Anyone who has read Frickes book and part One of my review might be wondering why I completely ignored its first four chapters. In those Chapters Fricke provides what he must have thought was relevant background detail, describing the origins of Melbourne itself, of Redmond Barrys early life in Ireland, the colonial milieu into which he inserted himself on his arrival in Melbourne in 1839, and his progress from working in a small claims tribunal to eventual acclaim as one of the fathers of Melbourne.
There are two reasons why I haven’t commented on all that: the first being that I found it to be superficial, disjointed and hard to follow, and the second being that it was almost impossible to see any relevance between most of it and the Kelly story. But one thing stands out: Fricke’s bitter dislike of Barry is palpable.
However, as I am unfamiliar with the detail of Barry’s life and with the political intrigues and history of life in colonial Melbourne I decided to focus on Fricke’s approach to the Kelly story, something about which I am more familiar. And, as was noted in the first part of my review, I quickly discovered that Fricke’s knowledge of the ‘fine detail’ of Kelly’s story was abysmal. One then has to wonder how accurate was his understanding of the fine detail of Barrys’ – but not for long – because Stuart Dawson has dissected a lot of this material in comments added to the First part of my Review. Here also, in Dawsons estimation Fricke displays very indifferent scholarship. I am grateful to Stuart for taking the time to show why.
So lets continue to analyse Frickes case against Barry and in support of Kelly – which as Ive already shown is based on ignorance of much of the detail of the outbreak.
Typically, in his quest to minimise the criminality of Ned Kelly the shocking and brutal nature of the police murders by the Kelly gang at Stringybark Creek get hardly a mention, but the anti-police myths that the police were disguised as Gold miners and took leather body straps are both repeated, as is the idea that it was the police who drew arms and fired first, and that Lonigan was behind logs when he did so – claims now known to be false! The bank robberies, the callous murder of Aaron Sherritt and the momentous events of June 1880, when Kelly took hostages and attempted to murder a score of police by wrecking a train at Glenrowan- all this core narrative of the Kelly story is simply ignored. Those events are presumably ‘minor details’ – or is it that it’s almost impossible to discuss them honestly without conceding Kellys plan was ‘monstrous criminality’ as Ian Jones said.
Instead, after a discussion about the inequities of the Outlawry act, Fricke begins a discussion about Kellys trial, writing grandly, and with incredible hyperbole “The stage had been set for a clash of cultures and philosophies”. In fact, it was a murder trial and nothing else.
In discussing the Trial, Fricke claims that Kelly could have pleaded self-defence, but didn’t, at least in part because the Defence was denied access to critical parts of McIntyre’s testimony. Instead the Defence was provided with what Fricke calls a ‘sanitized or laundered’ version of McIntyre’s statement about what happened when Lonigan was killed – and in Fricke’s eyes this was another example of the ‘inequity’ that Kelly was up against all his life.
This is an argument that Ian Jones made, was one recently alluded to on Facebook by a Wangaratta solicitor and Kelly apologist who claimed McIntyre changed his statement four times and wanted me to explain why, it’s been made by Jack Peterson on his error-ridden ‘Introduction to Ned Kelly’ Facebook page and it pops up in anti-Police posts on every pro-Kelly Facebook page quite regularly. Jones, the Wangaratta solicitor and Fricke and all the rest of them, all think McIntyre’s account was changed to remove from it evidence that would have supported Kellys claim to have killed Lonigan in self-defence. They claim McIntyre was a liar, that he committed perjury , and they vilify him at every opportunity. By denying Kelly access to this account – according to the Kelly apologists – the Court was rigging the trial to make sure Kelly was convicted. Kellys claim was that Lonigan got behind a ‘battery of logs’ six or seven yards away and from there took aim at Kelly who then fired back in self-defence. Fricke’s and Kelly apologists approach to McIntyre’s testimony is effectively a conspiracy theory which is that if there are inconsistencies between accounts then they indicate something sinister, that the variations were ‘laundering’, that McIntyre was lying, that he was perjurer.
So let’s look at McIntyres statements:
McIntyre’s first statement, made the day after the murders included this:
“Suddenly and without us being aware of their approach four men with rifles presented at us called upon us to ‘bail up, hold up your hands’. I being disarmed at the time did so. Constable Lonigan made a motion to draw his revolver which he was carrying. Immediately he did so he was shot by Edward Kelly and I believe died immediately”
However, the Statement provided to the Defence, made the day after the first one says “I held out my hands to show I was disarmed and as I did so I saw the man on the right of the party move his rifle from the line of my chest and shoot Lonigan who had no time to get under cover or draw his revolver”
Fricke says of the first statement that ‘it differs from subsequent statements in an important respect, which bears on the viability of a case of self-defence: it has Lonigan at least reaching for his gun, which supports Kellys frequent assertions that he was simply defending himself when he shot Lonigan’ Later, Fricke writes of McIntyre’s first statement that it “ was more likely to contain the truth than any of the sanitized versions (but it) never saw the light of day” and the result, according to Fricke was ‘trial by ambush’
In fact those two statements are entirely compatible: there is no contradiction at all between saying Lonigan made a ‘motion’ to draw his revolver and elsewhere saying that he did not have sufficient time to actually ‘draw his revolver’- both statements can be true. To claim these two statements are evidence of ‘laundering’ is absurd. Note that neither of them mention anything about Lonigan getting behind logs or shelter of any kind.
To boost their case, the Kelly apologists also like to quote a third statement McIntyre was reported to have made to Sadlier the day after his second one: “Lonigan… put his hands 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” Ian Jones wrote about this account that it was the ‘one occasion he (McIntyre) confirms Ned Kellys account’. This is the statement that Kelly apologists insist demonstrate that McIntyre perjured himself at the trial, because at the trial he made no mention of Lonigan aiming at Kelly from behind a log. The apologists say he deliberately concealed this fact so that Kelly would be denied the defence of self-defence.
On the face of it, this last account and the earlier two are difficult to reconcile – but a conspiracy theory isn’t needed to understand them. The facts are these: the first two statements were made and recorded at the time by McIntyre, but the third version wasn’t a statement made by McIntyre at all. It was a claim made by Sadleir when he wrote his memoir a whopping 35 years later, a recollection of what he thinks McIntyre told him all those years before. It wasn’t a claim ever made by McIntyre, and it certainly wasn’t in existence at the time of the trial.
So, if Sadleir’s account contains inconsistencies with those of McIntyre that were made and recorded at the time of the incident, whose statement is more likely to be correct ? – the one made and recorded within a day or two of the event by the person who was there at the time, or another written down from memory 35 years later by someone who wasn’t there? Its a no brainer!
But if common sense and logic are insufficiently persuasive against this stupid conspiracy theory, proof that it was Kelly who was lying and not McIntyre is provided by the forensic facts in the form of a bullet wound on Lonigan’s left thigh. It proves Lonigan wasn’t sheltered behind a log when shot, as Kelly claimed but out in the open, as McIntyre accurately recorded. These facts make the idea of a defence based on self-defence laughable and Fricke’s arguments about it redundant. If it was ever advanced in a real trial or even a properly conducted re-enactment it would fail.
There’s more to this book that could be taken down – but what’s the point? Its a very badly written unbalanced and inaccurate rant from a County Court Judge who seemed to have it in for Sir Redmond Barry, and was one of the many who was yet another of the throng of modern Kelly supporters who were mesmerised by Ian Jones and his great tall story about a seductive criminal. This book is very outdated and contributes nothing but confusion and disinformation about the Kelly story. Frickes argument about ‘inequity’ fails completely, and he never manages to convince that this was a clash of titans, that the criminal Kelly was in some way a match for the Judge. It was just a murder trial, and Kelly got his just reward for the murder of Lonigan.
HERE is a link to a discussion about his book and about Barry between Fricke and ABC Melbourne’s Jon Faine from 2007. Frickes antagonism towards Barry is evident right from the very start when at the first opportunity he describes him as a hypocrite.The Interview with Fricke starts at the 31minute 20 second mark.
41 Replies to “Book Review : Neds Nemesis : Final Part”
Hi David, it’s not that I think Fricke “displays very indifferent scholarship” – I didn’t say that anywhere – it’s that great caution must be exercised when examining arguments from various people that claim Kelly did not get a fair trial (or a fair deal more generally from the legal system). In this context we need to look closely at what specialists in one area – the law – have to say.. As we have seen, Jones led Professor Waller up the garden path in the 1967 Wangaratta Seminar (published in Man & Myth) to contemplate that McIntyre perjured himself. Jones maintained that claim ever since. We have seen that John Phillips also sought to argue – for slightly different reasons – that Kelly didn’t get a fair trial. So now we (the various people engaged in productive discussion on this blog) are generally doing our best to see what unique LEGAL insights might emerge from Fricke’s book about Kelly’s various interactions with the law culminating in his murder trial.
The background stuff about Barry is in that sense secondary to the main issue. After just posting (on the previous post) about Kelly’s conviction for receiving a stolen horse – a fair cop – I have flipped through chapters 5 to 8 and will only comment that the write-up of the Fitzpatrick incident has been well demolished by my legendary 2015 article, “Redeeming Fitzpatrick”, free from google land (on ironicon and academia.edu). Barry’s personal proclivities are of absolutely no relevance to his application of the law in court, which is the topic that should be the focus here. Otherwise it’s like saying that some noted expert on something is a member of the flat earth society or whatever, when it has no relevance to their day job.
Chapter 9 gives us the Outlawry Act and a bit of the Jerilderie letter headed “A Pre-emptive Strike” – any guesses where this is going? – and begins: “Following Ellen Kelly’s trial, the police set out to capture the Kelly gang”. Well, sort of. They were looking for Ned and Dan; they had no idea that these were in company with two others until after the Stringybark Creek murders. The presentation of the initial SBC encounter is neutral: “When the gang called on them to ‘Bail Up!’, McIntyre raised his arms, but Lonigan ran for the cover of some logs, and reached for his pistol” (p. 123). That could apply to both Kelly and McIntyre’s versions in that very short form. I will read on with interest…
Fricke presents some observations on the outlawry act (the Felons Apprehension Act) in chapter 9. Curiously for a legal eagle, he says it began with a recital [introductory rationale] “that had an ancient, almost Elizabethan ring” (125). Yet there was nothing unusual about its recital. Why describe the recital as “almost Elizabethan” as if this was somehow peculiar? It wasn’t. For some similarly worded recitals in 1878 legislation see The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1878, http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb//au/legis/vic/hist_act/tbbea1878230/ ; The Rosstown Junction Railway Act , http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb//au/legis/vic/hist_act/trjra366/ ; and the most impressively titled An Act to vest a piece of land situate in the City of Ballarat reserved for Public Gardens in the Minister of Public Instruction , http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb//au/legis/vic/hist_act/aatvapolsitcobrfpgitmopi1097/
Fricke suggests that Section 3 of the Act “went on to spell out the horrendous consequences of invoking the legislation”, quoting the part about being able to take the outlaw alive or dead “without being accountable for the using of any deadly weapon” if the outlaw was found at large armed or there be reasonable ground to believe he was armed”. Horrendous? Fricke continues: it “meant that if anyone saw Ned or Dan Kelly ‘at large’, they could shoot the outlaws with impunity” (p. 126). Sure, that would be horrendous if true; but how true was it? He continues: “True, they needed to believe the Kellys were armed… [but] Having regard to the background events, including the declarations of outlawry themselves, that requirement would not be difficult to satisfy (p. 127). No. Fricke has significantly downplayed the conditional nature of Section 3: the outlaw could only be killed if the attempt to capture him might in the view of the law expose the apprehender to peril if the outlaw was armed or reasonably thought to be so. It was by no means a licence to kill with impunity.
The NSW Act of 1865 on which it was modelled was stated by its framer, NSW Chief Justice Alfred Stephen, to be “a measure as just and (in the true sense of the word) merciful in its provisions, as these are likely to be beneficial to the community…. It is evidently not meant by this, that the outlaw is needlessly and wantonly to be killed…. if he be not armed, and so may be approached without danger to the taker’s life, the colonial outlaw is (as to apprehension) on the footing of any other indicted person”. The same applied in respect of the identical section of the Victorian Act.
Fricke next suggested that “worse still, if the vigilante happened upon a person answering to the amorphous descriptions contained in two of the proclamations, they could shoot that person with equal impunity”. This goes way too far. Such a death would be a wanton murder not excusable by a claim of acting under the Act. We can see where this idea has come from, when Fricke correctly observes that “the notion of outlawry, whereby the outlaw was treated as a ‘caput lupinem’, or a wolf’s head, open to being … killed with impunity, is an ancient one in English law” (127). True enough, but that did not apply under any of the colonial Australian outlawry acts. Under English law, the outlaw had been declared guilty of a capital crime and could be killed if found at large. But in Australia an outlaw was one who had not surrendered for trial on a capital charge and was sought to stand his trial. That is what distinguished Australian from English outlawry – it was a whole different kettle of fish. I have no way of knowing if Fricke understood this distinction at the time of writing his book, but it is not clear from his presentation that he did.
There is also some rather loose phrasing on p. 128 where he says of the Act, “Apart from the unfairness of publicly asserting that the gang, yet to be tried, had ‘committed murders’, the process may well have been counterproductive”. This is not a correct presentation of the Act. Its recital speaks of “divers persons charged with murder and other capital felonies“, not of persons who ‘committed murders’. There is a very great difference here.
As to the view that the Act may have hardened the attitude of sympathisers and did not work, that is a view that a number of people have taken, but there is good reason to doubt it as comments by Hare, Sadleir and others attest. The comment that “When Barry’s crony Standish sought to invoke Section 5 of the Act [gaoling some of the sympathisers for varying numbers of weeks], it was like a declaration of war” (p. 128). That idea dates back to J.J. Kenneally’s 1929 “Inner history of the Kelly Gang” (not in Fricke’s bibliography), and which was cited favourably about it by Jones in SL. To finish chapter 9 I will only note that Fricke’s assertion that there was “enormous support and sympathy for the Kelly gang in the northeast, especially within the Irish community (p. 128) is completely rejected in my free 2018 Kelly Republic myth book pp. 14-20.
I am currently writing a speech, and am looking for some proof that Fitzpatrick was
A. not a drunk
B. In his right to arrest Dan Kelly
C. Was a well respected person in his community.
I have looked through various articles, sites and books but they all seem to be full of misinformation and opinion.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
Search for Redeeming Fitzpatrick by Stuart Dawson. It’s ALL there.
Hi Raven, if you google the words “redeeming Fitzpatrick ironicon” it should be the first listing. Then download the PDF. Cheers!
Heres a Link to one of my Blog posts about Fitzpatrick. This one addresses your question about being drunk.
Try here. http://www.nedkelly.info/fitzpatrick.pdf
Thank You very much
Further comments on Fricke’s book, this time on Chapter 10. At last we are up to the key part of the book that deals with the legal issues in Kelly’s trial. Fricke starts the chapter with some invented reflections of Barry as he “stirs in his bed” on the morning of the first day of Kelly’s trial, including the thought – common to many of us actually – that Barry “is a little tired of hearing about the Kelly gang”. After two pages of speculative psychology – such as “Sir Redmond wonders whether he will feel up to hosting a dinner party on the traditional 13 November to celebrate his arrival in the district” – his Barry muses that “with any luck the Kelly trial can be disposed of in a day”. The trial of course lasted two days, which was relatively long for a murder trial back then.
On pages 132-3 Fricke gives a useful clear summary of the preliminary steps in a criminal trial and some of the legal issues involved. As others have before him, he then argues that McIntyre’s first statement of 27/10/78, written immediately upon his return from SBC, differed materially from his second statement made to Sub-Inspector Kennedy, which Fricke describes as “a sanitised or laundered version which fairly clearly had the sub-inspector’s fingerprints on it”. This is not correct: McIntyre’s various statements display a remarkable consistency throughout. Fricke argues that the first statement had Lonigan reaching for his gun, so supporting Kelly’s assertion that he was defending himself, whereas the second one did not mention Lonigan making such a motion, and so the much debated question of a possible claim of self-defence is raised. This argument was also run by John Phillips. The explanation is simple: McIntyre’s various statements are inherently partial rather than comprehensive; but the key point missed by nearly all is that they are not self-contradictory.
Fricke suggests, ”it seems highly unlikely that Gaunson or Bindon ever saw the statement of 27 October”, the first statement, regardless that it was mentioned in Gaunson’s cross-examination of McIntyre at the Beechworth committal hearing (135 and note 4). Fricke concludes that “the result was that McIntyre’s statement, made the day after the killings, and which was more likely to contain the truth that any of the sanitised versions, never saw the light of day”. This is simply wrong: Fricke apparently did not read (it is not in his bibliography) Macintyre’s typescript, “A True Narrative of the Kelly Gang of Bushrangers” [c. 1900], downloadable from the Victoria Police Museum website. This is a key text in this debate.
McIntyre wrote: “Mr Gaunson, Kelly’s Solicitor cross-examined me at the Beechworth Police Court upon the matter contained in the [first] report and as I was obliged to give that very unsatisfactory answer that I had forgotten, I applied for a copy before the trial at Melbourne , and the original being supplied to me I took a copy and returned the original to the Chief’s Office. As there was no discrepancy between my evidence and the report, nor did it either by the handwriting or matter contained in it display that trepidation or perturbation upon which Counsel for the Defence relied to upset my evidence, I was not again cross-examined upon it” (p. 31).
McIntyre’s first report was in the prosecution brief, as Fricke acknowledged. Gaunson was Kelly’s solicitor at Beechworth and his instructing solicitor in Melbourne. He knew all about it but it added nothing to the defence and so was not brought up – except by modern Kelly enthusiasts clutching at straws. The report showed that Kelly had shot Lonigan dead before he had done more than motion towards his revolver. McIntyre further demonstrated how Dan Kelly corroborated what happened, including making the motion that Lonigan made, in his verbal testimony. There was never a hope of arguing self-defence.
24 hours on I say again, “There was never a hope of arguing self-defence.”. Where is a single voice to object WITH EVIDENCE to this McIntyre’s True Narrative rebuttal of the self-defence fairy tale that Jones invented in 1967 at the Wangaratta Seminar – by misrepresenting McIntyre’s statements as contradictory – that has sucked in dozens of published “Kelly experts” ever since?
Professor Louis Waller on the length of Kelly’s trial: “By the standards of the nineteenth century … it was a lengthy trial”, in Man & Myth (1968), p. 147. So no more rot about a hasty and unfairly rushed trial from the peanut gallery, thank you.
It seems that John McQuilton (Kelly Outbreak 1979: 229) may be responsible early for the view expressed by Fricke and others about Barry, that he was “a member of the transplanted English aristocracy who feared and detested the bog-Irish and were in the main firm believers in a system of law and order which guaranteed them their social pre-eminence. … Ned Kelly represented the epitome of the Anglo-Irish nightmare”. Apart from the fact that Barry was Irish, not English, we can see from Fricke’s own descriptions of Barry’s interactions with his family’s tenant farmers and with the range of people he interacted pleasingly with (which does not require that he socialised with) in Melbourne, he was far from a snob. But haters gotta hate.
Great point David. The Kelly nuts insist that Ned only fired one shot at Lonigan, therefore the thigh wound proves that he never got behind the logs he started to run towards. I’ve never seen that in any Kelly books.
I have had many an argument over the stringybark shootings with friends, they firstly say that he was shot once, but then say he was shot in the thigh from behind a log, and yet even when I say that this is impossible they continue to say that Ned was shooting in self defense, even though it is clear he murdered unarmed men that in some cases were running away.
On the same note he once said that he planned to kill all the men on the train, trackers as well as cops and that he intended to “rake it with shot” and yet they say he only shot people in ‘self defense’.
At Glenrowan Ned negligently shot unarmed railways worker George Metcalf in the eye. Metcalf took months to die. Stuart has written extensively about this previously-unknown nasty episode. I can’t provide a download site. He probably can. A very worthwhile read.
Stuarts article can be read here. http://nedkelly.info/metcalf.pdf
It’s a well researched article by Stuart. You won’t find this in any Kelly fans books.
Stuart Dawson’s Ne Kelly articles can be downloaded from the following sites so far. Anyone is welcome to redistribute these copies by email, website, school, TAFE and library servers, or anywhere else, providing no money is charged.
Redeeming Fitzpatrick: Ned Kelly and the Fitzpatrick Incident
Ned Kelly’s shooting of George Metcalf, labourer
Ned Kelly’s last words – “Ah, well, I suppose”
How long was Ned Kelly’s last stand?
And a resource that everyone should have free, a transcript of G.W. Hall’s 1897 book, The Kelly Gang, or Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges, which can also be freely redistributed provided no money is charged:
Graham Frickes book sees a certain injustice denied to Ned that most readers would tend to agree with. I have been reading Justin Moloney’s ‘ A Passage of People’ and refer to page 99 wherein he explains how the ‘colonial’ authorities were not capable of proper law and order because of the privileged ruling classes –the squatters having taken justice into their own hands. Its only much later that the ‘proper authorities’ were to regain control. So as I read it, current critics of the Kelly story are judging recorded events as per laws of ‘today’, while at the time of the Kelly outbreak, the law was according to those in control, the squattocracy.
In my opinion, to squabble over how bad Ned was in B&W, is to ignore the grey bits in between that similarly some deny the Holocaust of WW2 was not so bad if you were a Nazi.
We need to keep discussions in perspective.
Like me, readers to these pages are interested, but most are reluctant to comment because a fair exchange of facts (including the grey bits) are too quickly discounted as irrelevant.
Put in perspective, author ‘Justin Moloney’ is grandson of ‘Edmond Gorman’ who went to school with Ned and the other Kelly children. Justin has assembled a vast collection of colonial history centered around his Irish Gorman ancestry. And did you know a daughter of James Whitty married Edmond Gorman!
So we can already see a certain prejudice creeping into the Aus Irish community when it comes to the Kellys.
( This prejudice goes back to Ireland when Cromwell invaded their ancestral lands that later in Victoria, a system the Whittys would also benefit from, that while in Ireland they were opposed to. )
We have Parish Plans -allotment evidence of land holding named as E. Gorman only 3.5 miles distant from the Kelly Gang hideaway hut site in the Carboor Ranges, where the gang were seemingly protected by nine surrounding land holdings (also named) individuals that were known to be Kelly sympathisers.
I now refer to Chapter 11 of Justin’s book – in ref to lack of law and order in the new colony-
“ Just as the colonial administration struggled to assert a degree of control over squatters unilaterally assuming Kulin and Yorta Yorta lands as their personal property, let alone that of the British Crown, so it also struggled to impose throughout towns and settlements a system of law that would arbitrate disputes via legal mechanisms of court and process. And just as the squatting class used arbitrary force on the Aboriginal people throughout all the lands of Port Phillip, so the invaders settled matters among themselves with the same disregard for legal niceties. That so many of what would appear to be common assaults received minimal penalty would seem to indicate that violence in the settling of assumed or real insult was a legitimate mode of resolving the matter. Even as late as the end of the nineteenth century there persisted recourse to ‘demanding honour’, and the term ‘deserving of a horse-whipping’ was often more than mere words.”
Hi Bill, that book you mentioned, Justin Moloney’s ‘ A Passage of People’, was that a privately printed book? I have googled the title with no luck, including googling it with the terms nla (for the national library catalogue), ebay, price, slv (the state library) etc. It would be good to know what date it was published.
By the time of the Kelly outbreak, Victoria had a functioning democratic parliament. This did not mean privileged people – as they can today – could not get voted in. Squatters were perhaps powerful in early Victoria as some say but not after democracy started.
just got told that Ned had supposedly killed 4 of the hostages (excluding Metcalf) at Glenrowan. Unfortunately I don’t have any sources, and was wondering if this was correct, I have looked online but didn’t find any evidence to prove this.
So hows the speech going Raven? I would be interested to hear the speech if youre giving it to a public audience or read the transcript of what you come up with. What do you reckon?
Hi Raven, no truth to that one, Kelly did not execute any of the prisoners (not hostages, hostages are held as security for a demand) at Glenrowan. Although it might make a good fictional scene in a movie…. If people believe the film of the Carey “True Story” book they’ll believe anything.
So the plan was to kill all the coppers, women and reporters on the train… For some reason the name Martin Cherry comes to mind as a possible killed hostage as well as Metcalf.
Cherry was hit by a stray police bullet, not executed by Kelly. The Jones boy likewise. Both died in consequence. Have a read of Ian Jones “Short Life” section about the shootout for an overview. This speculation about Kelly executing hostages is not true, it is based on a couple of what turned out to be incorrect newspaper reports at the time reporting hearsay or making things up in the confusion. Other papers reported accurately.
It did sound a bit far-fetched, but at the same time, through all the internet searching I did with Metcalf I found 3-4 references, so I thought I should probably check with you guys.
thanks for asking David, it’s still in the planning stage at the moment, but I should have a draft or two out in a few weeks. I will send it to you then if you are interested.
Yes Raven Hillier I would appreciate a copy of the speech when its done – send it to firstname.lastname@example.org
But where do you plan to deliver it? Maybe we could come and listen and give you support?
On further reflection I should not have advised reading Jones on the Glenrowan shootout as he stuffs the narrative up completely with his republic fantasy, gets the timeline hopelessly wrong – see my free Republic Myth download from the top of this web page – and wilfully twists the facts of Metcalf being shot in the face by Kelly while Kelly was fiddling with a revolver that accidentally discharged to perversely blame the police against documented reality, as shown in my Metcalf article.
For a slightly better narrative of Glenrowan see chapter 21 in Grantlee Kieza’s “Mrs Kelly” which avoids most of Jones’ republic nonsense but still has Metcalf wounded by the police instead of Kelly. Still, it is a better general narrative that Jones; but you need to be familiar with Jones’s dominant narrative in order to see what is wrong with that.
The next necessary step is reading Ian MacFarlane’s “The Kelly Gang Unmasked“, which is a bit harder to get into for some people as it is thematic rather than chronological; but it is far and away the best critique of the dominant narrative you will ever find. Follow that with my Redeeming Fitzpatrick article and your BS detector will be well primed.
Further notes on the transfer decision:
From the Ballarat Courier, 23 September 1880, page 2, we learn that Gaunson submitted to Barry that “it was unlikely that the local [Beechworth] jury would consist of sympathisers with the prisoner”. Smyth for the Crown responded, “No, we do not think that for a moment; but they may be in terror of the sympathisers”.
That was the central point of the affidavit presented to have the trial moved to Melbourne. It was never in the prosecution’s head for a moment that a Beechworth jury might be sympathetic to the leader of the gang that had wreaked mayhem around the district for some two years.
The affidavit, printed in full in the Argus, 20 September 1880, page 7, clearly states the reasons for the transfer request in clauses 8 and 9:
“8. That from the lawless conduct and threatening demeanour of some of the relations friends, and sympathisers of the said Edward Kelly. I believe efforts would be made to intimidate certain of the jurors on the jury panel of the said Assize Court, and that some of the said jurors might probably be thereby deterred and intimidated from finding a verdict in accordance with the evidence”.
“9. That should a jury find a verdict of guilty against the said Edward Kelly, I verily believe that those members of the said jury who live in the country districts of the said bailiwick would be liable to serious injuries in their persons, families, and property at the hands of the said relations, friends and other sympathisers of the said Edward Kelly”.
Note, too, that Gaunson had for whatever reason failed to visit Kelly in gaol on the following Monday, for which Barry had granted him time, and so did not obtain the counter-affidavit that Gaunson himself had said was necessary. I gave the references in my post above. If anyone failed Kelly in this matter, it was solely Gaunson. But more likely he realised that he had no argument to pursue.
Barry then followed the established legal process with which as we have seen Gaunson fully understood. He said, ‘“It appears to me that my duty in this case is very simple, for there is no counter affidavit here. I am clearly of opinion that enough has been disclosed to justify me not only in granting the change of venue, but also in demanding that the change should be made.” Application was accordingly granted.’
Everything relating to the transfer application was done by the book, for good reasons, and without the slightest hint of malice. The application was handled according to the procedures of the day, and there was never a hint of conspiracy by the Crown or Barry in any of this.
Oops, this comment of mine belongs to the discussion on the next blog topic, “Why was Ned Kelly’s Trial Moved to Melbourne?”
I might copy and paste it to that page.
David you might want to look at the toads page. Bob has demolished your claims that Mcintyre didnt change his story
Bob has demolished my claim that McIntyre didnt change his story?
Thats the guy who reckons Fitzpatricks death certificate proves he was an alcoholic and died of cirrhosis of the liver even though the death certificate says nothing of the sort. Bob might THINK he has demolished my claim and proved McIntyre committed perjury but Bob is capable of persuading himself against every shred of evidence that the most preposterous things are true, so I wouldn’t take Bobs claims too seriously if I was you.
The “McIntyre perjury” theory is yet another of the pernicious unhistorical and already thoroughly debunked inventions inserted into Kelly history by Ian Jones. The liars in this story were the Kelly family – Mrs Kelly lied, Kate Kelly lied and Ned Kelly in particular told MANY lies.
if Bob was really worried about liars he would have an enormous problem with the Kellys.
What did he have to say about it?
Bob is left looking like a clown as usual. He shoulda read KGU, pages 140-1, before mouthing off.
Bob on the FB hate site endlessly puzzles over possible minor differences in evidence “produced” by McIntyre. McIntyre wasn’t producing evidence at all. He was responding to d i f f e r e n t questions by different lawyers. This is carefully pointed out by the KGU author, a former court reporter himself, but altogether missed by blindfolded Bob.
(I had forgotten how many hateful personal attacks there are on that site – unmasking kelly gang unmasked – and what a huge waste of time it is)
David it is all very well to be derogatory towards Bob as you think that is funny but he quotes MacIntyres statements all recorded in Kelvyn Gills the Edward Ned Kelly The historical Record. MacIntyres own statements prove you Ian MacFarlane and Stwart Dawson all wrong. Are you afraid to face the truth, after all that is what we all want.
Bob and you – whoever you are – and the other kelly apologists – seem unable to understand the difference between statements made by McIntyre and statements made by Sadleir many years later claiming to be what McIntyre said. Simply put, Sadleirs recollection is wrong, and we know that because it doesnt match anything that McIntyre signed his name to back in 1878. If McIntyres statements prove anyone was wrong its Sadleir.
But PLEASE dont pretend you are interested in truth – your interest is in propping up police hate and kelly idolatry and you dont care who you abuse vilify and insult in the process. Nothing anyone writes will ever change your mind. I am not interested in hearing any more from you unless you care to identify yourself.
Again you are being derogatory and there is no need as I have been polite and just pointing out the facts. I thought identities meant nothing to you yet you threaten me because I am anonymous. What Bob has published is McIntyres own statements. And to Ian MacFarlane – they are not minor differences in the statement they are major ones. Instead of being abusive, read what these differences are then make your counter points if you can. Or is your reaction clearly because you don’t want to be proven wrong.
No you are not pointing out facts you are pointing out confused claims made by Bob, which include statements NOT made by McIntyre but by Sadleir reporting many years later what he thought he could remember McIntyre had said. Sadleir was wrong. McIntyre told the truth. The Kellys are the ones who told all the lies.
The reason I object to your anonymity is becasue you are without doubt a member of the tiny clique of Kelly idolators who for years attacked me for wanting my right to privacy to be respected, the group of fanatics who didnt rest until you had exposed my identity , the tiny group of ignoramuses who continue now to vilify and abuse me on line – and because you are one of these people you are an obscene hypocrite and thats the kind of person I have the least respect for of anyone.
You can prove me wrong by naming yourself, but you wont. You’ll just maintain your cowardly hypocrisy.
As I guessed, the Anonymous troll who was likely Bob or the Toad himself didnt have the courage of his convictions to identify himself because whatever else that would do it would expose him as a massive hypocrite.
But theres one more point to be made about Sadleirs 35 year too-late wrong version of what McIntyre claimed : the autopsy findings confirm McIntyres account but not Sadleirs ( or Jones or Ned Kellys )
Bob et al will keep repeating their disproven anti police bullshit until the day they die, along with all their other myths about the multiple murderer Ned Kelly, but who cares? They are tucked away talking to themselves and swapping hate speech about Dee and Dawson et al out of sight and out of mind in the same far corner of the Internet as Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Laughable idiots.
I wonder if theyre going to be able to stomach the new anti-Kelly Novel Glenrowan ??
Anonymous visited here recently guessing who some of the posters are. At the hate site they do this all the time. Small things amuse small minds.
Someone on the hate site has written that Bob is a “research leech”. Anonymous refers here to “toads page”. Don’t turn your back to anyone at the hate page is our advice.
The ‘differences’ in the McIntyre ‘versions’ are miniscule.
Horrie and Alf