|One of Ned Kellys Rifles : this one is on display at the Imagining Ned Exhibition.
|The Note by the Rifle at the Exhibition : Don’t tell the Neducator anyone – His business model would be wrecked if the truth got out!
The Kelly Fanatic who has a Facebook Page devoted – but utterly failing – to “Unmask” The Kelly Gang Unmasked book, still thinks I am Ian, the books Author, even though I unreservedly denied that in a Post last year. This fanatic, like heaps of them from the Ned Kelly Forum and Iron Outlaw love to come here to read my Blog and then Post as Anonymous, or as in the case of this particular Fanatic, comment on his anti-Book Facebook Page if he thinks he has a point to make. The only Post he wrote in May was an attack on me and on this Blog, which is all he ever does now that he abandoned his attempt to “Unmask” that book last year sometime – but I am amused that it finished with the immortal words
“BTW Dee, look at how many ‘Likes’ this page has!” There were THREE in six weeks! What a joke!
But back to Lonigan! The Anti-Book Facebook Fanatic has now posted his explanation of what happened, and included a diagram that he thinks somehow explains exactly how Lonigan was shot in the thigh. He subscribes to the single shot, quartered Bullet theory, and uses McIntyres diagram in support, and quotes from his Deposition. This has Lonigan running away from Ned and the Gang toward a tree, but he is felled before reaching it, brought down by a single shot from Ned Kelly using a quartered bullet. He says Dr Reynolds could easily have mistaken a quartered rifle bullet for a smaller revolver bullet.
When I last looked this regurgitated SwanDrops explanation had been “Liked” by 7 and commented on by one, but somehow I don’t think these knee-jerk “Likes” followed even the slightest attempt to see if this proposal makes any sense at all – because it doesn’t! Its another epic FAIL by the book-hater, a laughably flimsy and silly proposition that raises more questions than it answers, and can be safely put in the bin along with the “Cross-Fire” farce, the “self-inflicted wound” and the “head was the only target” thought bubbles.
What the book-Hater will have to draw in his next diagram, is the trajectory of these four quarters fired at a man running AWAY to his right, so that one goes into his eye from the FRONT – who cares what angle, any will do – another going through his upper LEFT arm and another through the LEFT thigh from the OUTSIDE, which of course is the opposite side from which it would approach the leg if fired by Ned according to the diagram provided on the FB Page. This scenario is completely impossible: Firing at someone from behind and to their right, and hitting them from in front and to their left. Ridiculous nonsense!
The two other things he will have to do is admit that if his theory and diagram are correct, then Ned Kelly lied when he said Lonigan was BEHIND a log and aiming at him over the top of it when he was shot. He will also have to explain if his theory and diagram are correct, how shooting and killing a man running away is not murder but “Self Defence” as Ned Kelly claimed. Essentially, the book-hater has created a scenario that wrecks Kellys credibility as a witness, and his defence of “self defence”. Either that, or he will have to retract his whole stupid thought bubble and start again. Either way his credibility as a Kelly expert is in even greater shreds.
Incidentally, Peter Fitzsimons refers to the deposition of George Stephens, who reported the following words of Ned Kelly when Stephens was his hostage at Faithfulls Creek :
“Lonigan made off for the logs, trying to draw his revolver as he did so, and he got down behind a log, rested his revolver on the top of it. I then took my rifle and fired at Lonigan and the ball grazed him along the temple. Lonigan then disappeared behind a log. He gradually then rose his hands up above the log and when his head appeared again I fired again and shot him through the head”
This quote is interesting and important because it supports the idea that Lonigan was shot at least once before the fatal head shot, as I have been suggesting. I also find it interesting that Ian Jones quotes other parts of Stephens deposition but not that part. We are still left with the problem of the left thigh wound and the left arm wound. Any advances on Bills theory will be welcome.
(Visited 86 times)
83 Replies to “More on the Killing of Lonigan”
More 'Unidentified Flying Objects' theories from the Guesswork Guy !
You weren't kidding Dee. Mick's facebook hatepage against the book is like trying to read a plate of porridge covered in alphabet soup. So many confused ideas, so many daft conclusions. None of it makes any sense.
Neducator and Brad ticked off this poorly researched gobbledegook. No surprises there. Mick claims his blog proves he can't be the long-winded 'Anonymous', but then uses most of the research posted by that 'Anonymous' anyway.
The IO fb page has links to this year's Kelly weekend at Beechworth in August. It's more of the same old formula garbage. Which newspaper version of the Kelly Committal at Beechworth will be presented? There is no official transcript…Will Brad and Trent again disrupt the reenactment with raucous comments from the 'peanut gallery'?
Will Mick front as promised?
Several people want to deck him.
The Kelly Gang Unmasked book says Lonigan was surrendering when shot.
The rifle image you show as Murder Weapon is not the weapon Ned Kelly used at StringyBark Creek that killed Const lonigan. The rifle pictured was aquired by Ned from a local hunting party during his escapades. It is a Snider Enfield MrakII I think. It ended up with some of the Kelly sympathisers waiting in the wings during the siege at Glenrowan.
The main weapon Ned had at SBC was a cut down 'string bound' Crimea war 'Pattern Enfield rifle'. This rifle was with Ned Kelly at his capture. It was on display at the Melbourne Aquarium during the 1930 when it was stolen, someone may still have it.
Your post is interesting because you refer to George Stevens in Peter Fitzsimons book.
Perhaps George Stevens was writing a favourable report for the police, while around the same time Sup. Intendant John Sadleir on 6th Nov 1878 wrote this up after speaking to Mcintyre just two days after SBC.
" Lonigan was sitting on a log, and on hearing the call to throw up their hands, he put his hand to his revolver at the same time slipping down for cover behind the log on which he had been sitting. Lonigan had his head above the level of the log and was about to use his revolver when he was shot through the head".
Source – J Sadleir, Recollections of a Victorian Police Officer, Melbourne 1913 ( Penguin facsimile edition, 1973 P 187.
In the Jerilderie Letter Ned said-
" Lonigan'put his head up to take aim when I shot him that instant or he would have shot me as I took him for Strahan, the man who said 'he would not ask me to stand – he would shoot me first like a dog'.
So here we have it Dee,
McIntye made that statement to his boss. We read that Lonigan did have his revolver ready to shoot Ned.
Thanks Bill. I will change the text accordingly.
Regarding Sadleirs recollection, did he write that down in 1878, or is that what he remembered of the conversation when he wrote his memoir in 1913 ?
You did notice I suppose that Kelly said Lonigan DIDNT slip down behind the log he was sitting, but ran a few yards to another one? Already we have problems! So we can start by asking WHICH LOG? And was his leg sticking out as suggested in the other tread by Anonymous? The next question is One shot or several?
Actually this is all such a fascinating conundrum!
I think the first thing that we have to do is completely disregard Ned Kellys version.
Instead what we have to do is look at the forensic evidence, and work back from that, and forget about trying to reconcile it with anything Ned Kelly said because the Jerilderie Letter was not written for the purpose of recording historical truth but manufacturing a justification for the murders and he gave differing versions to other people, such as to George Stephens at Faithfulls Creek.
What about this : if we accept a single shot and a quartered bullet, the only possible realistic scenario is Lonigan lifting his hands up to surrender, looking toward Ned and backing away turning to his right….and this after the first shot grazed him and caused him to shout "Christ Ive been shot". The next shot was the quartered bullet and it killed him almost immediately…some brain-stem reflex breathing the only brief signs of life.
And don’t forget McIntyre didnt see what happened either. By the time he looked, Lonigan was on the ground.
Ive never been to the NK Beechworth Weekend, but I watched a live presentation at the Melbourne Gaol by a woman pretending to be Ellen Kelly, and I've watched a recording of the re-enactments of Kellys trial. I imagine the re-enactments at the NK Weekend would be of a similar flavour, 90% myth and 10% truth pretending to be historical.
This is all done to maintain the Kelly Cash Cow. Who would want to go to Kelly Country if everyone knew the truth about Kelly, that he was a self-promoting liar, common stock thief and killer, not Australias Robin Hood, not a victim of police persecution, not a revolutionary hero and supported these days by Cop-hating misfits and deluded bullies?
They have Craig McCormick giving a talk which would be interesting I am sure, and maybe they will sell a few copies of his book but somehow I don’t think Doug Morrisseys more recent work will be on sale. They probably hate him up there, because he’s such a threat to their parasitic tourist enterprises. They’ll never stage a re-enactment of the SBC Killing of Lonigan and the other Policemen because that would show a truth about Ned Kelly they want to be kept hidden behind emotional nonsense about being persecuted and about being a caring sharing young larrikin.
Dee your last post has three questions. I will attempt to answer each seperatly.
Regarding Sadleir's recollection.
I think it's erronious of you to question Sadleir's account. He got it from McIntyre only two days after the event (SBC)
and this makes it Primary Source.
Sadleir and Kelly's account are almost identical so we have to believe Ned's account just as well as Sadleirs. They confirm each others account.
As to when it was printed for publication is not the issue. What we have to go by is the accounts closest to the event as Primary Source being the most accurate account.
The George Stephens account in your main body text is miss quoted. It was an account a fair while after the event, or at least two months after as with Ned's Jerilderie Letter. At the time Stephens was a former policeman and held hostage.
It is not inconceivable therefore that Stevens account could be seen as biased in favour of the police.
Your re quoting Stephens account from FitzSimons' book is an example why we need to refer only to the 'Primary Source material'.
In Peter FitzSimons' book page 643- " Ned admitted to Stephens he had shot Lonigan." But did he?
Ned's words – " I told Dan to cover Lonigan and I would cover McIntyre",
Stephens quotes Ned as recounting –
" Lonigan made for the log, and tried to draw the revolver as he went along. He laid down behind the log, and rested his revolver on top of the log and covered Dan. I then took my rifle off McIntyre and fired at Lonigan, grazing his temple. Lonigan then disappeared below the log, but gradually rose again, and as he did so I fired again and shot him through the head" ( Ref – The Argus 29 Oct 1880 p6)
If we compare Dee's quoting George Stephens account with what is in FitzSimons' book- I'm sure Dee did not intentionally change the words or meaning but she did.
So what's the difference?
Dee wrote “Lonigan made off for the logs"
Should be – " Lonigan made for the log"
Dee wrote- "trying to draw his revolver as he did so"
Should be – "and tried to draw the revolver as he went along"
Dee wrote : "Lonigan then disappeared behind a log. He gradually then rose his hands up above the log. "
Should be : "Lonigan then disappeared below the log, but gradually rose again,"
Dee wrote " and when his head appeared again I fired again and shot him through the head”
Should be: "and as he did so I fired again and shot him through the head"
Dee, the reader is led to believe Lonigan may have risen up his hands as if to Surrender !
This is just a further example of why we need to use only 'primary source material'.
Stephan's account was said to have been recorded about seven weeks after SBC and written up in The Argus two years later.
It's probably the best account that explains certain points, but by miss quoting it does not help if we are trying to unravel the truth about how Lonigan was shot. This is why the whole Kelly myth has evolved skewed over time. We are doing it ourselves here if not careful.
What we glean from all this,
I believe if Ned Kelly only had his old sawn-off muzzle loading rifle which takes time to re load, and if he had taken one shot at Lonigan grazing his temple, then when he re rose up again, who took the next fatal shot through Lonigan's head?
Was the shot that killed Lonigan fired by Dan Kelly? I'm beginning to think this being the case on the evidence drawn from George Stephens account.
I also believe McIntyre when he said Ned's rifle was loaded with quartered bullet lead, the reason perhaps Ned missed and only one angular quarter bullet hit Lonigan in the temple. McIntyre was watching the four men but fails to mention more than one shot fired at Lonigan.
Bill , readers will get the impression from your comment that I have been making things up but I have quoted Fitzsimons word for word! (From my Kindle edition) He in turn is quoting from an even earlier source than the one you mention , the Argus of August 10th 1880
( http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5961325 ) Please check and you will see I am not making this up! So, by your own criteria, we should accept the earliest record of Stephens statements as the most accurate – i.e. the one quoted in Fitzsimons book.( I am assuming the hard copy book and the Kindle have identical Texts, and if they don't I shall be writing to Fitzsimons to find out whats going on!)
Stephens is also quoted in the August Agus as saying "When the prisoner was describing this to me he raised his hands as Lonigan had done.” So, indeed, readers should believe on Stephens testimony, that Lonigan was attempting to surrender after being hit the first time, perhaps saying “Christ Ive been shot” and then rising to surrender.
McIntyre didnt see any of this, and remember also McIntyre reported all the gang had firearms, but my understanding is that almost nobody believes this – please correct me if I have that wrong – but I say this to make the point that McIntyres memory of this horrendous and unexpected trauma is understandably not perfect, not to dismiss or ridicule his testimony. However I agree Primary sources are better than any other, unless that source is a notorious liar, and it IS DEFINITELY also important to know if Sadleir wrote these things down at the time or many years later, because if not written down till much later, the remembered detail will be much less reliable. This is a simple fact of human memory. On the other hand if written down at the time, the date of Publication is of little importance, except perhaps in working out how that published recollection might have influenced other peoples recollections.
Extracts from: VPRS 4966 Consignment P0 Unit 2 Item 4 Record 15 Document: Report for His Excellency the Governor.
"Lonigan was on my left behind – Prisoner moved his rifle from direction of my chest to his right in direction of Lonigan & fired it –
I saw by a glance shot had taken effect on Lonigan for he fell – ion falling he said nothing for 6 or 8 Seconds afterwards on the ground he said Oh. Christ – I’m shot – that was the only shot fired at that time"
Only one shot was fired at that time not two.
We are comparing George Stephens account spoken to him by Ned Kelly of the shooting of Constable Lonigan at Stringybark Creek
I've checked the two versions and you are correct. Both accounts differ for crucial reasons.
One says he was surrendering, the other he was not surrendering.
The other point to be made from George stephens' account is Ned Kelly did not kill Lonigan.
The interesting thing is why did Stephens change his story?
In his first account at Beechworth committal hearing 10 August 1880- he said Lonigan raised his hands above the log. ( as if to suggest Lonigan was surrendering after being hit by a bullet on the temple) (Ned) "de- scribing this to me he raised his hands as Lonigan had done"
In his second account at 'The Trial of Edward Kelly' at Melbourne, Stephens is reported to have retracted that statement of raising hands. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5955087
Did George Stephens retract this because he was under oath and it WAS not true ?
We accept that any information close to the event is better than that more distant while people have time to change their mind. Stephans' account was heard only seven weeks after the event and is still Primary Source if no better account can be found, except for what McIntyre reported only days after. Both accounts are Primary source material, but both men have changed their story, so we should not then accept their first or second accout as being more vital.
What I think is more important, the possibility that Ned Kelly did not fire the killing shot at Lonigan for which he was convicted.
As reported, Dan Kelly was to cover Lonigan and Ned Kelly cover McIntyre, and by Mc's own account Ned moved his rifle towards Lonigan and shot him, and by Stephens/Ned account – grazing his temple, Lonigan then jumped up and called out 'Oh Christ I am shot' then fell down behind the log, and shortly after coming up again raising his hands and head above the log, – when he was shot again but by whome? Maybe Dan Kelly because he was to cover Lonigan at the time and Ned Kelly's rifle had been spent and could not fire again unless Ned had reloaded it.
Whether it was Dan Kelly that fired the fatal shot we will never know, but by Stephens/ Kelly account its very unlikely to have been Ned Kelly.
Hey Bill, Stephens did NOT retract his evidence at all about Lonigan surrendering. You are misleading us. We have no idea what question he was asked so that he responded with Ned's original 'story'. Re-examined.— I repeated my evidence to Detective Ward shortly after the prisoner went away. Bill, where is your quote about what he told Ward?
Wm. Fitzgerald, labourer, at Mologolong, who was present at the conversat
ion between Stephens and prisoner, gave evidence similar to that of the last witness.
This commentary has become a giant guessathon.
Not sure what I am misleading. Sorry, but am I missing something?
I am simply reporting the differences between what George Stephens told to the two courts, one at Beechworth reported in the Argus 10 Aug the similarly again in Melbourne , The Argus 29th Oct 1880.
To make it easier, I created link above to the Trial of Edward Kelly report dated 29 Oct 1880
Here Stephens said about Lonigan – "but gradually rose again"
Here Stephens said about Lonigan – " He gradually then rose his hands up above the log,"
Please tell us what I am missing regarding Detective Ward's cross examination of witness Stephens?
Bill, you said "The interesting thing is why did Stephens change his story?" That is misleading, because he didn't.
You went on to say "In his second account at 'The Trial of Edward Kelly' at Melbourne, Stephens is reported to have retracted that statement of raising hands. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5955087"
The report from Trove says nothing about Stephens retracting anything. I had to carefully reread the article to see he did no such thing. That was misleading too.
In the newspaper court reports of the day, questions were frequently left out. Without them we are left to quess what they might have been. You have reached a supposition about why Stephens may or may not have left out parts of Ned's Lonigan surrendering story. By doing that you misled us..
How would I know what occurred between detective Ward and witness Stephens? I don't know where the records are or if they exist.
That nutcase, the retired trucker who believes in UFOs, is gonna beat you to the punch, Dee! He has convinced himself that he is competent as a researcher and has the writing skills to do his own book about the Kelly uprising. On this subject, he nicked the McIntyre sketches of SBC from The Kelly Gang Unmasked book and redrew them for his hate blog. He might get published. If so, it would become a major classic in Kelly legend misinformation.
C'mon Brad – you know Mick is an absolute champion. Publish him and be damned!
Don't forget, Mick, there are plenty of Vanity Publishers around…
You could always publish it yourself!
Mick, are you listening ???? You could become like Mcfarlane and Morrissey and Jonesy – an established, published expert on Ned and the gang for eternity!
I reckon you are right most of the time, and for the last three years, and have a very nifty way of expressing yourself.
You could show those academic idiots up as complete dumbarses.
You have the gift of being able to say simple truths..
I'm no fan of the crazy internet serial pest but he has a right to be heard. NOT.
Bill with your knowledge of the SBC scene, you would know if there was a log that Lonigan could have “wrapped” himself around with his left leg sticking out somehow so that it would be shot. Was there such a log?
I think we can agree on one thing about Lonigans death: Ned Kellys version in the Jerilderie Letter is not the truth about it. Exactly what DID happen is not entirely clear, but if it was single shot, it had to be a quartered bullet to create four wounds, and Lonigan could not have been behind a log about to shoot back at him as Kelly stated. The most likely way a quartered bullet could have created those wounds would be if Lonigan was turning away, exposing his left side, at the same time looking back towards Kelly. He may have attempted to reach his gun but was shot before he could draw it.
Alternatively, there may have been more than one shot. I say this because McIntyre , in his Memoir said that after he was shot Lonigan leaped to his feet, called out “Christ Ive been shot” and took a few steps , actions which I am certain would be impossible after a bullet had smashed its way into his brain via the bones of the eye socket, and which left him dead in a matter of seconds. Perhaps it would be simpler to reject those claims about Lonigans reaction altogether, as colourful later embellishments? In regard to Bills indication that people CAN survive bullet wounds to the head, I agree but make the obvious point that they survived because their injuries were not lethal – they were less destructive to vital structures, unlike Lonigans, which killed him in seconds. In any event even the non lethal wounds would almost always knock a person out, like a powerful punch to the head that renders a person unconscious in the first instance – some to later recover from non-lethal injuries, others, like Lonigan to succumb.
Regarding George Stephens accounts, I don’t see them as incompatible, and I agree NOT saying something – such as that he raised his hands – doesn’t amount to a retraction of an earlier statement where he DID say it. Its a chilling account either way, another Ned Kelly version of what happened, but one never knows what is truth and what are lies when they come from Ned Kellys mouth.
Unless there are more contributions on this subject I will move on to a new Post tomorrow
You last asked me if there could have been a log around which Lonigan could have wrapped himself. It is always possible Lonigan went for the large tree stump as seen in the linked image above from Peter FitzSimons' book Ned Kelly.
I do not consider myself anymore qualified than anyone else studying SBC , however I have tried to construct the most believable scenario in sketch form.
During this interesting discussion I have formed the opinion that Ned Kelly did not fire the killing shots, except that he was determined to take the blame.
I found it interesting when Sharon in the USA on another page brought up the George Stephens account as told to him by Ned.
Having read Stephens account in both editions of the Argus which differed on one very crucial point of whether Lonigan came up to surrender or NOT, – as told in the Trial of NK in the Supreme Court Melbourne. We can clearly see a vitally changed story if Lonigan did take aim ready to shoot back.
On this page we have Tim Liew pouring cold water in this saying it has a lot to do with Detective Ward's account. This I think is a red herring thrown in to kill the argument.
Ned was set up to be tried for Const Lonigan's murder but when all the disparities came to light, i.e., McIntyre's four different accounts of the shootings, the big wigs decided to instead turn focus on the shooting of Const Scanlan, but here too McIntyre would not testify on oath that he saw Ned shoot Scanlan.
And, when Mc was giving his account of the Lonigan shooting to the court, sitting nearby was John Sadleir who had in his possession quite contrary evidence from George Stephens. Sadleir was afraid McIntyre would commit perjury if properly cross examined. By all accounts it was a kangaroo court determined convict Ned Kelly for murder no matter what the evidence.
I was not going to further post yesterday but this morning I finally found my signed lost copy of 'The Trial of Ned Kelly' by former Chief Justice of Victoria John H. Phillips.
On page 50, he writes " The only "Challenge" to McIntyre's evidence was the suggestion that it may have been someone other that Ned Kelly who shot Lonigan" .
That's good enough for me.
A different perspective from the evidence previously provided.
“Lonigan was on McIntyre’s left behind – upon being called upon to bail up Lonigan ran along the log he had been sitting upon, grasping for his revolver as he went towards (possibly reaching) a larger log or tree to the right of Ned Kelly, who then moved his rifle from direction of McIntyre’s chest to his right in direction of Lonigan & fired it. ( McIntyre stated that was the only shot fired at that time)
A single shot and a quartered bullet, each one being small as of a revolver, one grazing the right side of the temple, one through the left arm, one into the left thigh one into the right eye.
The direction of the bullet to the inner side of the right eye was slightly slanting as if he had turned his face slightly in direction of the shot.
(Dr Reynolds was satisfied this was the cause of death and a few seconds would elapse before death from such a wound.)
Upon being shot Lonigan (possibly rose) staggered for a distance then fell onto and plunged along the ground before expiring.
This is what I love about you Bill – an ability to create a scenario that no-body else has thought of ! To be honest I cant always follow your logic but I like an independent and original thinker! As for this one, I agree that McIntyre didnt actually SEE Ned shoot Lonigan – but he DID see Ned shoot at something, he remembered only one shot and straight away after, he saw Lonigan dead or nearly so on the ground. For my money I cant go past Ned as Lonigans killer!
The problem with that scenario is that the LEFT side of his body would have been furthest away from Kelly both while running and when at the tree if he reached it and turned towards Kelly. He was either AT the tree and twisted into a very weird shape – “wrapped around the end of a log" according to an “Anonymous” or else had his left side exposed whilst turning about preparing to run. But he couldn’t have been shot while running for cover because if he was, the wounds would have been on the right. McIntyre said Lonigan was given almost No time to surrender before being shot, so I don’t believe he had enough time to reach cover or draw his weapon, though I don’t doubt he went for it.
As I said we will never know exactly what happened but Neds version is unsustainable.
'Oh Christ Dee you are a COP out'
Present all the evidence and you always go against the grain.
This is turning out like a 'reformation bible study' of yes but, but this and that but, but no one wins not even Ned.
Ned was not destined to be the bad guy, he was made the bad by the system.
By your every post Ned is accused of lying and lying , but when McIntyre is asked for a statement that differs from Ned, it is his lack of memory. When Mc lies again he is 'traumatised' even though he went after Ned in hope he would be rewared. When Mc lies again it is because he is forced by the big wigs to put together the most convincing story to get rid of Ned and the uprising so the whole lot of the supposed 'well to do uppity' establishment, the high movers and shakers can get all that lower riff raff little people out to fend for them selves.
You can write all you want about how bad Ned and his family, his associates were, but Ned is not in the popular press on a monthly basis for no reason. You can paint any anti Kelly propaganda you like, but the readers have made up their minds long ago. The other day I watched a TV program on British Monarchy about King George who had three of his wives beheaded and sent thousands of his Knights to their deaths.
It is from that time our justice system evolved, but at no time was the system completely in favour of any ordinary people, it was always controlled by those in power. Just ask the Irish.
If you want a debate don't ignore Primary source material.
For goodness sake Bill are you having a bad day?
"Ned was not destined to be the bad guy, he was made the bad by the system”
“Mc..is forced by the Big Wigs to put together the most convincing story to get rid of Ned and the uprising"
“Ned is not in the popular Press on a monthly basis for no reason”
“The readers have made up their minds long ago”
…and more nonsense from a person who ought to know better than to make wild generalisations and completely unsubstantiated claims about the truth of the Kelly outbreak. I might have to make those statements topics of a few Posts because I cant deal with them all here.
Lets take the easiest one to dispose of first “Ned is not in the popular Press on a monthly basis for no reason” . That is correct, but what is the reason? Paris Hilton, Vladimir Putin, the Queen and Donald Trump are in the popular press every DAY, but what does that mean?They are worthy wonderful people? They are all losers? What? The answer is they are there for all kinds of different reasons. The truth is, “Popularity”or “Notoriety” means nothing of itself. Using it as a debating point achieves nothing because it has no meaning except as an observation.
The problem with debates everywhere is they are often entered into by people who don’t properly understand logic and reason and have little or no idea of what constitutes sound argument. The Book Hater on Facebook is the Classic example in the Kelly World- logic and reason are completely beyond his grasp, so instead he flays out wildly and attacks personally people he doesn’t agree with.
Bloody Hell!! Pistols at dawn..
and who the heck is King George?
I think Bill meant he saw a documentary on King Henry VIII not King George.
Mark I am assuming you only meant to post that comment once. I wish you and Sharon and others would post more often, and ON TOPIC rather than on a side issue.
Whats annoying to me is to have written Post after Post about Ned Kellys criminal record and asked time and time again for comments in regard to how these events could possibly be seen as Police persecution, and for comments about how Kellys versions often appear to be lies and self serving exaggeration, NO BODY takes up that challenge, instead we discuss side issues, and then suddenly Bill announces “Ned was made bad by the system” and he’s annoyed at me for suggesting Neds stories are lies. But even Ian Jones said that Ned lied.Ive been inviting DEBATE on these very topics for weeks and we never get it. Why?
I am aware that I have been accused of trying to change the subject by putting up a new Post so I will wait a bit longer as there still seems to be some interest in this fascinating puzzle. I know Bill and others will hate me for saying this but i think the most important lesson from this analysis is that it demonstrates yet again that the Jerilderie Letter account is not truthful.
And BTW I am enjoying watching the Book Hater squirm as he tries to wriggle out of his silly declaration on his book hating FB Page that he had it all worked out with the aid of two diagrams! I say to him as Keating said to Hewson all those years ago “I am going to do you slowly”
Sharon, Yes as soon as I had posted I realised it should have been King Henry VIII.
Mark, Pistols at dawn was not intended, but we can see Dee is a Ned-thanatologist, as opposed to a Neducator who teaches nothing at all.
Dee, It is surprising since the first Kelly forum KC2000 with hundreds of members joining up, and, as with recent membership on the N.K.Forum, all numbers have fallen off and don't take part. (the majority don't) This all also comes around with your anti Kelly Blog as well, and it will never attract much discussion here because you are pouring cold water on their romantic notions of history which attracts most of the forum readers. They imagine how hard life was in those day -as it was – unless you were well connected.
Another interesting phenomena is the WW1 and 2 ANZAC legend that has grown since the 1970's. I remember well when they said 'soon no one will march anymore', but ANZAC forums are booming today.
There is little doubt the Kelly community Dee is targeting is very divisive as I know all about that, so no wonder few of them will want to take part in any discussions here. And, as I have said before, I for one, I would never want to join a group that would wants me as a member! (words to that effect from Grougho Marx) and then I would be one of them!
I do believe there is room for a Kelly discussion group that is NOT aligned with tribalism of a few of the worship of a down trodden bully who was very good at intimidating those that opposed him.
I for one believe Ned was at that time – targeted by the authorities to be made an example of for similar reasons as with our current politics today.
If Ned was targeted it was because of his habit of lifting the horses of his law-abiding neighbours. Later he cut out those pesky nags altogether by making illegal bank withdrawals instead. The cops were wasting their time if they wanted to make an example of Ned. He was an exceedingly slow learner. Wild Wright's brother 'Dummy' probably had more smarts.
Mick is going to be desperately unhappy and deeply embarrassed when he finds out who you really are Dee.
That was an extraordinary series of endless comments between you and him on his disgraceful facebook hatepage.
The author of "The Kelly Gang Unmasked" book should have sought legal injunctions or other civil remedies when all this began. His reputation has been maliciously besmirched for three years. His family has been stalked and sent unwanted emails by Mick.
The author of "The Kelly Gang Unmasked" got unwanted emails from Mick too, but apparently never replied. This did not prevent Mick from continually defaming the author for more than three years.
This story has not properly begun yet. Mick is in mountains of trouble.
No, he's not!
Mick just has to claim he is a retired truckie who doesn't understand book reviews.
But his defamatory comments may be a lot more difficult to defend.
Yes Bill is right – interest in Ned Kelly as an Icon and Hero is waning, because books like MacFarlanes and like Morrisseys and even McCormicks are shining rational balanced light on the man. I think it is also waning because this blog is exposing the dark side of the Kelly bullies, very unattractive bigots and ignoramuses whose tactics have destroyed their credibility. The book-hating madman has done and is continuing to do incalculable damage to their brand , but no one has the guts to tell him to shut up and go away. Ned Kelly will always be a fascinating person to study, and the Outbreak a curious side show in the history of Victoria, and as with all history there will continue to be discussion among a small number of interested parties.
I think it should still be possible to believe in and celebrate a kind of Mythology of Ned Kelly, perhaps as someone like Sharon does, recognising the difference between the Mythology and the Historical reality , and not trying to pretend they are the same thing. This sort of thing is done with Robin Hood, knowing that he never actually existed but using the image he conjures up in peoples minds as a vehicle for stories and morality tales and for entertainment. But claiming that Ned Kelly was ACTUALLY a great guy who cared about the poor and was a victim and was wrongly accused, and only killed in self defence and wanted to found a Republic is unhistorical and not supported by proper scrutiny of the record.
So Bill, you are right again – Ned WAS targeted by the Police – but because of his criminal behaviour, which is as it should be. If you wish to claim that targeting him was UNFAIR then you have to show it, not just assert it – and I have been looking and asking for this evidence for the last few months and none has been presented.
Therefore, Lonigan could well have been “Wrapped around the end of the log” kneeling on his left leg the thigh exposed, quite possibly aiming his revolver when he was shot. A single shot and a quartered bullet, each one being small as of a revolver.
This would offer a logical explanation for all 4 wounds.
I think your scenario is highly improbable, so no, its wrong to suggest Lonigan “could WELL have been wrapped around the end of a log”. Its highly UNLIKELY because it requires TIME – which Lonigan wasn’t given – it requires him to be twisted into a very unnatural position – AND this position is illogical given that he ran for cover but has left almost everything exposed – if your leg is exposed above the knee, and you are twisted around to the left or your leg is rotated around across the front – then the right side of your body is turned out over the knee and is also exposed – so Lonigan would have been almost completely in the open rather than BEHIND a Log as Kelly stated in his Jerilderie Letter version, raising his head to take aim.
One could create any number of possible scenarios that were highly improbable, such as two people firing at an identical moment so only one shot is heard, or ricochet of quarters off a rock or a tin can into Lonigans thigh – or eye – to try to preserve your faith in Ned Kellys version but in the end logic demands the least probable explanations be rejected.
There is still the issue of Neds various versions – the one in the letter or the one told to George Stephens. Bill thinks I automatically reject anything Ned Kelly says as lies, and that George Stephens lied but taking Kelly at his word in regard to the Lonigan killing leaves us with an impossible problem as this Post and all the discussion on this page shows.
I have had a very difficult time renouncing Ned the Hero. Over the years he became Ned the real person. Then Ned the not so nice person. Now, I am on the cusp of questioning a life (or at least 30 years) holding up a criminal as my idol. But that doesn't make it go away for me. And never will. Because the whole saga is fascinating. Even is Ned was an arsehole, I consider him an icon still. The armour saw to that. He was a fascinating man. In a fascinating time. Naturally, he became a hero. I have enjoyed McFarlane and Morriseys work very ,much.
But I also still enjoy Jones, McQuilton, McMenomy, I am a Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars, JHannibal, Bates Motel fabn for the same reason: rattling good yarns.
You need to remember Dee, you are relatively new to the story. Others, like myself, Trent, Bill, Mick etc.. have so much more to lose. Our lives are intertwined with the Kellys. I have made friends through them, built an expensive collection through them, produced artwork, gotten closer to my Dad through them, had some great family holidays "in the field", met a nice girl through my interest in Ned. Doing an about face at this point, for some, would be unthinkable. I question and research but i am more open minded than many.
There is nothing unnatural at all about the position being suggested, quite the opposite. He would not have been” twisted around to the left” at the end of the log in order to be facing in the direction of Kelly.
The only other possibility is that Lonigan ran along the log out into the open, stopped, turned and looked towards Kelly when he was shot. Which would be unlikely given the circumstances.
Following Bill’s thoughts I have little doubt that you would prefer the latter.
The Australian goverment needs to renounce its wacky Ned Kelly webpage too. Acknowledging Ned as a national hero makes us all look like idiots. The Poms think we are dumb dickheads who revere murderers. Most of us non-Kelly people are like you Mark. We enjoy adventure too and even a bit of sci-fi action. But Ned's murderous behaviour at SBC was shocking then and now.
You can only fool some of the people, some of the time.
Bob Mc G The anonymous on Death of a Legend is certainly a double for you Fitzy.He or she certainly writes like you.
– Yes, that's painfully obvious!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The trajectories of those four quarters would have been very close to parallel. Please explain how one can enter the thigh from the outside, and another on a parallel path enter the right eye on an angle UNLESS the head is twisted right round to the left, or the leg twisted right round to the front? Either position is most unnatural, more so if you are claiming he was aiming his revolver at Kelly. And, as I say in either position, if a bullet can enter the thigh and the left arm and the right eye Lonigan was nearly fully exposed, not at all behind a log and about to put his head up over the top of it as Kelly claimed in the JL letter.
Thanks for the comment Mark. I think I do understand where you’re coming from, because you are right the entire Kelly phenomenon is fascinating. As Ive explained before the issue that shocked me about the Kelly world is the intolerance of other points of view and the bullying that goes on, and the absence of any voice to oppose it, quite apart from the unhistorical nature of many of the claims made about Ned Kelly. These are the things that motivate me to do what I am doing. I am opposed to bigotry and intolerance and bullying and also to unreason, illogic and ignorance. But as I also often say I am not really trying to change the minds of these intolerant Kelly people but provide an alternative to their approach for less dogmatic people to learn from, or to participate in without the fear of expulsion, ridicule and threats, all of which were quickly and vehemently directed at me when I first joined that ForumBoards place.
Why do people in the Kelly world not call out the bullies and bigots? Is it because they fear being attacked themselves or expelled altogether, like Bill has been?
The trajectories of those four quarters would not have been close to parallel. When fired these would produce a pattern similar to that of a shot gun. The shorter the barrel of the gun the wider the pattern would be.
The direction of the bullet to the right eye was slightly slanting as if deceased had turned his face slightly in direction of the shot
“When aiming a rifle the head is slightly to one side order to properly sight a target. The same would apply for a revolver.”
“The bullet which entered on the outside of the thigh passed along under the skin and lodged on the inside of the thigh;”
A fairly generic description. Front outer would place his thigh facing towards the direction of the shot.
In order for Lonigan to aim his revolver more than his head would have been exposed over the top of the log.
Still being positioned (at the very least partially) behind the end of the log.
I said the trajectories would have been CLOSE to parallel and you say they wouldn’t have been. Well if you draw an Isosceles triangle, height 120 and base 3 ( assuming Ian Jones is correct in saying Lonigan was 40 yards (120 feet) from Kelly, and the thigh and the eye are 3 feet apart) then the angle the bullets that hit those targets were diverging at is 1.44 degrees. I call that close to parallel.
Perhaps Bill can make a little human model twisted into the shape necessary, then we can all see if your claim is correct that such a posture is not unnatural? I think it is, I think Lonigan didnt have enough time to draw his revolver and he was not behind a log when Ned Kelly shot him.
So many phoney identities on this blog. Many I suspect are the same person. Tony (If that is who you are) kindly keep your unfounded guess work to yourself. I can assure you that I am not “Fitzy” just as Dee is not Ian. NML
Quite a few different people have the same name : Anonymous. This gets confusing if you want to reply to a comment by “ anonymous” as we have all seen. Others who also want to be anonymous seem to give themselves a different name every time so at least when you are responding to that comment you don’t have that problem of getting confused between one anonymous and another. That I think is the reasoning behind using a different but actual name. But it is all beyond my control and I only ever post anywhere as Dee.And I have no idea who anyone is – part from two or three who use their actual names. I don’t know what NML stands for either. But thank you for acknowledging that I am not Ian.
Thank you Tony
I have found the fatal flaw in the ONE shot / quartered bullet theory! If the quartered bullets emerged from the same gun at the same time they would have hit their targets at the same time and with the same FORCE and inflicted similar damage. However its CLEAR that the bullet in the thigh arrived with almost no momentum, managing only to puncture the skin and pass through flesh, not bone and then stop on the inside of the thigh. On the other hand the bullet that killed Lonigan clearly arrived with far greater force smashing through bone as well as the eye and the brain.
The quartered bullet theory is dead.
The quartered bullet theory is dead? Maybe, maybe not. Still would leave multiple projectiles or swan drops.
(Different size projectiles) One shot.
You do like using the words “Smashed” & “Smashing” where Dr Reynolds used the term entered:
“ the bullet which entered by the side of the eyeball passed through the bone of the orbit and drove portions of it into the brain.”
Perhaps Ned’s version in The Jerilderie Letter is closer to the truth after all.
Well I have taken “quartered” to mean divided into four equal pieces. Which is the meaning of the words used.
But if you are going to now propose Swan Drops, then you’ve abandoned the Quartered Bullet theory. Your problem is going to be to explain why you know better than McIntyre who said quartered bullet but according to you really meant something else.
Yes I deliberately use those terms to emphasise the force and the violence that was used to kill Lonigan. Fitzsimons wrote of “the ghastly wound that had been his right eye”
Neds JL version cannot be trusted, and is impossible anyway.
“the force and the violence that was used to kill Lonigan.” ???. Am I missing something? Ned shot him.
Did he also beat him to a pulp?
Its just that killing with a gun is such a cliched act, portrayed so often and so casually and bloodlessly on film and TV that its easy to forget what a horrendously violent and destructive assault being shot actually is. At least Lonigans death was quick;not so for poor Kennedy.
The time-wasting speculation about the identity of Dee is supremely boring. So are the increasing denials of a person calling himself Fitzy to being one of the Anonymouses. Mr McGarrigle (I hope I have spelled your name correctly) seems to think you are – "The anonymous on Death of a Legend is certainly a double for you Fitzy.He or she certainly writes like you.
That's what I thought too!
That 'F' bloke is a Banker and tiresome Internet Serial Pest.
Ban the bugger, Dee!
Let's ALL have the guts to post under our real FULL names. I do. Sharon does. Brian does. Bill does. Own what we say. Stop hiding behind anonymous posts. I have to say I am finding it absolutely pathetic. Lets all grow up guys. (and girls…) And please don't respond with garbage such as "I need to protect my identity or I will be in danger" blah blah blah etc… Or "if Dee won't, I won't. Sob…" This is a history blog. FFS… Lets have the balls to own what we write. and have the intestinal fortitude (and good manners) to cope with differences of opinion, other thought processes, without throwing your toys out of the cot. And Dee? Why don't you lead the way? You are obviously an intelligent, well rounded person with a strong streak of logic. I'm sure you realize all will continue as before with this melodramatic idea that you must remain behind closed doors. Tell these anonymous idiots who you are and maybe they can follow suit. Believe me, this group aren't a bunch of mobsters. We are not the Underbelly brigade. Your safety will not be an issue. And I apologise if I have offended some. But really and truly, lets end this childish crap and put our hands up. I am Mark Perry. Who are you?
I don’t think you have offended anyone Mark and I do understand where you are coming from. However I am not interested in broadcasting my identity to the people you correctly call “idiots” because I have read their ongoing attacks on all the individuals you named, and I find it deplorable and at times frightening. This non-stop attack on Ian MacFarlane is an outrage and completely out of line but NOBODY in the Kelly World has EVER told the idiot to knock it off. Why on earth not? Sharon was called Shazza Sherritt just the other day, and Bill is constantly being abused and disrespected in appalling ways. I think you also have been under attack.Threats of legal action are often made though I know they are mostly fanciful, but frankly I am simply not interested in becoming embroiled in anything of that kind, even though I am very confident that if such things did occur they would fail.
Mark I think your efforts may be better directed at expelling the bullies and the thugs from the Kelly World, making it clear that their behaviour is out of line and that they are harming the Kelly sympathiser cause. You might like to try to get the NKF to drop its paranoid identity checks searches and screening, and stifling of debate on anything controversial. Then people like me might join and participate. However I don’t like your chances ( or mine) These people are fanatics.
I ALWAYS use the name Dee and I would prefer if Commenters wanted to be anonymous they chose a nom-de-plume and stuck with it. Ultimately, identity is unimportant in all this. Whats important is the argument, the facts and the logic. Incidentally was Captain Jack Hoyle (Retd), mentioned on IO recently, a nom-de-plume or an actual person of that name?
And may I say for one last time, I am not Ian MacFarlane, I have no connection with him or his family or the book producers, and neither am I Bill or Bills wife or anyone related or in any way connected to Bill.
Yes Dee. I have been targeted on occasion. , I am Matt Shores butt plug apparently. Brilliant!! I am frightened by their genius.
Lets see them say it to my face at the August Ned weekend. Look for the newsboy cap….
Do you wish brothers to engage me in fisticuffs? Then verily I say… Proceed toward my person…
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….
The naysayers are not going to stop no matter how nicely we ask them. So, we just step over and around them as we continue on with what we have being doing. As for them calling me "Shazza Sherritt" I don't give a rat's rear end. It does have a nice sound to it when you say it out loud, though (to be sure they are not inferring that they want me to suffer Aaron's fate?!). I Hey, I have been called worse by better!
I can't figure out why they would say that I was a traitor just because I am contributing to this comment section. I have always tried to correct wrong facts when they were presented and add in whatever knowledge I have. I am not against the Kellys in any way, shape or form, and for someone to think that is beyond ridiculous. Maybe it is because I am civil to Dee and am contributing here? What? Should I just let false facts or furphys stand without correcting them or leave questions open-ended that I can answer? Isn't that in aid of my beloved Kelly saga?
Oh, yeah, Capt Jack Hoyle is a non de plume. There is a Jack Hoyle mentioned in the Kelly story from which it was taken. Some know who he/she is, but we are all bound by honor to keep their identify a mystery. Folks love a mystery, don't they? They will never give up wondering who Dee is, either. As for me, I don't really care, but she/he sure knows how to keep a convo going. At the end of the day and the end of all things, I am here for the Kellys!
Is this really you?! BAN THIS PERSON !
You know full well that is not our Mark Perry. If folks googled any of our names they would find others who are not us doing all sorts of stuff. I even used to work with a guy named Michael Jackson, but he did not do a moon walk! And, for the record, no one can get banned from this blog. There is no mechanism set up for it. Only way for us to be free from all this foolishness and hate is for Dee to finally start moderating all of the comments before adding them for the rest of us to read. But, she has said she is unwilling to do that, so I suppose we must just either carry on or walk away.
Aren't you better off using this quote MP
' I think I must have one of those faces you can't help believing.'
Heard you will be staying at the Bates Motel in Beechworth.Will be sure to say hello in August. ha ha ha
I am here for the Kellys!
More likely you are here because Deemented is the only one in the Kelly world not completely sick of you….yet.Y'all!
If that is the case, I am so contrary that I will post even more to annoy everyone even further! Maybe Dee and I can go bowling together or something? 🙂
Another thing, you don't even know how to properly use that particular southern term.
Heaven help me, I am arguing with trolls and turning in to a grammar nazi! What kind of effect is this place having on me? 😉
Now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
'I am here for the Kellys.'
I don't doubt that, but we don't know who you are.
Ned, more dead then alive, arose and staggered into history by confronting thirty-four police in a bid to rescue his brother and his mate from an inextricable situation.
And then there is you, not as game as Ned Kelly, not as game as the police who pursued him, not even with the courage of a chihuahua, just the trembling and the noisiness. You are not even game to put your real name to a comment made on the Internet.
What unvarnished heroics! What undaunted fearlessness, especially when accompanied by abuse of women!
Wherever he is, Ned is laughing at you. So am I.
Brian, thanks for trying to put that anonymous poster in their place. It is very gallant of you to come to my rescue. I, was wondering what sort of raising or home training that person had to make them behave so ungentlemanly or unladylike. However, I think that when they said "I am here for the Kellys!" they were quoting me in the post above theirs. 🙂
I usually don't like to give place to trolls because once you feed them they are very hard to get rid of but I just had a weak moment. I'm not going to feed them any further. 🙂
Just what the world needs, an anonymous troll that is too lazy to use quotation marks, or, more likely, does not know how to.
BUUURP! Thanks for the feed.I knew you two big shots couldn't resist.
YUM YUM YUM! CRUNCH CRUNCH!
Hey MP,I think you should care more about throwing your life away on "Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars, JHannibal, Bates Motel" (? LMAO!) than on Ned Kelly.
Dee, now do you see the urgent need to keep on moderating comments before they are added? Why you insist on letting them crap all over you, your blog, and your serious posters is beyond me. Other people that night have important or helpful things to add will never want to post here if they risk ridicule and aggro. They sure have stopped posting elsewhere due to the antics of a few childish bullies who want the whole playground to themselves. You have the power to stop them in their tracks at least on your turf.
YUMMY YUMMY! Whining dining is my favorite.BUUURP!
More insane gibberish from the daft Internet serial pest who never contributes anything worthwhile.
Yes Sharon I think you are right! It was nice yesterday to be able to delete some nasty racist comments as Moderator before they were even published. I think I have achieved one of my objectives, by letting them Post here freely, which was to let hem expose themselves as nasty and ignorant back-stabbers, ill-mannered bigots and childish thugs. I note Ironoutlaw and NKF have “LIKED” the mad mans Facebook Page so they are backing that piece of work and lowering themselves deeper into the mire by doing so, so all in all I think it would be reasonable to close them off from Kelly discussion as they have proved themselves to be utterly incapable of doing it anyway.
I would much prefer actual vigorous discussion with the likes of you and Bill and Brian, Mark and the other Brian and who knows else, without the morons who as you say by their bullying have reduced Kelly discussion on their sites to “Likes” and sycophancy.
I just wanted to make it easy for anyone interested to participate but I now am seriously considering taking your advice.
The Kelly World fools seem to have as little control of the anti-book madman as we do. He is the nuttiest Kelly fanatic in the country. Not only has he unmasked nothing, but he has contributed nothing to any of the discussions – except, for example "YUM YUM YUM! CRUNCH CRUNCH!" What a complete tosser and fool.
The crazy anti-book Nut claims he is going to the Ned Kelly Weekend in Beechworth in August. Have you asked the Missus for an OK? Is this smart? Several people want to publicly pulverise you for continually destroying and damaging Ned.
Not us, of course.
What part of risk management don't you get, dummy?
Anonymous people get what they deserve.
The poisonous, defamatory lamebrain is giving everyone the sh*ts!.
He has his own FB hatepage, why let him broadcast his guff here?
I thought I was the one arguing with a troll.
HA! Sharon Hollingsworth-less and Brian Stevenson.Doing your usual nit picking are you.Did you go crying to dumpy old Brian to come here and defend you Superior Shazz? How sad.You pair have been trolling for years.And as EVERYONE knows you (especially the Yank) are two of the biggest behind the scenes bullies around.I wonder if a few so called personal emails laughing and bitching about people you call 'friends' should be aired?
Getting any reaction from you two is priceless.Just shows how much it really does get to you.You are both too easy and pathetic.