degrees then the bullet would end up on the roof of a building hundreds of metres away. Remember humans are different shapes so you can’t tell if he was forward or not .Purrum (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So what, if three out of many dozens of eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil that virtually recoiless rifle? That is not evidence of guilt! The fact is there was/is no scientific evidence that Ryan's rifle had fired a shot - abhorant sloppy police investigation job, unless there was some sort of coverup job.
Ryan would have had to spill the spent bullet casing (empty cartridge) on the road if he had fired a shot. No empty cartridge was ever found. No person saw, nor found, the spent cartridge. Amazing really, how this one key piece of evidence went missing!
Purrum's hypothetical "IF" Hodson's torso was leaning forward. Purrum seems desperately gasping at straws - hypotheticals are not evidence. Most normal people do not run leaning forward (with an iron bar in hand intent to continue assaulting prisoner Walker). Hodson was a tall solid heavy built man who moments earlier had been seen overeating like a hungry dog at the prison staff Christmas lunch. Medical professionals know that a normal person, regardless of body shape/size, with a belly-full of food and booze, would find it very difficult if not impossible, to run leaning forward. No eyewitnesses testified seeing Hodson running in a forward position. Purrum is merely assuming!
Escapeeyes (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't run anywhere do you.Purrum (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I definately do not run with an iron bar in my hand, chasing Peter Walker with the intent to bash him with the iron bar. Bashing prisoners wasn't unusual for the violent Hodson, just ask his ex-wife about his domestic violence.
Escapeeyes (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If Hodson was known to be violent to prisoners it gives Ryan motive to shoot him. Which he did! Purrum (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Father John Brosnan tells truth about Ronald Ryan

On March 26, 2003, Catholic priest and Pentridge Prison chaplin talked about Ronald Ryan on Australia Broadcasting Commission National Radio. Interviewer journalist Kellie Day, asked Brosnan; "Who it was believed fired the fatal shot during the breakout." Brosnan's reply was; "I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine (Ryan) died." A few months after this interview, Brosnan died.

In February 2007, forty years after the Ryan hanging, The Southern Cross Catholic Archdiocese wrote in its newsletter; "There was much debate over whether Ryan was guilty or not. His rifle was never scientifically tested and there was no proof that it had been fired. The fatal bullet and the spent cartridge were never found. Ryan’s defence team had argued the ballistics evidence showed the fatal bullet entered Hodson’s shoulder at such a downward trajectory that Ryan would have had to have been 8ft 6ins tall to have fired the shot. But the prosecution said Hodson could have been stooped over as he ran. Another prison guard Robert Paterson testified in court to also firing his gun during the melee and 14 eyewitnesses said they had only heard one shot. The trouble with the Ryan case was it was so unclear. There were big arguments about whether he had actually shot the warder. It was all a question of the path of the bullet. It wasn’t at all simple. Ryan himself denied it. Other people close to him, who knew him better, were also convinced. Father Brosnan, too, believed he was innocent. The evidence was ambiguous yet the execution was unambiguous."

User:Purrum constant compulsive attempts to manipulate the truth, the facts, and the reality of Ryan's life and case, is a scandal.

Unless every referenced articles supporting all the above details are included, the current article on Ronald Ryan is a total farce, and therefore it should be permanently deleted.

Escapeeyes (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ACCUSATIONS, ALLEGATIONS, HEARSAY

The current version of the article has been reduced to story book tales; "Ryan said this and Ryan said that". The various references explaining the many factual ambiguities surrounding the case have been removed for unknown reasons.

A reputable article should focus on referenced facts, which have also been removed for unknown reasons. For example; as early as 26th March 2003, Brosnan (Catholic priest) was interviewed by The Australian Broadcasting Commission on Australia National Radio. Brosnan was asked who it was believed fired the fatal shot that killed George Hodson. Father Brosnan replied; I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine (Ryan) died. Brosnan Knew Ryan very well and was convinced and always believed Ryan was innocent.

The historical "fact" (something that is absolutely indisputable) is that there is no evidence, no proof, no record, no document, anywhere, that suggests Ryan confessed guilt to any person. Ryan always denied making any verbal or written confessions to any person. Ryan maintained his innocence to the end. Moments prior to his execution Ryan wrote letters on toilet paper inside his prison cell to various people, including Father John Brosnan, protesting his innocent. remain.

The many factual referenced ambiguities recently removed for unknown reasons include;
Ryan's rifle was never scientifically tested by forensic experts. There was no proof that Ryan's rifle had been fired. The fatal bullet that passed through Hodson's body was never found. The spent cartridge, also, was never found. It was never proven that the fatal bullet came from the weapon in Ryan's possession. All fourteen witnesses testified they heard one single shot. Paterson admitted and testified he fired one single shot. No person heard two shots fired. If Ryan had also fired a shot, at least one person would have heard two shots. Only one shot was heard. Balistic evidence indicated that Hodson was shot in a downward trajectory angle. The measurement of the entry and exit wound on Hodson's body indicated that the shot was fired from an elevated position. Ryan (a shorter man) could not have fired at Hodson (a taller man) in such a downward trajectory angle, as both were on level ground. Witnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle and smoke coming from the barrel of his rifle. In fact, that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges.
(Julieannwells (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

False Info

I have searched the Internet "high and low" for any reference, which will confirm User:Purrum contributions on Ronald Ryan. THERE ARE NONE! However, there are mega references contradicting Purrum's contributions. Recently, Purrum wrote that Ryan confessed to Brosnan, but Internet references confirm otherwise. Purrum is now adding other deceased people's names to "the confessions" Also, police records show that Ronald Ryan was a petty-thief with no record of violence, this fact is well known and also documented in mega Internet references. Escapeeyes (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Escapeeyes turn off the computer and go and visit the library. Libraries existed long before the internet and may have the information you are searching for.

The library may have the following books on their bookselves:

• Hansen, Brian, “The Awful Truth” Brian Hansen Publications, ISBN 1-876151-16-1,
• Prior, Tom, ‘’Bolte by Bolte,’’ Craftsman Publishing, 1990 ISBN 1-875428-00-3
• Prior, Tom, ‘’A knockabout priest : the story of Father John Brosnan’’, Hargreen , North Melbourne, 1985, ISBN 0949905232
• Richards, Mike, The Hanged Man - The Life and Death of Ronald Ryan, Scribe Publications, Melbourne, 2002, ISBN 0-908011-94-6

Some libraries have copies of the old newspapers, some newspapers maybe on microfilm , so next time you post newspapers references, you won't post bogus ones like you did last time.Purrum (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that UserPurrum reads, views and reviews "every and all" Internet references of miticulously researched films, movies, documentries, stories, and the mega newspaper articles (archives copies are available at a small cost over the Internet) on Ronald Ryan. Purrum maintains all these are bogus apart from the two authors personal books, which cannot be confirmed as truth. Purrum tried telling us that Ryan confessed to Brosnan, yet nothing can be further from the truth according to Internet referenced articles. According to Brosnan, he always believed Ryan was innocent. More importantly, there is "NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" anywhere that Ryan shot Hodson. Your two authors personal books are NOT evidence. If indeed Purrum has the evidence, either put up or shut up. Escapeeyes (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan confessed to Ian Grindlay, the Governor of Pentridge in the presence of Father John Brosnan.

Evidence: how about thirteen eyewitnesses who testified in court that Ryan took aim and fired the rifle.

The film, The Last Man Hanged at 14:06 minutes make the statement that the rifle is virtually recoilless. yet when viewing the guard firing a shot at 14:40 shows the rifle recoiling.Purrum (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION 1:
BOOK AUTHOR RICHARDS ALLEGES GRINDLAY TOLD HIM RYAN CONFESSED GUILT. STRANGELY, RICHARDS DOES NOT STATE THE DATE WHEN GRINDLAY TOLD HIM SUCH AN UNBELIEVABLE STORY. HOW COME GRINDLAY DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ELSE THIS UNRELIABLE CONFESSION? LIKE, TELL HIS LAWYERS, POLICE, THE MEDIA, ETC? VERY STRANGE! ALSO, GRINDLAY DIED TEN YEARS BEFORE RICHARDS PUBLISHED THIS UNRELIABLE CONFESSION IN HIS BOOK. WHY DID RICHARDS WAIT TEN YEARS AFTER GRINDLAY HAD DIED, BEFORE HE REVEALED THIS AMAZING CONFESSION? GRINDLAY CAN'T CONFIRM THIS UNBELIEVABLE STORY NOW THAT HE'S DEAD. IN ADDITION, RICHARD'S BOOK DOES NOT MENTION ANY SUCH SISTER MARGARET KINGSTON, WHOM YOU ALLEGE HEARED RYAN CONFESS GUILT. SO PURRUM, TELL US THE PAGE NUMBERS OF THIS BOOK WHERE WE CAN FIND YOUR YOUR ALLEGATIONS ON SISTER KINGSTON AND WHY SHE HAS NOT TOLD ANYBODY ELSE THIS AMAZING CONFESSION?

Page 149 , on the same day Ryan told Grindlay of the criminal rescue plans Purrum (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If Prior is to be believed, why then didn't Grindlay speak out, inform everybody and make it "public information"? and why didn't sister Margaret Kingston speak out, inform everybody and make it "public information"? Richards alleges Grindlay told him that Ryan confessed guilt. I wonder why Richards refuses to say what date exactly, and where exactly, did Grindlay tell him this. Surely Grindlay would have spoken out, informed everybody and made Ryan's confession "public information". Grindlay never did! Grindlay died in 1994. Richards only published this allegation in 2002. Richards book has zero contents on Margaret Kingston claiming Ryan had confessed guilt? Nothing adds up really! Escapeeyes (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ryan was no longer news worthy after the hanging, nobody cared, his guilt was accepted, everybody got on with their lives, it just that a few persons are taking the advantage of the passing of time to push for the innocent angle, hense all the stuff on the internet.Purrum (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The well-known "facts and ambiguities" in the Ryan case can never be deleted in history. Ryan's hanging will never be forgotten because there is "no evidence" anywhere, that Ryan fired a shot. Allegations of any kind, in any manner, at any date, at any place, at any time, are not evidence of guilt. End of story. If Purrum believes otherwise that's merely Purrum's personal opinion and problem. Nobody cares really! BeyondReasonableDoubt (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION 2:
IF FATHER BROSNAN TOLD BOOK AUTHOR TOM PRIOR THAT RYAN CONFESSED GUILT, WHY THEN DID FATHER BROSNAN RECENTLY TELL ABC NATIONAL RADIO THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE? BROSNAN SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S SHOT KILLED WHO BUT A FRIEND OF MINE (RYAN) DIED, AND RYAN HAD HEROIC QUALITIES. WHY WOULD FATHER BROSNAN ONLY TELL TOM PRIOR THIS VERY IMPORTANT CONFESSION AND NOT TELL ANYBODY ELSE? WHY DID FATHER BROSNAN ALWAYS SAY HE BELIEVED RYAN WAS INNOCENT? MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL!

In the preface, page V, So they say – but I don’t know that for sure and I am not going to say. Even if I did know it, I would not say. I’m a priest not and police reporter. It is God’s job to judge people not mine. Father John Brosnan Purrum (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Purrum! Oh yes Brosnan did say so, just months before his death. On 26th March 2003, Brosnan made it very clear when he said on ABC National Radio. "I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine (Ryan) died." BrosnanBrosnan believed Ryan was innocent. Escapeeyes (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So they say – but I don’t know that for sure and I am not going to say. Even if I did know it, I would not say. I’m a priest not and police reporter. It is god’s job to judge people not mine. Father John Brosnan’’

It was the principle he lived by in 1985 and the principle he died by 2003. It referred to all prisoners he met, not just the infamous. Purrum (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ACCEPT THE TRUTH PURRUM!
On 26th March 2003, Brosnan said loud and clear on ABC National Radio. "I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine (Ryan) died." Brosnan said that loud and clear for all Australians to hear. Brosnan always believed Ryan was innocent and he said so.The truth and the facts cannot, ever, be manipulated by Purrum's personal interpretation of the facts and the truth. BeyondReasonableDoubt (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION 2:
THIRTEEN WITNESSES TESTIFIED THEY ONLY HEARD A SINGLE SHOT. SOME WITNESSES TESTIFIED THEY SAW RYAN RECOIL HIS RIFLE, BUT THAT TYPE OF RIFLE HAD NO RECAOIL. SOME OTHER WITNESSES SAW SMOKE COMING FROM RYAN'S RIFLE, BUT THAT TYPE OF RIFLE CONTAINED SMOKLESS CARTRIDGES. IT WAS NEVER PROVEN BY FORENSICS THAT RYAN'S RIFLE HAD FIRED A SHOT. POLICE TESTIFIED ONLY THAT RYAN'S RIFLE LOOKED AS IF IT HAD BEEN FIRED. VERY STRANGE POLICE INVESTIGATION!

CORRECTION 3:
THE DOCUMENTARY FILM THE LAST MAN HANGED SHOWS WHAT THE WITNESSES TESTIFIED AT TRIAL. PRISON GUARD PATERSON AND PRISON GUARD BENNETT AIMING THEIR RIFLES IN RYAN'S DIRECTION. THE FILM SHOWS RYAN RAISED HIS RIFLE AT THE EXACT TIME PATERSON AND BENNETT RAISED THEIR RIFLES. IN THE FILM, A SINGLE SHOT IS HEARD. PATERSON ADMITTED TO FIRING ONE SHOT. PATERSON TESTIFIED HE FIRED A SHOT IN THE DIRECTION OF RYAN, WALKER AND HODSON. THE FILM DOES NOT SHOW RYAN FIRING THE SHOT, AT ALL. ONLY A SINGLE SHOT IS HEARD IN THE FILM.

(PurrumShotHodson (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Paterson testified he fired up in the air because a woman came into his line of sight. The film was shot in a studio, it gives the impression the escape was at night. The guard in the film fires a second time,at 15:02 minutes ,this time downward and recoil can be observed even if the gun is firing blanks.Purrum (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Four separate documentary films were made during late 1980s and early 1990s, The Last Man Hanged, The Last of The Ryans, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, and Odd Man Out. The four documentary films were based on miticulous research and all four films absolutely show that only one shot was heard by all fourteen witnesses. No person on that crowded road-scene heard two shots. Paterson admitted to firing a shot. Whether or not Paterson fired in the air is unreliable and debatable. More importantly, if Ryan had also fired, a spent cartridge would have spilled on the road next to where Ryan was standing? The spent cartridge was never found. The spent cartridge remains ONE of several missing pieces of evidence. Escapeeyes (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Purrum Promoting Sale of Ficticious Book

Purrum seems intent on consistently vandalizing this article to promote the sale of merely one ficticious (unconfirmed and unreliable contents) book "The Hanged Man". It should be noted that the unconfirmed unreliable contents of this book is in direct contrast to the many referenced researched articles, stories, films and documentaries based on the life and execution of Ronald Ryan.
BeyondReasonableDoubt (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignore Purrum

Wikipedia is not an avenue for debates or personal opinions.
I suggest every person ignore any futher ramblings by the User:Purrum. This individual's compulsive mission to distort THE FACTS surrounding the Ryan case has failed in the past and will continue to fail in the future. Obviously, a very emotionally disturbed individual obsessed with some sort of paranoid delusional attention.
Escapeeyes (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why a giant destroyed the defence’s case

From the start of the trial, Opas made much on the fact that Paterson could have fired the fatal shot that day. By calling in a professor of mathematics in to prove that the trajectory of the bullet meant that Ryan would have to be 8.25 feet tall it also meant that Paterson, the other known shooter, would have to be over twenty feet tall. Paterson was standing on a small wall, it was approx 80 cm high. Opas had to change tact and claim the bullet came from tower 2, Bennett, but Bennett rifle was not fired that day and had the correct number of bullets in the magazine. The small wall is visible in this footage Purrum (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really Purrum????? so now that Opas (defence lawyer) has recently died, you also are making false allegations against him, which Opas cannot defend. Seems you don't know when to stop making false allegations about all deceased persons directly involved in the Ryan case. I'm curious why you've waited more than four decades to make these false allegations. In fact, every past documentary made on the Ryan case (based on miticulous research including interviews with living people directly involved in the Ryan case) demonstrates and supports Ryan's possible innocence. ONLY ONE SHOT WAS HEARD BY ALL WITNESSES - THE SHOT FIRED BY PATERSON. Escapeeyes (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Every last made for profit documentary , lets find a sensation angle to make it sell. I suggest you read A knockabout priest by Tom Prior and John Brosnan. Purrum (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the Call to Opas was a hoax

This call has to be as hoax because if you look at the events as they occur then the allegations of the call could not happen.

As far as everyone at the prison was concerned on that fateful day in December 1965, Ryan had shot Hodson. Plenty of eyewitnesses including several warders saw it happen. The homicide squad detectives handled the investigation and Governor Grindlay, who was at Hodson side when he died, would have made sure all assistance be available. Lange and Brown who were both at number 1 Post were relieved and interviewed by the Police. Police would later take Lange and Brown separately back to the guard post to walk thought and tell what they perceive to have happened. Afterwards they would have been sent home. By the time they returned to work the post would have been cleaned. If there had been a bullet on the floor of the tower then Police would have found it and bagged it as evidence. The importance of the shell would not have been known at the time, it would be a oddity, The first that anyone at the prison knew of Ryan’s defence was when he took the stand on day seven of his trial. Six days after Lange testified. Opas questioned Lange about finding a bullet on day one, it is probable that Lange did not know why he was being asked these questions.Purrum (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL LOL LOL a hoax LOL LOL LOL yes newspapers are full of hoax stories LOL LOL LOL whatever (Ghost of Hodson (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Nice story Purrum. You're an expert on hypothetical fairytales. Escapeeyes (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Purrum? hello?

Bury The Bitterness: by Robyn Riley, HeraldSun News, 4/11/2007.

"I wish Carole Hodson Price, daughter of George Hodson, the warder killed by Ronald Ryan, could get that sense of peace so many years after her father’s killer was hanged. She was vocal, indeed, she was angry about the move to exhume Ryan’s remains so they can be buried with his wife."

60.224.64.166 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice to User:Purrum

Do not undo, delete, alter or contaminate the referenced contributions of others. History cannot be re-written in such a manner to suit your personal perception/opinion of events surrounding the Ronald Ryan case. {Cameron1940 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Couldn't have said it better myself. Why hasn't Wikipedia banned Purrum from destroying this article????? If my guess is correct Purrum is either connected to Hodson or Richards, hence, the intent behind Purrum's motives to destroy this article on Ryan. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ryan first went to jail in 1960, that made him 35 years old at the time! Purrum (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If Ryan first went to jail in 1960 where's the cited reference??? or should every person disregard the mega-references on the Ryan article, and only believe the Purrum story book-for-profits (written 35 years later of course, only after everyone involved in the Ryan case had already died.) How convenient! Escapeeyes (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

His first appearance in court was in Warragul, Victoria in 1953 when Ryan was acquitted on a charge of arson. Ryan issued a large number of forged cheques in 1956 and was placed on a good-behaviour bond. After being apprehended for robbery in April 1960, Ryan and three accomplices escaped from the police watchhouse but were recaptured several days later. On 17th June 1960, Ryan pleaded guilty in the Melbourne Court of General Sessions to eight charges of breaking and stealing, and one of escaping from legal custody. He was sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment. The Ref the Herald page 5 December 20 , 1965 |The men Police are hunting!

First posted 25/11/08 and Escapeeyes deleted on 9/2/09 reposted 10/2/09 but Cameron1940 deleted it 4 hours later. Purrum (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM CONFIRMED REFERENCE: "Unlike many criminals, Ryan's police record did not begin until he was 31 years of age." UNQUOTE: BeyondReasonableDoubt (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Facts That Cannot Lie

It has become obvious that Purrum is doing everything imaginable to twist the facts, contribute fictional information and references that cannot be confirmed, in an effort to influence the public that "his/her personal opinion" on Ronald Ryan is the only truth to be believed. Manipulating the facts WILL NOT change the truth (various references) that Ryan was possibly hanged an innocent man. Newspaper dates could be a slight error but the facts (confirmed by many references) are correct.

Sadly, there will always be some people trying to "profit" or "gain notoriety" by writing books that contain unconfirmed and unreliable contents, long after the deaths of major parties in a case history. However, the facts cannot lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.64.166 (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

M1 Carbines (I have owned and used one) do recoil, only slightly but they recoil; also so called "smokeless ammunition" does emit smoke, it is "smokeless" compared to the previous ammunition used. Modern weapons do in fact emit smoke when fired. You can check out videos on youtube on live firing of M1 Carbines. Jonken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonken (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unconfirmed References

The mega-contribs of User:Purrum who continues to terrorize this article with false contribs and false references that cannot be confirmed, should be banned. This person is obviously disturbed, deluded or paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron1940 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am grateful the Escapeeyes has added these references to this article, .. Alas the Sun and the Age references are incorrect because January 23, 1966 was a Sunday and the Sun and the Age were a Monday to Saturday publications only. Purrum Purrum (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) There was no letter in the The Truth newspaper 22/01/1966 about George Hodson. I checked from cover to cover! Purrum (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked newspaper archives at Monash University and found various letters claiming that George Hodson (tall big solid man) was often violent towards inmates. Julieannwells (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, Can you post the papers and the dates? Purrum (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What is good? the fact Hodson was violent? 60.224.64.166 (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What is good is that someone besides myself is using the newspapers of the day. I want to check the references. Purrum (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Go check them yourself Purrum! Also, go question Hodson's ex-wife about his violence. It's been a long time and I don't think anyone cares really. Who says YOU are the only person using references? There have been lots of contributions with references on this article, by lots of people. It's YOU who cannot accept the referenced facts that Ryan was possibly innocent of murder, so YOU choose to constantly vandalise the referenced facts. Every person who has studied the Ryan case (without stealth agendas) knows very well that Ryan was hanged a possible innocent man. Frankly, I am tired of your cravings for publicity. Get over it! 60.224.64.166 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No references

No sources, tag added.--FloNight 11:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

writer bias

If you User:Parrum have not seen the various "miticulously researched" documentary films; The Last Man Hanged, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Remember Ronald Ryan, The Last of The Ryans, and Who Killed Ronald Ryan, why are you so self-righteous and judgemental as to constantly alter factual contributions and add your false contributions (without references) to this article, which is also in violation of the rules and rules/laws of this site? In regard to Dr Opas (who was a brilliant, experienced, and leading Victoria barrister) he knew better than anyone about this mysterious case. It is unfortunate that there will always be "some" dishonest people trying to profit by writing unproved allegations, long after Ryan was hanged. The facts of innocence will never go away. The public have a right to know the facts.

My last edit I was repeating what Opas wrote about Ryans motive, I have not seen the film "The last man Hanged" so I don't source from it. Purrum (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To User:Purrum and Co. who continually add uncited, unencyclopedic, irrelevant, and false allegations on the article as an opportunity to push their barrow on Ronald Ryan's guilt. STOP AND ACCEPT THE FACTS! The facts cannot be ignored and making false accusations about Ryan will not change the facts that Ryan was possibly hanged an innocent man. There are tons of refernces to support Ryan's probable innocence. The facts cannot lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapeeyes (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The contents of a call made by an anonymous friend to Opas that no one else can certify is not evidence.Purrum (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I address the User:Purrum who insists on deleting referenced/factual information, in an attempt to inflict his/her viewpoint that Ryan was guilty of the murder of Hodson, beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that Ryan's rifle was never scientifically examined by forensics to prove it had fired a shot is not "hearsay" and is "fact" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.64.166 (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of speaking to the wind I will address the unregistered user who insists on inflicting his viewpoint on this article.

The confessions I added are sourced. The primary sources include those favourable to Ryan. Fr. Brosnan cannot be said to be anything but pro-Ryan and he provides the most telling confession. It is not an answer to a fact you find inconvenient to simply say "all persons are now dead". Of course they are. Ryan was executed forty years ago!

Nor is "hearsay" a sensible argument. It is always hearsay when A says he heard B confess to a crime.

This article should not be an opportunity for those who oppose capital punishment to push their barrow. Unless a sensible argument is commenced here I will restore the section. Avalon 06:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted an obvious bit of advertising.71.63.119.49 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are hung, people are hanged.--Dagrimdialer619 00:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Whatever the case of the actual laws of the state, Ryan was morally guilty of causing the death of the prison warden" - While the legal part may be true, the writers opinion on morality surely has no place in an encycopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.161 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a distinct lack of information on Ryan's previous criminal record. There is for instance little to no information on why he was sent to Pentridge in the first place or his previous crimes. These are facts that should be included about Ryan's life regardless of which side of the argument you are on. Also please do not add sections devoted to books or documentaries made about Ryan. They can be found in the reference section. This is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.165.238.9 (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Thehangedmanronaldryan.jpg

Image:Thehangedmanronaldryan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

There are many "allegations" that cannot be proven and some "irrelevant" material regarding the Ryan case. These must all be removed. Allegations made to promote their personal views about Ryan continue to pop-up from time to time. There is an abundance of references provided about concerning the Ryan case, including doubts about his guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapeeyes (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Balanced

The article on Ronald Ryan, in my opinion is balanced. The article presents all the facts, both before and after the trial. The length of the article is however quite long, however the only way for this article to have a neutral point of view is for its length to be this long, and may seem unneccesary, but essential. The ongoing matter of the circumstances behind Ronald Ryans death will always be controversial, but, in my opinion, this is the way that the information should be presented, and not ommited. Panpanman (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No way is this article balanced. Ryan was more that a petty thief with no history of violence. Why was the assault on the prison chaplain deleted ? , Ryan hit him (plenty of references ) Why the smeer campaign on the victim George Hodson? Where he lived was irrelevant and as for hitting prisoners (Escappeeyes posted false references) it gives Ryan a motive to shoot him. Ryan was convicted for the death of a guard whilst he performed a felony with violence.Purrum (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about every fact and issue surrounding the case and the murder conviction of Ronald Ryan. It is balanced with mega references. Police records show Ryan was a petty thief who first went to prison at the age of 30. Ryan had no police record of violence. This is history fact, even though User:Purrum personally disagrees with the truth. Again and again and again; There is no proof, no evidence, anywhere, that Ryan fired a shot. Ryan's rifle was never scientifically examined by forensic experts to prove it had fired a shot. One single shot was heard and a prison officer admitted/testified to firing one shot. For some unknown reason User:Purrum is unable to accept the facts and keeps on insisting that Ryan was a murderer. Ryan was convicted of murder and as history shows, so have many other wrongly convicted people. Jury members are not perfect and on rare occasions they have made a mistake. It is a matter of public interest regarding the environment where Hodson lived, due to the relevant contents of letters by ex-prisoners published in various newspapers at the time. Whether or not Ryan assaulted a prison chaplain during the escape, is irrelevant to the shooting death of Hodson. Also, under Australian law, there is no such crime as "felony murder". The crime is simply "murder". Ryan was convicted of murder, not felony murder.

The last two columns of this article explains the felony in this case. Purrum (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The main debate on whether this article is balanced is based more on a users personal opinion of the debate. The users in this discussion have an opinion on this article and develop a bias, it is a natural human thing. Those users who develop a bias confuse this for an opinion constructed by the article. User:Purrum believes that the article is biased only because he has made a personal opinion of Ronald Ryan after reading the article, and all users who read the article, will develop some form of bias, however it is not enough to verify that the articles point of view is incorrect. (It may be disputed, but not incorrect)Panpanman (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of a Felony

According to the English dictionary: The meaning of a Felony: A serious crime. A Felony crime is one of many high-class offences punishable by death or imprisonment. A felony means any serious crime, eg. murder, arson, racketeering, bribery, larceny, extortion, kidnapping, et al.

Ryan was convicted of a serious crime, murder.

As per usual User:Purrum is manipulating Ryan's conviction of murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron1940 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 3A

Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

3A. Unintentional killing in the course or furtherance of a crime of violence

(1) A person who unintentionally causes the death of another person by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a crime the necessary elements of which include violence for which a person upon first conviction may, under or by virtue of any enactment, be sentenced to level 1 imprisonment (life) or to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more shall be liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally.

(2) The rule of law known as the felony-murder rule (whereby a person who unintentionally causes the death of another by an act of violence done in the course or furtherance of a felony of violence is liable to be convicted of murder as though he had killed that person intentionally) is hereby abrogated.

Current State: All of Act in operation Crimes Act 1976, No. 8870/1976 Assent Date: 16.6.76 Commencement Date: Ss 1-3, 5, 7, 8 on 1.3.77: Government Gazette 26.1.77 p. 177; s. 4 on 1.7.76: s. 4(5); s. 6 on 1.7.77: Government Gazette 22.6.77 p. 1712

The felony murder rule was certainly in force in 1966, I believe it was abolished in 1976. Purrum (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ryan Found Guilty of Murder

On March 30, 1966, Ronald Ryan was found guilty of murder. Ronald Ryan was NOT found guilty of felony-murder. The jury found Ryan guilty of murder. Felony-murder was never mentioned when charged with murder, at trial, in the verdict, or the death sentence. The charge and conviction was one word only, murder. http://www.vicbar.com.au/vicbar_oral/images/opas/7_RyanGuilty.jpg

Julieannwells (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cited references

 Done References merged gioto (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Prot

Too much edit warring by red accounts. I've protected the page to a vaguely sane version. Please discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, it seems that the article is quite biased in regards to Carole Hodson-Barnes-Hodson-Price. The writer appears to show bias against her because of her opinion regarding the trial and whatnot. Just throwing it out there :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.44.140 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, its obvious this article is actually biased in regards to Ronald Ryan, his personal life, and the facts surrounding his case. The constant contribs by Purrum are actually biased against Ronald Ryan because of Purrum's own personal opinions/views. For example; the false/unproven allegations, manipulating/vandalizing referenced facts, deleting factual referenced contribs that support Ryan's wrongful conviction, and et al. The media reports on Carole Hodson-Barnes-Hodson-Price are absolutely relevant to the Ryan case. The media is merely reporting what Hodson-Barnes-Hodson-Price tells them, so how can this be considered biased against her? 60.224.64.166 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On the 18th of March 2009 60.224.64.166 (talk) posted this article on this talk board…

Bury The Bitterness: by Robyn Riley, HeraldSun News, 4/11/2007.

"I wish Carole Hodson Price, daughter of George Hodson, the warder killed by Ronald Ryan, could get that sense of peace so many years after her father’s killer was hanged. She was vocal, indeed, she was angry about the move to exhume Ryan’s remains so they can be buried with his wife."

60.224.64.166 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
But what 60.224.64.166 didn’t do was read the bottom of the article which contained this reply from Carole Price.
Hi Robyn ,
I have just had my daughter read the article in yesterdays paper regarding the family of Ronald Ryan, the person who murdered my father, and I am very upset by your inference that I do not feel for his family. If you have done any research at all you would have found that I have a lot of compassion for Ryans family. I have clearly stated on TV, and in “your” newspaper that his family are the victims of his actions also. I forgave Ryan many years ago and as I said he does not deserve anything from me or my family, but his family does deserve some finallity. God knows I would love to hear the end of it. Please feel free to contact me. I would like my feelings expressed in you column. Cheers Carole Price If yo need verification as to who I am please contact Kelly Ryan Carole Price of West Footscray (Reply)

But then 60.224.64.166 or one of it various sockpuppets, Escapeeyes keeps posting this piece of rubbish
This wasn't the first time that Hodson used violence against a prisoner. The Truth Newspaper published letters from ex-prisoners claiming that Hodson was a violent heavy-weight bully who would bash prisoners with phone books, as not to leave marks on their bodies. Hodson was separated from his wife and daughter and living in a flat in the red-light center of Inkerman Street, St Kilda. The area was notoriously known for street prostitution and illegal narcotics. The Truth Newspaper 22/01/1966
It never appeared in the Truth newspaper on this date, I have checked the edition three times, besides at the time Ryan and Walker were considered to be Australia’s nastiest killers. It would be unlikely that any editor would publish it.
60.224.64.166 or one of it various sockpuppets, Escapeeyes will continue to smear ms Price or her late father because she can get the media’s attention where the former can not! Purrum (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Purrum is "assuming" and making more "allegations" that cannot be proven. IP address 60.244.64.166 has nothing to hide, it is a shared IP address - shared by some 25 professional people working as volunteers for human rights. Wikipedia has already been notified on this and advised to stick to one name.
By the way Purrums, your allegation that I am a female is wrong - I (escapeeyes) am a male, a law-abiding, decent, and mentally stable citizen of society! Every contribution that I have added to the Ryan article are "referenced". Everything I have added is "factual". Nothing I have added is of false, manipulated or hypothetical content. Unlike Purrum's false allegations based on two books-for-profits that not only contradict each other, but are also contradicted by the mega-referenced articles/documentary films/stories on the Ryan case. Purrum seems emotionally unable to accept the facts and the truth and therefore consistently deletes, manipulates and vandalizes the facts, in an attempt to pollute the minds of the public to side with Purrum's personal opinion/views. Hodson did in "fact" live in the area surrounded by street prostitutes, drug addicts and drug dealers after he separated from his wife and young daughter, and he was no angel. According to prisoners' letters to The Truth Newspaper Hodson was a big overweight bully who had a history of violence against prisoners.
Smear campaign? Oh Please!!!! there's no need for me to smear Hodson-Barnes-Price because she's been doing an excellent job over the decades of smearing herself, by angrily and loudly seeking media attention, hijacking Ryan's memorials, making false accusations against Ryan, gate-crashing and loudly protesting ever Ryan documentary film/story, consistently playing the victim to the media to gain more and more sympathy from everybody. I applaud Robin Riley and all the other media journalists for ignoring Hodson-Barnes-Price (whatever her name is). Any person who dances and jumps over a long dead man's grave (after seeking and being granted permission by prison authorities to visit Ryan's unmarked grave), can only be correctly considered as a very bitter and angry individual. No decent mature adult would ever consider performing such a vile degrading act upon an unmarked grave, knowing fully that it would add more pain and suffering to the dead man's living family members.
Purrum (again) makes more false allegations - that Ryan and Walker were considered to be Australia’s nastiest killers. "Fact" is that Ryan and Walker were serving time for robbery, not murder, when they escaped from prison.
Quit making allegations - either put up proof or shut up !!!!!!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

REPEAT NOTICE TO PURRUM

STOP vandalizing the referenced contributions of others.
STOP deleting the referenced contributions of others.
STOP contaminating/manipulating the referenced contributions of others.
STOP advertizing/promoting your own opinions on the Ryan case.

You accuse me of actions that you consistently do yourself! Purrum (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you put this piece of fiction in ?

However, according to two previous documentary films, which were based on meticulous research including archival material and interviews with the real people directly involved in the Ryan case, The Last Man Hanged (ABC Productions 1993) and The Last Of The Ryans (Crawford Productions 1997), clearly show Prison Governor Grindlay saying to Ryan; "You killed one of my men." and Ryan replied; "I didn't do it Gov, I swear, I didn't shoot him." Ryan maintained his innocence to the end. These two non-fiction documentary films contradict Prior/Richards account of the truth written in their books-for-profit.

No scene in the film, The Last Man Hanged (ABC Productions 1993), has this conversation, what it actually showed was the Sherriff stuggling to read out the execution order before the hangman manicules Ryan for his final walk. Crawford Productions is a commercial enterprise, they make films for profit.Purrum (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Purrum, you are a liar, an outright compulsive liar!
The above scene did in fact take place. It is clearly understood, especially in the documentary film The Last of The Ryans. In the documentary film The Last Man Hanged the contents of Ryan's eleventh-hour handwritten letter maintaining his innocence, is read out loud. Both documentary films were based on miticulous research. Furthermore, there are no records and no evidence anywhere, that can confirm that Ryan confessed to Grindlay and Kingston. And, there are literally hundreds of articles, stories, interviews with live-people who knew Ryan well, and interviews with live-people directly involved in the Ryan case - all of which contradict Prior/Richards account of the truth in their book-for-profits - ficticious contents to gain money and notoriety. Your dirty actions of deliberately deleting/vandalizing referenced contributions of historical facts relating to the Ryan case, can only be described as the actions of a disturbed individual.

Finally, I am pleased to inform you that your vile actions on this website has actually inspired professional people to register an Internet website fully detailing True Story of Ronald Ryan. The non-profit website is currently under construction. It will contain lots of factual information, newspaper and media stories, videos, court transcrips, interviews with the people directly involved in the Ryan case, and Ryan's eleventh-hour handwritten letters on toilet paper in the death holding cell, which were addressed to Father Brosnan, Dr Opas and Ryan's family members where Ryan maintains his innocence. All references on Ronald Ryan's life, wrongful conviction and political execution will be included.

Have a nice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.64.166 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look forward to it, Opas's defence had more holes that swiss cheese! Purrum (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do, and be warned it will open up a Pandora's box! By the way, I was directly involved in the Ryan case. The truth will be revealed and many heads will roll. In the meantime, while I continue to inform the public of The Facts' it seems that only you, and you alone, continue to sabatoge The Facts on Wikipedia for your stealth agendas. The Defence exposed The Crown's volcano of swiss cheese - the inconsistencies in evidence, no forensic examinations, missing pieces of evidence, and false allegations of verbals and confessions, (which do not prove guilt). The Crown could only rely on ambiguous and unreliable eyewitness testimonies. Every eyewitness had a different account of what they saw. Amazingly, all fourteen eyewitnesses heard only one single shot (Paterson's shot). The Crown had no scientific proof - nothing. A sham of a trial. A sham of fore-trial by media. A sham of a post-trial by selfish politicians. A sham of a cover-up by authorities. A sham of a human being's execution taking place without any scientific evidence that would prove guilt. A sham of a democratic criminal justice system.
Escapeeyes (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Directly involved were you ? Prove it !!! Purrum (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How about YOU prove Ryan fired a shot??? You can't because there is no proof!!! I have some idea of who you are, and the reason behind your stealth agenda by sabotaging the facts and the truth. It's no secret that I was one of fourteen eyewitnesses (actually there were more) with excellent eyesight and excellent hearing.I saw and heard what I saw and heard and I know what I saw and heard. It's long overdue for Australians, and the world, to know the whole shocking true story of Ronald Ryan. The truth does not lie and can never be manipulated by you or any person. Unlike Prior and Richards I/we are not doing it for profits nor accepting rewards by manipulating the facts and the truth.
Escapeeyes (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What did you see and how did it vary from what you testified in court? Purrum (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh really Purrums? Don't you claim to already know everything? So, how about you first provide proof (not merely allegations) that Ryan fired a shot? Then will I tell you what I testified in court. Come on Purrums, don't keep the public in the dark any longer - provide this ultimate important vital piece of information. You really are extraordinary stupid, as everything you alleged about Ryan is in fact strongly contradicted by a mega of references. I suggest you keep your paranoid opinions and views to yourself without the urge to pollute the minds of others. You are actually aiding in destroying the credibility of Wikipedia. Escapeeyes (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting, for many months now for Purrums to provide that proof that Ryan fired a shot. Come on Purrums, don't hide behind them unproven allegations - tell us where we can find that proof??? !!! Escapeeyes (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryan's eleventh-hour handwritten letter contained this line With regard to my guilt I say only that I am innocent of intent and have a clear conscience in the matter. If Both documentary films were based on miticulous research why wasn't Grindlay asked the million dollar question regarding Ryan confession? It was public knowledge ,Grindlay had told people for twenty years before filming. Had Grindlay replied in the negative you could bet London to a Brick it would be in the film. Purrum (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Again Purrums! Your ramblings are merely hypothetical manure. Stick to the "facts", without attempting to confuse the public with hypotheticals.
Ryan's eleventh-hour handwritten letters to Opas, Brosnan, Anti-Hanging Committee, and his family members, clearly stated; "I (Ryan) state most emphatically that I am innocent of murder" Actually, there is no evidence anywhere, there are no records anywhere, that Grindlay (while still alive) said to anyone, at anytime, that Ryan had confessed guilt. Why didn't Grindlay reveal/record this alleged verbal confession by Ryan to the media, Opas, Brosnan, the authorities, police? Grindlay died ten years before this false allegation against him was made public. A shameful method of enticing sale of book-for-profits. If you Purrum have the written evidence from Grindlay suggesting proof - either put up or shut up !!!
We are all still waiting for Purrums to provide the proof that Ryan fired a shot. Fact is, not only wasn't Ryan's rifle tested by forensics to prove it fired a shot (regardless of whether police claim it "looked as if" it had been cleaned), but neither were the rifles of prison officers tested by forensics to prove their rifles had not fired a shot. A man was executed over a case of profound crook, shady, rotten, stealth, unscrupulous, foul and murky police investigations !!! Escapeeyes (talk)

On the 10th of April 1976, The Truth newspaper published an article,(one of a series on Ian Grindlays time at Pentridge Gaol) on Ryans confession to Grindlay. "Yes, that's true. I did shoot him. But I didn't mean to kill him ... only to stop him. I'm an expert shot. I used to be a kangaroo shooter. I aimed to hit him in the left shoulder to stop him. He almost had his hands on Peter."

This was between seventeen and twenty years before Grindlay died and those meticulous research documentary films Escapeeyes uses as references. Purrum (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow... are we all supposed to have total trust in some "alleged verbal" confession??? because the police stuffed-up their investigations - lack of scientific forensic evidence, missing pieces of vital evidence and all those inconsistencies in eyewitnesses evidence? Do we just go ahead and execute people based on "alleged verbals"??? And please explain Purrums, why Grindlay didn't go directly to the authorities to make an official report of Ryan's "alleged verbal" confession? After all, Grindlay was the top-notch man at Pentridge and he surely would called a special meeting to report and discuss such an amazing verbal confession to inform government leaders, prison authorities, televison, radio and other media journalists from around Australia, prosecutors and defence laywers, Father Brosnan and et al. Why would Ryan confess to Grindlay while at the eleventh-hour Ryan wrote letters to various people protesting his innocence? Ryan had to write his letters on toilet paper and then he was also refused his right to make a "last statement" just prior to execution. Smells fishy to me! The various documentary films, based on meticulous research including archival material and interviews by living people (including Grindlay) who were directly involved in the Ryan case do not even mention such a confession taking place - because it didn't happen! Professional film-makers know better than to make false allegations, which can result in being sued for compensation of millions of dollars. Documentary films are based on facts and truth. When will Purrums provide "proof" that Ryan fired a shot???????????
60.224.64.166 (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The evidence has been on the page all along and the proof was provided by you.Purrum (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reestablishing the truth mate! I provide the proof that there was/is no proof, whatsoever. The truth is that there was/is no evidence, no proof, nothing - not a single speck of scientific evidence to prove Ryan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Your false allegations and alleged verbals/confessions were never proven at the time, and will never be proven in the future, because there is no proof. No matter how you distort/manipulate/vandalize/corrupt/delete the truth and the facts, you are still unable to provide any any proof. You merely babble on and on !!!! Escapeeyes (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though the page is now locked the evidence has been on the page all along and the proof is still there.Purrum (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the page is now locked with the mega of articles supporting that facts, which Purrum refuses to accept for unknown stealth agendas - thereby distorts/manipulates/vandalizes/corrupts/deletes the facts, the truth, the lack of scientific evidence, the missing bullet and missing cartridge that may have cleared Ryan of murder, and the very odd inconsistencies in every fourteen eyewitnesses evidence. Escapeeyes (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

PURRUM'S SUPPORT TO HODSON WHO DANCED ON GRAVE

It's become obvious Purrum's distorted contributions are in support to Carole Hodson. Hodson claims she knows Ryan did it, yet there is no proof that Ryan did it at all. The Heraldsun Newspaper reports that Hodson remains bitter and angry four decades on. Hodson loudly seeks media attention, hijacks Ryan's memorials, makes false accusations against Ryan, gate-crashes to loudly protest every Ryan documentary film/story and consistently plays victim to the media to gain extra sympathy. Any person who dances and jumps over a long dead man's grave (after seeking and being granted permission by prison authorities to visit Ryan's unmarked grave), can only be correctly considered as a very bitter and angry individual. No decent mature adult would ever consider performing such a vile degrading act upon an unmarked grave, knowing fully that it would add more pain and suffering to the dead man's living family members.

The views of Carole Price are not relevant to the life of Ronald Ryan. That is why I delete them, the wiki page should be about the life and crimes of Ronald Ryan. Purrum (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon Me??? Carole Hodson-Barnes-Hodson-Price (whatever her name is) consistently approaches the media and demands to have her opinion/views on Ryan published, therefore, IT IS very relevant to the Ryan matter. Every information/news article on Ryan IS relevant, especially when false allegations are made against Ryan. The public has a right to know everything on Ryan. Escapeeyes (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the public has a right to know everything on Ryan but Carole Price's opinions, your opinions and my opinions do not belong on Wiki. Personal views don't belong so I will continue to delete.Purrum (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Purrum, look in the mirror mate because you're full of self-righteous opinions, views, hypotheticals, allegations, accusations, hearsay and fabricated information on Ronald Ryan. And, you have the ordacity to express them on Wikipedia!
Tell us Purrum, why don't you also request deletion of every published "hateful" opinions by Hodson, that have appeared in various media articles over the decades, for everybody to read? Common sense suggests that if Hodson demands her opinions on Ryan be published on the media, then it becomes relevant referenced material for Wikipedia. If Hodson doesn't want her opinions to be made public information, then she should keep her vile mouth shut. Therefore, I will continue to add every referenced article regarding Ryan on Wikipedia, for the purposes of fully informing and educating the public.
It's obvious that Purrum passes judgement on what referenced articles should be banned, deleted, sensored and replaced with lies - nothing but lies!
Escapeeyes (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you two seem to be incapable of using some of Wikipedia's many resources on DISPUTE RESOLUTION... I've started you off with a request for a third opinion. -- œ^™ 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A letter Ronald ryan once wrote ???

I believe Ronald wrote a short letter from prison,the words "10 commandments" featured within this letter, does anyone know the rest of the contents ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.74.171 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryan wrote several letters to various people from prison. The letter that included the 10 commandments and maintaining his innocence, is in the late Opas' estate. In the eleventh-hour, shortly prior to his execution, Ryan wrote letters on toilet paper inside his cell. The letters were folded up and addressed to his family members, Opas, and the Anti-Hanging Committee. Ryan asked Father Brosnan to give his letters to the appropriate persons. The contents varied from person to person and it is important to note that in each letter Ryan maintained his innocence and he thanked those who had supported him. In the documentary film The Last Man Hanged Ryan's letter to the Anti-Hanging Committee is read out loud. Ryan states; " I, Ronald Joseph Ryan, state most emphatically that I am innocent of murder". Ryan's wife Dorothy, also reads out loud part of the letter that Ryan wrote to her.
Escapeeyes (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Massively appreciate the feedback thanks, still in the dark as to the contents of the letter,can you advise ? (its only the letter with the words "10 commandments" that i desperately need,again thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.137.22 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

People of The World - take note !!!

Colin Ross-Campbell was executed after being convicted of rape and murder. There was no evidence whatsoever to prove he had committed the time. He was convicted based on unsigned and unproven allegations made against him by others. He maintained his innocence to the end in a final statement to the people who had gathered to witness his execution. Eighty years later, he was pardoned by the State of Victoria. You can't pardon a corpse !!!

Ronald Ryan was executed after being convicted of murder. There was no evidence whatsoever to prove Ryan had committed the crime. He was convicted based on unsigned, untaped and unproven allegations made against him by police. Vital pieces of evidence that would have cleared Ryan mysteriously went "missing". Vital forensic tests on Ryan's rifle that would have cleared Ryan were never performed - police had hidden Ryan's rifle in the boot of a police car. The wide-ranging inconsistencies of eyewitnesses evidence can only be described as a "scandal" to the Australian Justice System. Ryan maintained his innocence to the end in handwritten letters on toilet paper addressed to various people. Unlike Ross-Campbell, Ryan was not given the right to make a final statement to the people who had gathered to witness his execution.

People of the world take note of what is highly likely to happen in the so-called democratic, human rights for all, country of Australia. There is no such thing as true justice in Australia. If are unlucky enough to be in Australia and find yourself on the wrong side of the law due to allegations made against you, this is what will happen under Australian Justice System. You will be detained upon any allegations made against you and any unsigned, untaped and unproven allegations will most likely convict you. A jury in Australia is highly likely to convict a person without scientific ballistic forensic evidence of proof. A jury in Australia is highly likely to convict a person based on unsigned, untaped and unproven allegations made against you by others. After being convicted and sentenced, the Australian Government is highly likely to cut funding for your right to appeals against your conviction. In Australia, there is no such thing as "justice for all". In Australia, if you have been in trouble with the law, no person will believe anything you say - you are automatically guilty until proven innocent. If you can't prove innocence you will most likely be convicted anyway, by an Australian jury.

Escapeeyes (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Its Colin Campbell Ross but don't let facts get in the way of a mad rant. While there were inconsistencies in the eyewitness evidence , the common theme was Ryan was pointing his rifle at Hodson when gunshot was heard. If all the eyewitness stories were the same , you would think that there was collusion between the witnesses. Never forget you were one of them. Ryan whispered his last words to the hangman, God bless you, please make it quick , the hangman obliged.
As for Ryan's last letters, the last one was to his children, in it it said With regard to my guilt I say only that I am innocent of intent and have a clear conscience in the matter Purrum (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Purrum's compulsive hypotheticals of "ifs and buts" are a desperate mad rant to alter The Facts. The facts don't lie !!!

The facts are; that only eleven of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified they saw Ryan armed with a rifle, aiming the rifle around, and waving the rifle around at motorists for a getaway car. Only four eyewitnesses testified they saw Ryan fire a shot. A single shot was heard from a distance at an elevated position - in the direction of prison officer Paterson, where he was standing on the low prison wall, aiming his rifle towards Ryan, Walker and Hodson. Paterson admitted and testified that he fired a single shot.

How dare you take it upon yourself to speak for the Ryan children ??? You have never read any of Ryan's last handwritten letters, but I certainly have !!!

Fact is, every handwritten letter Ryan wrote to family members and various people clearly stated; I state most emphatically that I am not guilty of murder! Ryan's last letter to The Anti-Hanging Committee, stated this fact, was it was read out loud in the documentary film, The Last man Hanged.

Whatever Ryan whispered to the hangman is irrelevant to The Facts.
Escapeeyes (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Untwisting twisted facts

Escapeeyes has put this unreferenced twisted fact on the page Gildea's account of the discussions in the jury room, not one member of the jury thought that Ryan would be executed. Two members of the jury who thought Ryan was guilty, convinced the others to bring in a guilty verdict. They were so sure that the death sentence would be commuted to life imprisonment, that they did not even discuss the issue of making a recommendation for mercy along with their guilty verdict.
Whereas Gildea comments were first published The Sun August 14, 1984 </ref> and reprinted in Barry Dickens, Guts and Pity - The Hanging that ended Capital Punishment in Australia. .
Gildea said, Of the jury, two members held out the first vote we took, but 10 of us were sure Ryan was guilty. He was a bit to sure of himself in the witness box but the thing that decided us was handling the rifle which had killed Hodson. We had been told the rifle had a hair trigger, but when we examined it we found we had to pull it at least half an inch and use quite a bit of force. . Eight members of the jury where experienced with rifles either in the country or overseas with war service.
Gildea also said, I don't know how much experience the judge and the lawyers had but we had had our share in the jury box I can tell you..
As the foreman of the jury said to me What sort of bulldust are they trying to pull over us. . If Escapeeye is going to change my edits then he should get the facts correct, Purrum (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Purrums is very "selective" with contributions - only contributes parts of stories, very much against Ryan, not the full accurate stories that support Ryan's wrongful conviction. Purrums believes every one directly involved in the Ryan case were wrong !!!

Whatever Gildea's alleged reported comments, they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with THE FACTS and are only part of everything Gildea said concerning Ryan's case.

Seems Gildea and his jury members were a bunch of dum-dums. Why? Because despite a total lack of scientific ballistic forensic evidence, missing pieces of vital evidence that would have cleared Ryan, and dire inconsistencies of eyewitnesses evidence, Ryan was found guilty of murder by Gildea's jury members, based solely on unsigned and untaped alleged verbals and confessions said to have been made by Ryan to police. Ryan had intentionally kept his rifle to prove his innocence, as he knew that forensic microscopic markings on the spent bullet would prove that it was not fired from his rifle. Guilt can be proven by scientific forensic tests as ballistic experts could establish the fact that the bullet was fired by a particular rifle. No scientific forensic tests were ever performed on Ryan's rifle, the fatal bullet nor the spent cartridge. Despite all these facts, Gildea's jury members decided to find Ryan guilty because they wanted to go home. Yes, according to the judge, lawyers and legal workers, the jury members were heard loudly arguing and shouting at each other, for hours. When the jury members were confronted that Ryan would hang, they realised they made a big boo-boo in finding Ryan guilty. Most of the jury members protested against the hanging, because they believed Ryan could be innocent due to the total lack of scientific evidence. None of the jury members wanted Ryan to hang and they were tormented. Gildea's jury members knew they could have got the verdict wrong - hence, their protest against the hanging !!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Gildea reported comments come from a book that you recommend, (Dickens, Barry, Guts and Pity - The Hanging that ended Capital Punishment in Australia), Gildea was the only juror to be named and he said Of the jury, two members held out the first vote we took, but 10 of us were sure Ryan was guilty.. Whereas the comments that you post are unreferenced and I have never heard of two men being able to persuade the other ten. The fact is the Jury saw through the lies Ryan told in the witness box, and Ryan told plenty.Purrum (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth Purrum - I have never recommended any books-for-profits, either on Ryan or any other deceased person who are unable to defend themselves from the likes of people like you. Who do you think you are, by claiming Ryan was a liar ??? Although the man is dead, don't assume his family members won't anytime in the future, take legal action for compensation. Ryan denied ever making such unsigned, untaped, alleged verbals/confessions. According to Purrums, this makes Ryan a liar. For the record, Australian police have to record all interviews they carry out in connection with a crime following extraordinary revelations of police corruption uncovered by various Australian Police Royal Commissions. Purrums, the self-righteous know-all, also speaks on behalf of the jury, claiming they saw through Ryan's lies. Actually, none of the jury members ever stated Ryan was a liar !!!

Under the Australian Justice system, the accused person selects the jury members after their name and occupation are called out in the courtroom. The accused can challenge up to six jury members. Ryan selected the jury members who had knowledge of firearms - in the belief that they would be capable of understanding scientific ballistic forensic tests, which would have proven that he did not fire a shot from his rifle. But big surprise came shortly after - no forensic tests were ever performed, either on Ryan's rifle nor on the dozens of exact-same rifles of prison officers' surrounding the scene of the crime. There was no scientific proof of who's rifle shot Hodson. That is The Fact.

It's common knowledge that jury members very often persuade others to change their decision. That's exactly what happened in this case. After hours of hearing loud bickering, arguing, and shouting between jury members, Justice Starke called on the jury and asked them if there were any problems, any questions, or if they needed more time to consider things. Gildea told Starke that they didn't want more time, that they just wanted to continue deciding, so that they could all go home because they were tired. Without doubt, the damaging media coverage before the trial, the damaging police testimony, and the mere four eyewitnesses (out of dozens of people present at the scene of the crime) contributed to the jury's final decision of a guilty verdict.

I have never heard of a jury convicting a person, then petitioning and appealing to Government not to execute the convicted offender. I have never heard of a jury being horrified and troubled over a guilty man about to be executed - a man that they convicted. I have never heard of a jury convicting a person based on unsigned, untaped alleged verbals. I have never heard of a jury convicting a person on mega-inconsistencies of eyewitnesses evidence. I have never heard of a jury convicting a person where vital pieces of evidence have gone "missing" and therefore, cannot be tested by forensics. I have never heard of a jury convicting a person on what a mere four out of dozens of people at the scene of the crime claim to have seen. I have never heard of a jury in a democratic nation that convicts a person where the police and the prosecutors failed (for unknown reasons) to perform scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Unbelievable stuff. Only in Australia !!!

The whole world must be laughing at this case of sloppy corrupt Australian Justice - a third-world justice system where a man is executed by the Government, seven days before his "final appeal" to the Privy Council had yet to be decided. Only in Australia !!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was your evidence in the witness box that got Ryan convicted! Purrum (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again Purrums !!! I was not one of the four people who testified seeing Ryan fire a shot. Don't assume anything without evidence of proof, don't make false allegations, don't make hypotheticals, don't include your personal opinions on Ryan, and more importantly don't ever call Ryan a liar unless you have evidence of proof. I think you have been reading too many books-for-profits. To assume that every book written is 100 percent accurate is being very naive. Books-for-profits are merely written in the eyes of authors' out to make as much money as possible from the sales. I suggest you read The Supreme Court of Victoria Trial Transcript - Queen v. Ryan & Walker March 15-30, 1966 and then quit manipulating The Facts or you might one day get yourself into deep poo-poo.
I do the decent. honourable and proper thing - I adhere to, and remain loyal to the facts !!! Escapeeyes (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) So say a man who misquotes Brosnan on ABC radio, You still haven't said wheres the reference that two jurors convinced the other ten. Purrum (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC) You have deleted everyone book except Dickens, I'll take that as an endorsement. Purrum (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah Purrum's extraordinary hypothetical imagination. STICK TO THE FACTS Purrums !!!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSTRALIAN JUSTICE - The facts

Ronald Ryan was the last man to be legally executed in Australia. Ryan, 41, had been a petty-thief and had no police record of violence. Ryan was convicted and sentenced to death for fatally shooting a prison guard while escaping from prison. Despite a total lack of scientific ballistic forensic evidence, missing pieces of vital evidence that would have cleared Ryan, and dire inconsistencies of eyewitnesses evidence, Ryan was found guilty of murder based solely on unsigned and untaped alleged verbals and confessions said to have been made by Ryan to police. Ryan was hanged less than one year after being convicted of murder. Ryan had not exhaused all right of appeals because the Victorian Government withdrew all funding. Despite the biggest public protests ever seen in the history of Australia, the Victorian Government was determined Ryan would hang. Ryan had intentionally kept his rifle to prove his innocence, as he knew that forensic microscopic markings on the spent bullet would prove that it was not fired from his rifle. Guilt can be proven by scientific forensic tests as ballistic experts could establish the fact that the bullet was fired by a particular rifle. No scientific forensic tests were ever performed on Ryan's rifle, the fatal bullet nor the spent cartridge. Ryan was not given the right to make a final statement to the people who had gathered to witness his execution. Ryan maintained his innocent to the end in hand-written letters on toilet paper inside his cell. They are the facts !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escapeeyes (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stick to The Facts

People contributing to this Internet encyclopedia should stick to the "facts" of the Ryan case.
Accusations, allegations, hearsay, unsigned alleged verbals, unsigned alleged confessions, hypotheticals, personal opinions and personal views should not be included. As time passes and more people directly involved in the Ryan case die, a few bitter people believe they have a right to corrupt the "facts" in an attempt to distort the truth to suit their own stealth agendas.
The "facts" are that there is no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove Ryan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The "facts" are that Ryan was convicted of murder and executed, despite a total lack of forensic examinations, missing pieces of vital evidence that might have cleared Ryan, dire inconsistencies in all fourteen eyewitnesses evidence, and alleged unsigned verbals/confessions said to have been made by Ryan to police.
They are the "facts" !!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Purrum has been having severe problems with the facts on the Ryan case, therefore continues to delete/distort/corrupt/manipulate the facts and replace the facts with false allegations, false alleged hearsay, opinions that have absolutely nothing to do with the facts.

The facts are the facts, and no amount of distortion by Purrum can change the truth - the facts.
Whoever said whatever to who, has no relevance to the facts. It is pure and simple hearsay.
Father Brosnan put an end to the false allegations on ABC National Radio in 2003, shortly before his death. Escapeeyes (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On June 12 Escapeeyes added comments supposively said by Father Brosnan
"I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine (Ryan) died. I don't want to make a hero out of Ryan but I'll tell you what, he had heroic qualities."
The correct quote was :
"No I won't make a hero out of him. He caused a situation, I don't know whose bullet killed who, but a friend of mine died. But I'll tell you what, he had heroic qualities."
Brosnan in his autobiography ‘’A knockabout priest : the story of Father John Brosnan’’, tells of his friendship with George Hodson.
George Hodson was my friend, not Ryan, Father Brosnan said, “George was a nice fellow, but his wife had left him, taking their thirteen year old daughter with her and he didn’t have much of a life, I used to talk to him at Pentridge and drop in to see him in St Kilda sometimes to cheer him up. The friend Brosnan was refering to was Hodson not Ryan as Escapeeyes would have you believe.Purrum (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So very wrong (again) Purrum ... read the referenced media news article again. The ABC interviewer asks Brosnan who it was believed fired the fatal shot. Brosnan replies that he did not know who shot who. Brosnan states that he (Brosnan does not know who's shot killed who. That's exactly what Brosnan said. It is public knowledge that Brosnan thought of Ryan as his best mate, and he always believed Ryan was innocent. There are mega-references confirming this fact. The contents of Prior's book was denied by Brosnan on ABC National Radio in 2003, shortly before his death. Prior's book is therefore unreliable. If you want o discuss Hodson, there are also books/articles that described Hodson's personal life as a violent bully who lived surrounded by prostitutes and illegal narcotics. The prisoners knew the secret life of Hodson very well for obvious reasons. Maybe that's why his wife left him.

Funny really, how you twist and turn the facts concerning Ryan around, just to confuse the public. Please explain how anything you say is directly connected with the total lack of scientific ballistic forensic tests ??? Where is your 100 percent proof of scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove Ryan was guilty of shooting Hodson ?????????????????????
Escapeeyes (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
So where are these references about Hodson?Purrum (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, where are these scientific ballistic forensic evidence on Ryan, his rifle, fatal bullet, spent cartridge ???
To correct one of your many false contributions to the Ryan article, here's one accurate quote from your most reliable book-for-profits (bias against Ryan) The Hanged Man (page 221 & 222).
"The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses were substancial and wide-ranging. Only four of the thirteen eyewitnesses testified they actually saw Ryan fire a shot. The prosecution relied heavily on witnesses evidence because there were no scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove Ryan actually fired a shot."
How could the prosecution team and the investigating cops be such complete morons ???
There were literally dozens of people at the scene of the crime, including armed and unarmed prison guards. Yet only four people claim they actually saw Ryan fire a shot. Can you believe that - only four people? Every person surrounding the crime scene heard a single shot and saw Hodson fall on the ground, but only four people claim they saw Ryan fire it --- unbelievable stuff! If Ryan had fired a shot, what happened to that vital missing spent cartridge, for forensic testing? And, what happened to that vital missing fatal bullet, for forensic testing? All these vital missing pieces of evidence are a total mystery beyond all human imagination !!!
It is fact, that Ryan was convicted of murder based solely on unsigned and untaped alleged verbals/confessions said to have been made by Ryan to police, which Ryan always denied. Unbelievable, but actually very true !!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's all about forensics

Ryan intentionally kept his rifle to prove his innocence in the event of recapture. Ryan was a career petty-criminal and knew very well that forensic microscopic markings on the spent bullet would prove that it was not fired from his rifle. The normal course of a person who has shot another is to dispose of the weapon because it is well known that guilt can be proven by scientific forensic tests. Ballistic experts would establish the fact that the bullet was fired by a particular rifle.

The big surprise was that no scientific forensic examinations by ballistic experts were ever performed on Ryan's rifle. Mysteriously, neither the fatal bullet nor the spent cartridge were ever found by police and therefore, were never tested by forensic experts.

At the time of recapture, Ryan had no reason to assume the rifle he deliberately kept to prove his innocence, would never be scientifically tested by forensic experts. At the time of recapture, Ryan had no reason to assume the fatal bullet would never be found. At the time of recapture, Ryan had no reason to assume the spent cartridge would never be found.

Conclusion: No scientific ballistic forensic evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

60.224.64.166 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This rifle that Walker cut the stock off so it would fit under a coat , the same rifle was used to rob a bank and would have been used again if Ryan's bank robbery plans in Sydney came about, to get cash for a passage to Brazil.Purrum (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What ??? Please explain how your opinions on Walker are directly connected with the total lack of scientific ballistic forensic tests of the rifle ??? Again, you are making more allegations and hypotheticals to simply confuse the facts! This time it's your opinion on what Walker might have done, and your opinion on what Walker might have intended to do. The fact is, Walker has always stated that no shot was ever fired from that rifle because the rifle was jammed, due to a faulty operation of the rifle by Ryan at Lange's prison guard post. Ryan had cocked the rifle with the safety catch on, which caused the rifle to jam. A ballistic expert testified this fact at trial and there was no contest.
The rifle was intentionally kept by Ryan to prove his innocence - to prove the rifle had not fired a shot.
Stick to the facts !!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It was not Ryan's intention to get recaptured. He thought he would successfully escape to Brazil, therefore he would not need to prove his innocence. A gun would be handy to rob banks! Purrum (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More of your hypothetical opinions --- totally irrelevant to "The Facts" !!!
It's common knowledge that no escapees' have intentions of getting recaptured, therefore the reason they escape!
It wasn't Hodson's intention to get shot when he bashed Walker on the head with a huge iron bar, then continued to chase him so he could bash him some more - a silly dangerous action, with all those armed prison guards at the scene, aiming to fire. An iron bar was always handy to bash prisoners', in legal terms it's called criminal assault with a deadly weapon !!! Escapeeyes (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations you have uncovered one of Ronald Ryan's lies.
It's common knowledge that no escapees' have intentions of getting recaptured, therefore the reason they escape!Purrum (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for excusing the brutality of Hodson !!! How is Ryan's alleged lie relevant to the total lack of scientific ballistic forensic evidence - to prove who's rifle fired the shot, to prove the fatal bullet came from Ryan's rifle, to prove the spent cartridge came from Ryan's rifle. Fact is, Ryan kept the rifle to prove his innocence by forensics. There were none performed for some mysterious reason. But you can't accept the facts Purrum. May I suggest (again) Stick to the facts !!!

Now that wiki has requested a third opinion

Escapeeyes and the "alleged" sockpuppet 60.224.64.166 (shared IP address) have attempted to discredit two authors book because they disagree with the authors premise. Purrum and the self-righteous, who promotes the two books-for-profits, continues to discredit the many meticulously researched documentaries, films, stories, and newspaper articles on Ryan, because Purrum disagrees with the historical "facts" contained therein. Facts are facts - something that is absolutely indisputable. Opinions are merely a person's own personal opinion over another.

EXPOSED - BOOKS-FOR-PROFITS LIES

Purrum's contributions based on Prior and Richards books-for-profits have been exposed as lies and are totally unreliable.
Purrum knows but won't admit, that Brosnan made an absolute liar of Prior when Brosnan was interviewed on ABC national radio, saying; "I don't know who's bullet killed who but a friend of mine (Ryan) died and he had heroic qualities". Years earlier, Prior wrote that Brosnan and Kingston had told Prior that Ryan confessed guilt. Someone is lying!
In addition, Richards also makes a liar out of Prior. Richards does not write anything in his book about Kingston's allegation of Ryan confessing guilt to her. According to Prior, Kingston told Prior that Ryan confessed guilt to her. Absolutely odd!
Furthermore, Richards quotes Prior as the source of Grindlay's (no mention of Kingston) allegation that Ryan confessed guilt to him. No mention of date, time or place of this unbelievable allegation said to have been made by Grindlay to Prior. Unbelievable stuff!
More importantly, it seems that Grindlay never told Richards that Ryan had confessed guilt. In his book, Richards quotes that he got this story of Ryan's confession, from Prior. OMG!
The fact is as history shows, that there is no evidence, there are no records, anywhere, that Ryan confessed guilt to any person. Ryan denied ever making any "verbal" confessions and he maintained his innocence by writing on toilet paper inside his cell, to various persons immediatley prior to his execution.
These are the facts! However, Purrum continues to distort/manipulate/vandalize/corrupt/delete and make all sorts of excuses regarding the mega-referenced articles containing the facts that cannot lie -- the lack of scientific/forensic evidence, the missing fatal bullet, the missing spent cartridge, the single shot that every person heard (Paterson testified he fired a shot), the downward trajectory angle of the fatal bullet, and the most odd inconsistencies in each of the fourteen eyewitnesses evidence.
The facts, are the facts, are the facts!
Escapeeyes (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1. Brosnan did not make a liar out of anyone in the ABC interview, Brosnan was being Brosnan , he had a motto:

So they say – but I don’t know that for sure and I am not going to say. Even if I did know it, I would not say. I’m a priest not and police reporter. It is god’s job to judge people not mine. Father John Brosnan’’ It was the principle the priest lived by in 1985 and the principle he died by in 2003. It referred to all prisoners he met, not just the infamous.

What does Brosnan's alleged motto have to do with the Ryan case? Purrum is trying everything to manipulate/confuse Brosnan's own words on ABC national radio. Brosnan stated that he "did not know who's bullet killed who". Everybody who knew Brosnan until his recent death, publicly stated that Brosnan was convinced Ryan was innocent. That's an abundance of evidence to prove Prior a liar !!! 60.224.64.166 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

*2. Richards and Prior do not contradict each other, They come to the same conclusion from two different directions. If Richards didn't speak to Sister Kingston then it would be wrong to include her in his book. Purrum (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Richards did not speak to most people directly involved in the Ryan case, including Ronald Ryan himself. So it would be wrong indeed to include them, and Ronald Ryan, in his book. Richards so conveniently published his book in 2002 after most people had died. Dead people can't confirm nor retort Richards allegations. The few people directly involved in the Ryan case who were still alive in 2002 (35 years later) did not publicly endorse Richards book. No person was willing to endorse a load of trash. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Every documentary film made on Ronald Ryan has interviews with living people directly involved in the Ryan case. The documentaries have been miticulously researched, include archival material, and the historical facts that cast doubt on Ryan's guilt. Documentaries are not fiction, but based on factual material. In contrast, any idiot can write a book containing shock tactics of trash, which may entice certain persons to part with their money to read ficticious trash. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
These comments come from Chzz a wiki administrator on August 7, 2009.
Chzz (removing all of these ridiculous refs to imdb; I assume that they are meant to actually reference the various films, but these are dramatizations, and thus entirely inappropriate to use as a reliable source. Let's see what actual 'facts' we have here
and
Chzz (removing references to http://www.acr.net.au/~davidandjane/oddm_20000416.pdf - this is a story outline for a 3-part TV miniseries; it is NOT a reliable source for facts)
Wiki thoughts on documentaries. Purrum (talk) 05:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki's "thoughts" on the Ryan's case are merely personal opinions, they prove nothing! This article on Ryan should focus on the "historial facts" not merely opinions. Purrum's two books are definately NOT a reliable source for the "facts" and contradicted by megs-referenced information, including the ultimate source of factual information - the court trial transcript of Queen v. Ryan & Walker; March 15-30 1966. Escapeeyes (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuses, excuses, oops, wrong again Purrum:
Brosnan did, in fact, make a liar out of Prior. Brosnan said on ABC national radio; "I don't know who's shot killed who." That's a contradiction to Prior's allegations. Click on the reference and read the truth yourself Purrum, or can't you accept the truth? Brosnan never said on ABC national radio, or to anybody else for that fact, that Ryan confessed guilt to him. If Ryan had confessed guilt (as alleged by Prior) then surely Brosnan would have stated it on ABC national radio, but he did not. In fact, Brosnan never stated such an allegation made by Prior. Fact is, Brosnan was convinced Ryan was innocent. Click on this reference and read it yourself Purrum, or can't you accept the truth? However, if you want to continue believing Prior's infamous book contents, it's a free country - you are entitled to your own imagination.

There is only one conclusion in the Ryan case - the historical fact - there is no scientific evidence that Ryan fired a shot. This one conclusion, is something that is absolutely indisputable. This one conclusion, is supported by the many meticulously researched documentaries, stories and articles on the Ryan case. Therefore, if Prior and Richards (as Purrum claims) came to the same conclusion from different directions that's only their perception, their opinion, and their personal view on the Ryan case. More importantly, why would Richards miss such a vital piece of ultimate importance by not speaking to Kingston about Ryan's alleged confession made by Prior? Anybody writing an important non-fiction book-for-profits on Ryan, would have without doubt, spoken to Kingston concerning that unbelievable confession made by Prior in his book-for-profits. Funny really, Kingston told Prior but never told anybody else !!!!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


This Article appeared in the Melbourne newspaper, The Sun, June 12, 1986. The Sun had a readership of over 2 million. The article included a quarter page picture of Sister Margaret in front on a statue of the Good Shepherd.

Ryan confessed to the shooting, says nun

Sister Margaret Kingston who looked after Ryan’s mother and took her to visit him while he was awaiting execution, said last night Ryan told her he shot Hodson. “I shot to wing, I didn’t shoot to kill” Ryan had said. “My conscience is clear.”

Sister Kingston who lives at the Good Shepherds convent in Abbotsford said “the law had condemned him but his conscience had freed him.” “He believes in God as a forgiving Father, he hadn’t been forgiven by others, but he knew God had forgiven him.” Sister Margaret said that just before the execution she had offered to bring Ryan some books to read. He had told her “at this stage, Sister, material things don’t matter.” She said she knew he no longer wished to live. “Ron wore his best suit to his last Mass.” “He was beautifully groomed and his poor mother, Cecilia, was so proud of him.” “When they were saying goodbye, he clasped her in his arms and gave her a firm kiss. I will never forget it.” Purrum (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How much money was exchanged for this interview? And was this interview constructed to conflict prison officer Pascoe's claim that he fired a shot that killed Hodson? In the opinion of this nun, Ryan no longer wanted to live. But this nun was not a psychologist, so how could she possibly come to that conclusion?

Obviously, it seems Ryan's execution was more of a state-assisted suicide.

In relation to this alleged confession, Ryan didn't actually say he shot Hodson, but allegedly, said he shot to wing not to kill. Ryan, obviously in an extremely confused mental state, (as any person would be prior to being killed by the Government), could have been talking about his past kangaroo shooting events or any other event for that matter. After all, a mentally confused person does not talk in a rational manner.

Besides, nobody else close to Ryan claimed he no longer wanted to live. None of Ryan's family members claim he said such a thing. In any case, any person who states they no longer wish to live should be immediately evaluated for mental illness, So, why wasn't a psychiatrist called to treat Ryan for possible mental disorders, depression and suicidal thoughts? Why the push to execute Ryan if he was mentally unstable, hence, no longer wanted to live?

Legal professionals will confirm that alleged confessions and alleged verbals are not legally acceptable as "evidence of guilt". Many prisoners have been later aquitted of murder after allegations of verbals and confessions. There must be scientific forensic evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Ryan's case there was none - nothing! To make aftermath allegations against Ryan, decades after his execution when he cannot defend himself, are vile, immoral, unethical and complete mockery to the justice system, to the dead Ryan, and to his innocent family members. The police corruption uncovered by various Australian Royal Commissions is enough to question the validity of Ryan's alleged verbals.

Why would Ryan make all these alleged confessions, then in the eleventh-hour write to various people; I state most emphatically that I am not guilty of murder" In addition, Father Brosnan put an end to all these aftermath unproven and unconfirmed allegations in February 2003, when he was interviewed on ABC National Radio, shortly before his death. Father Brosnan always believed Ryan was innocent.

60.224.64.166 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing about this case is all in the wording.

• Smokeless cartridges aren't smoke free,
• No noticeable recoil doesn't mean the rifle is recoilless,
• I am not guilty of murder doesn't mean I didn't fire a shot.
• I am innocent of intent doesn't mean I didn't fire a shot.

Purrum (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The "truth" about the Ryan case is all in the "facts" !!!

• Allegations of verbals doesn't mean Ryan actually said anything to anybody. Unsigned verbals are not facts - do not prove guilt.
• Allegations of confessions doesn't mean Ryan confessed to anybody about anything. Confessions are not facts - do not prove guilt.
• Opinions/views are a person's own personal perception - opinions/views are not facts - do not prove guilt.
• Hypotheticals are personal imaginary events - hypotheticals are not facts - do not prove guilt.
• Avery authors' book-for-profits doesn't mean the books contain factual, reliable and unbiased information.
• Witnesses court testimonies don't mean they are always accuate and without discrimination.
• History shows that guilty verdicts don't always mean the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Escapeeyes (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You just shot yourself in the foot! Purrum (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Purrums! Actually both my feet and mouth are in excellent shape. Fortunately for me (unlike Ryan), I am still alive and mentally competent to defend my person from being falsely attacked by the judgemental self-righteous. However, in a democratic nation you are entitled to express your own imagination. In the end, your own personal opinions/views without the facts are worth zero. So, have a nice day and may you live a long and happy life !!!

One more time ... allegations, verbals, confessions, hypotheticals, opinions, do not prove guilt. Only scientific ballistic forensic examinations/tests can prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Ryan's case, there was no proof - the cops and prosecution stuffed-up big time !!!
Escapeeyes (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION

Dr Philip Opas (defence lawyer for Ryan, recently deceased) made it public knowledge that he did not, and would never endorse Richards book The Hanged Man, because the facts surrounding Ryan life and case had been manipulated. The book was published 35 years after Ryan's hanging - only after almost every person directly involved in the Ryan case had died, making allegations by Richards impossible to retort or confirm as fact. Richards tried but failed to bluff Opas to support the book by signing it inside the front cover, "To Philip and Stella from Mike Richards". But it's no surprise that the highly intelligence and most experienced Opas was not easily fooled by anyone. The book became a toilet item.
It's ironic that User:Purrum promotes and contributes to the Ryan article from two books, which not only contradict each other, but have also been exposed to contain lies. For unknown reasons User:Purrum deliberately ignores the mega referenced articles published over four decades that acknowledge the facts.
60.224.64.166 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip Opas also wrote a book for profit, his autobiography

• Opas, Philip, Throw away my wig: an autobiography of a long journey with a few sign posts 1997 ISBN 187607406X. In this book he wrote why he believed Paterson could not have fired the fatal shot, Opas believed the guard in tower 3 theory. This is a direct contradiction to his letter to the bar council Opas on Ryan. Purrum (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Purrum, get the story accurate rather than make more false allegations about Opas. You are trying to confuse the "facts", as per usual. Truth is, Opas wrote many articles, which have always clearly stated the "facts" - that only one single shot was heard by all persons and prison officer Paterson testified he fired one single shot. Also, prison officer Pascoe admitted on national television in 1986 (19 years after Ryan was hanged) that he fired a shot from tower 3, which might have killed Hodson. Pascoe stated that he was a young scared coward at the time for keeping quiet as he didn't want to get into trouble and lose his job. Hence, there has been much speculation over the decades of where the fatal shot was fired from, and by whom. The "fact" remains that the police and prosecution failed, for whatever reason, to provide a shred of scientific forensic evidence, which would have proven beyond reasonable doubt who's rifle fired the fatal shot. Nobody's rifle was ever tested. There were lots of prison officers with lots of rifles at the time everyone heard one single shot. Not one single rifle, including Ryan's rifle, was tested for evidence. This is a "fact". Purrum should stick to the "facts" rather than contribute opinions, views, allegations without substance. Escapeeyes (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Opas had a each way bet Purrum (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just another of Purrum's self-righteous opinions, this time on Opas. Stick to the "facts" Purrum, your opinions on various people have no substance!!! got that??? Your personal opinions are merely in your own imagination - worth nothing!!! Again here are the facts ... There is no scientific forensic evidence to prove who's rifle fired the shot that killed Hodson. No evidence = no proof. Missing pieces of evidence = no proof. Inconsistencies in all fourteen eyewitnesses evidence = no proof. Unsigned alleged verbals/confessions = no proof. Obviously, Purrum is incapable of comprehending the difference between facts and opinions. Escapeeyes (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Using your logic , Hodson wasn't shot. no bullet = no bullet wound Purrum (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha Ha! Using our logic Purrum, tells us clearly that your silly childish opinions/views/hopotheticals/accusations/allegations are contributing to your insanity. Nobody is interested really! How about you stick to "The Facts". If you are mentally disabled to accept "The Facts", then shut your stupid mouth. Read "The Facts" in the court trial transcript, including the hundreds of articles published over the decades that support "The Facts". (reference: Court Trial Transcript - Queen v. Ryan & Walker, March 15-30, 1966.) Also note, Hodson's death certificate states "death by bullet wound" and his cremated remains can be found under a tree at Springvale Cemetery. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why Purrum's personal pinion is a Fabricated Joke

The "personal opinion" of User:Purrum concerning the shooting death of Hodson is totally irrelevant to the facts. Personal perceptions of events surrounding the Ryan case is an individual's opinion, which is meaningless to Wikipedia articles.

THE FACTS THAT CANNOT LIE
FACT 1: Ryan's rifle was never scientifically tested by forensic experts. There was no proof that Ryan's rifle had been fired. It was never proven that the fatal bullet came from the weapon in Ryan's possession.
The bullet was not found so no ballistics was possible. The escapees had nineteen days tamper with the rifle. The forensic expert said the rifle had not been cleaned since it was last fired, Forensics would not determine when the rifle was last fired. Purrum (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, there were NO ballistics. NO scientific testing. That's the "fact". The reason/s why police failed to obtain this vital piece of scientific evidence remains a mystery. Your opinion/view/excuse is merely in Purrum's own "hypothetical" imagination. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
FACT 2: All fourteen witnesses testified they heard one single shot. Prison officer Paterson admitted and testified he fired one single shot. No witnesses heard two shots fired.
Eleven eyewitnesses testified they saw Ryan take aim and fire at Hodson! seeing is believing. Purrum (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a lie! Trial Transcript (Queen v. Ryan & Walker) shows that only FOUR of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan aim his rifle. No eyewitness, on that usually crowded street, testified of actually seeing Ryan fire. That's the "fact". Purrum's opinion/view/excuse to counteract this "fact" is merely in Purrum's own "hypothetical" imagination. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Your maths is terrible, it was eleven not four! Purrum (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
FACT 3: If Ryan had also fired a shot, at least one person would have heard two shots. Only one single shot was heard.
Any loud bang near tall prison wall would cause echo effect, noise lost in a noise.Purrum (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Really??? Only ONE shot (a loud bang) was heard by all persons on that crowded street outside the prison. Paterson testified he fired a shot (a loud bang). That's the "fact". Purrum's opinion/view/excuse to counteract this "fact" is merely in Purrum's own "hypothetical" imagination. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
FACT 4: Balistic evidence indicated that Hodson was shot in a downward trajectory angle. The measurement of the entry and exit wound on Hodson's body indicated that the shot was fired from an elevated position. Ryan (a shorter man) could not have fired at Hodson (a taller man) in such a downward trajectory angle, as both were on level ground.
If a downward trajectory rules out Ryan then it also rules out Paterson. It was proven no shots were fired from within the Prison Purrum (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There was/is NO proof of "who" fired one single shot. That's the "fact". Paterson testified he fired one single shot. Paterson also, changed his statements to police on three separate ocassions, explaining where he was and what he was doing at the time he fired one single shot. Purrum's opinion/view/excuse to counteract this "fact" is merely in Purrum's own "hypothetical" imagination. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
FACT 5: Witnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle and smoke coming from the barrel of his rifle. In fact, that type of rifle had no recoil and it contained smokeless cartridges.
Julieannwells (talk)
The only person it claim this was Opas! It is of course not true.Purrum (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Not true! TWO of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan recoil his rifle and TWO eyewitnesses testified seeing smoke coming from the barrel of his rifle. Only FOUR of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified seeing Ryan aim his rifle. Each of the fourteen eyewitnesses testified different accounts (inconsistencies) of what they actually saw. That's the "fact". Purrum's opinion/view/excuse to counteract this "fact" is merely in Purrum's own "hypothetical" imagination. 60.224.64.166 (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

The contents of the call is "relevant" to the Ryan case. No person has ever stated it is "evidence", but an addition to the many unexplained, inconsistencies, missing pieces/events, concerning the Ryan case. Was Ryan guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is the million-dollar question?

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ronald Ryan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a biased, semi litereat article. It does not flow correctly- where does the 2 year old daughter ever get mentioned apart from being a possible hostage? Walker is presented before he is identified.

Last edited at 12:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 22:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)