The purpose of this Post is to focus on trying to understand the facts in relation to just one thing about Fitzpatrick: his cause of death. Justin Corfields Ned Kelly Encyclopaedia (2003) says that he died of cirrhosis of the liver, and because of that, for a very long time, quite reasonably, Fitzpatrick was believed to have been an alcoholic when he died. This claim was repeated as recently as 2017 in Grantlee Kiezas biography “Mrs Kelly”.
Cirrhosis of the liver is almost universally caused by alcoholism. The statement that Fitzpatrick had cirrhosis of the liver fitted in well with the claims made at Ellen Kellys trial, and by virtually every Kelly biographer since then, that when he was in the police, Fitzpatrick had a problem with drink, and indeed they claim that when he went to the Kelly shanty at 11 Mile creek in April 1878, he was drunk – ‘fortified with drink’ is the typical way this is presented. The narrative about Fitzpatrick being a drunk has been a standard element of the Kelly story from the beginning.
However, there is a huge problem with the mainstay of the ‘alcoholic Fitzpatrick’ narrative: his death certificate does NOT say he died of cirrhosis of the liver. For some unknown reason, Corfield completely misread the death certificate, which doesn’t mention cirrhosis of the liver anywhere. What it records is that Fitzpatrick died of “Sarcoma of the Liver, invading stomach, disseminated”. It also records “ascites, constriction of, and adherence of appendix (appendicectomy)” and “cardiac exhaustion”. In laymen’s terms, it says that he died of the complications of a type of liver cancer.
When I first drew everyone’s attention to this mistake several years ago, the die-hard Kelly fanatics refused to accept that the death certificate no longer supported the claim that Fitzpatrick was an alcoholic. Instead they changed tack and insisted that the presence of ascites on its own was proof of alcoholism, because ascites is often what alcoholics suffer from. More recently these medically untrained Kelly fanatics also tried to claim that a liver sarcoma can be caused by alcohol – but this is untrue. What these people have crucially failed to understand is that in alcoholics, ascites doesn’t appear by itself – it can only develop if cirrhosis develops first..In fact, ascites NEVER develops all by itself : there has to be something that gives rise to it, and this can be cirrhosis, or cancers and sarcomas, inflammation of many kinds and all sorts of other things.
That is why the presence of ascites on its own CANNOT be cited as evidence in support of the argument that Fitzpatrick was an alcoholic. Its important to understand this point, so here it is in detail: when ascites IS associated with alcoholism, the sequence of events is that FIRST OF ALL there is liver damage called cirrhosis. Cirrhosis makes the liver scarred and shrunken and blood flow through it becomes restricted. NEXT, when the cirrhosis is bad enough, fluid accumulation occurs in the abdomen and is known as ascites. As the disease progresses there is increasing strain on the heart which then begins to fail, as does the liver, and fluid accumulation occurs in other parts of the body as well : this used to be known as ‘dropsy’.
To be very clear – and this one is especially for you Bob McGarrigle and Stuart Rowsell , because your postings on this subject indicate you’re very confused and don’t understand it at all : if ascites is a result of being an alcoholic then cirrhosis MUST be present also. On the other hand, if as was reported on Fitzpatricks death certificate there was ascites but NO cirrhosis, then alcoholism CANNOT be the cause of the ascites, and another cause has to be looked for. That is simply medically established fact and there’s nothing you can do about it.
At Fitzpatricks autopsy, ascites would have been one of the first abnormal things observed, and would have triggered a search for its cause. In Fitzpatrick’s case the liver was not found to be hard, shrunken and small which is what is found with cirrhosis, but instead it was enlarged by a sarcoma – the exact opposite of what would be found in cirrhosis – and the sarcoma was ‘disseminated’ meaning it had spread to involve the stomach and other tissues in the abdomen. These other deposits, known as metastases are not found with cirrhosis: a cirrhotic liver does not spread and invade adjacent structures. But metastases from a tumour do invade adjacent and distant structures and provoke local tissue responses which include the production of the ascites fluid. It should also be mentioned that despite what Stuart Rowsell claims, there is NO KNOWN LINK between alcohol and liver sarcoma. The presence of a liver sarcoma is not in any way an indication of alcoholism.
The autopsy findings listed on the Death Certificate are very clear and consistent. Fitzpatrick died of heart failure which was a secondary effect of the metastatic sarcoma of the liver. Those are the facts and there are no alternate facts. Nothing was found at autopsy which in any way gives support to the notion Fitzpatrick was an alcoholic. For anyone who has read this far, continuing to suggest otherwise is lying: lying is saying something you know not to be true.
In 1924, without the benefit of modern palliative medicine Fitzpatrick likely suffered a miserable lingering death. To claim he died of complications of alcoholism is not just wrong, its utterly without foundation and inhumanly cruel. There is ZERO medical evidence that he was an alcoholic when he died.
Incidentally, for anyone genuinely interested in finding out more of the truth about Fitzpatrick, the argument that he had a problem with drink as a young man is discussed in detail HERE. It’s unfortunate and unfair that the stigma of alcoholism has been attached to him because of Corfield’s careless reading of his death certificate.
People whose interest is in knowing what really happened in the Kelly Outbreak should not promote lies about how Fitzpatrick died. It had nothing to do with alcoholism and there is no evidence anywhere that he was an alcoholic.
It will be interesting to see how the BBM nut cases try and squirm their way out of this.
After all that explanation I will have to strictly limit my future alcohol consumption 🍻🍷🍾!
Corfield’s Kelly Encyclopaedia was essentially written under the tutelage of Ian Jones, who also wrote the introduction to it. If you look at Corfield’s references at the end of his Fitzpatrick article, Fitzpatrick’s death certificate is not among them. It is therefore quite likely that Corfield himself never saw the death certificate but took what he wrote about it, that “The certificate stated that he died of cirrhosis of the liver and then cardiac exhaustion”, from someone else.
Corfield’s Encyclopaedia was published 2003. Jones’s Short Life, which maligns Fitzpatrick as an alcoholic, was published 1995. I don’t think there is much effort required to guess where Corfield acquired his malicious hostility to Fitzpatrick from.
Oh yes Jones really put the boot into Fitzpatrick. Heres a couple of quotes from the ASL chapter he misleadingly calls the “Fitzpatrick Mystery” – “Aglow with autumn sunshine and brandy, Fitzpatrick….”
“ …always eager to see Kate..”
“With alcoholic optimism and more than a dash of fatalism he swung his horse from the road…”
“ few would have felt less secure than Constable Fitzpatrick whose first year in the force had been a chapter of unreliability, bad company, narrow scrapes and a fondness for liquor.”
As usual the nutjobs will have no actual rational comeback so instead will resort to hysteria and hyperbole, and say we’re attacking and vilifying Jones and we’re making out that Fitzpatrick was a Saint….
No we arent. We are just trying to understand what actually happened and what the truth is. God theyre so pathetic…
Hi David, unfortunately I no longer have my 1995 copy of Jones’s SL but the revised 2003 edition ends chapter 7, ‘The Fitzpatrick Mystery’, with the sentence regarding the Fitzpatrick incident, “Now an equally impulsive reaction in defence of another sister had spawned the Kelly Outbreak”.
What extraordinary nonsense. The outbreak was the result of the police breaking up of the Baumgarten horse stealing ring of which Ned Kelly was the principal actor. It had nothing to do with Jones’s entirely fictional invention of Fitzpatrick assaulting Kate Kelly or of having a crush on her. In an entire book ostensibly devoted to understanding the Kelly outbreak he has got all the main pillars totally wrong! What a 🤡
The den of fools and Jones the leader of the pack.
catch me if you can fitzy
This very clear presentation of the medical facts by a real medical doctor will no doubt sink one of the Toads chapters in the anti Fitzpatrick book he is allegedly researching for some unnamed retired legal expert who has no idea of what a blundering internet bully the Toad is in real life. It will be a real treat to read his wise thoughts and expose them for the blinkered collection of idiocy they are sure to be. The legal expert will have a very embarrassing retirement if he or she is relying on the Toad for research.
That book the Toad Fitzsimons says he is doing the research for : it will NEVER see the light of day. That moron wouldnt be able to research his way out of a paper bag and no publisher is EVER going to be interested in the kind of delusional whiny hateful character assassinations the toad has a special talent for.
His best hope would be write it out and make three or four photocopies : the market wont need more .
Thank you my good doctor and nicely presented. I doubt Bob, Stuart, Jager and pig-face Fitzy have the intellect to understand.
Speaking of Rowsell have a look at how much sh*T he’s spinning over at the ned kelly centre Facebook page. Clearly Rowsell is brown nosing Joanna. Rowsell had an online shop selling kelly merchandise. Rowsell you’re busted yet again. Joanna called him out and he’s too stupid to know it.
Attachment
Joanna is delusional. She wrote at the to[p of the FB page “We are here to inspire, educate and promote a greater understanding of the Kelly story” – but if she writes garbage and you challenge it, she deletes you,
Why cant she just be honest and say “We are here to promote OUR version of the Kelly story and if you dont lie it, too bad!!”
But with Rowsell, she is in terrific company. He also is delusional.
Joanne claimed that 250 police were dismissed as a result of the Royal Commission. Made up nonsense she pulled out of the air. When I challenged her on her Centre site, I was immediately blocked. Not a very honourable person is Joanne.
Bravo to you sam.
brendan Cook was recently blocked by joanne. Brendan is not afraid to dish and this is why he was blocked. She’s a Selfish pigheaded and miserable person to deal with. She constantly seeks the limelight and mind you she gets hourly
I wouldnt feel too sorry for Cook – Ive had personal experience with him and he’s a truly vile bully and a liar.
The entire world of Kelly admiration is peopled by thugs, ignoramuses, bullies liars and attention seeking creeps like Joanne Perry Fitzsimons McGarrigle Rowsell et al….what a clown show it all is.
Delusional to the extreme. I have never known Joann to speak an ounce of truth. NEVER.
Joanne. Not Joanna.
Only one person I know of in the Kelly world who has a compulsion to correct other peoples spelling – although he lacks the guts to do it to the flood of misspellings that litter the clown show of a page he runs.Thanks for the hot tip Perry. You see what I did there? I thought you were supposed to have dumped the bad habit of looking at my pages and yet here you are making anonymous posts. What a gutless wonder you are…
So delusional that she’s just posted on FB celebrating 8 years of NKC. 8 years of nothingness.
Reckons she’s in a battle and confident she’ll be the last person standing.
The NKC say they continue to lobby for their dedicated museum in North East Victoria. They are a registered public company with their hands out. All they have done for 8 years is beg for government funding for their nothing museum so they can be employed in their own museum. If they had enough stuff to attract visitors to a museum at a profit they would be doing it. I don’t want one cent of my taxes going to support these grifters. They are all about the almighty dollar for Kelly things if it goes their way! But if other people make money out of the Kelly name they grumble like it should have been theirs. How can anyone take them seriously. Most of the Kelly souvenirs are made in China anyway.
Peanut I couldn’t agree with you more. The delusional woman has sought legal advice on ways to stop us profiting in the name Kelly. She and her team [legal team] don’t have a leg to stand on and yet she keeps pushing it.
That woman is the joke of the ‘Kelly family’ , and she’s too full of herself to know it. She’s hated by most of the descendants. She just likes putting her ugly mug on tv. The NKC has done nothing but pat themselves on the back (for what? who knows?) since it started.
She likes to stress that the page is created by ‘descendants ‘native’ to North East Victoria. Being born just out of Melbourne, Kelly himself wasn’t even ‘native’ to North East Victoria.
Joanne Griffiths is a skank with MANY skeletons in her closet. Which should be revealed… *wink*
What is the Ned Kelly Interpretive Centre? It is a funding grab by the Ned Kelly Centre listed in the Wangaratta Council’s 2017 Ned Kelly Alive report that is after $15 million in start-up implementation funding. The spiel is in the pages here. It says
The Ned Kelly Interpretive Centre based in Glenrowan will allow the visitor to step directly into history. Using an exciting mix of museum artefacts, high-tech experiential displays, contemplation spaces, educational programs and research resources, visitors will explore this iconic story through displays that bring the story to life, demonstrate the heritage of the area, and provide a real sense of the times (mid-late 1800s).
With a planned investment of up to $15 million, the centre will require revenues of up to $3 million per annum to break even and fund the reinvestment in the building and technology to avoid falling behind as other attractions in Glenrowan have done. This level of revenue will be challenging to secure without innovation, strong partnerships and successful events. A clear Business Plan and Operational framework is in development by the Ned Kelly Centre group separate to this report, which should look to address these items.
Give me $15 million and $3 milion a year says the handout queen.
Attachment Ned-Kelly-Alive_report-Ned-elly-Interpretive-Centre.pdf
Alledgedly this information was added into the NKA report at the request of NKC after the report was completed. The NKC project was not one of the projects to be deemed viable by that extensive and impartial study.
The Ned Kelly Centre are working hard on squeezing the Wangaratta Council and anyone else for money. On top of the handouts and the who you know employtyment scheme they want more…
Council will own and run the ticketed galleries and shop. The model includes opportunities for private sector investment and support and for consistent development and renewal of the attraction. The café, tours, talks and events will be offered to interested parties to create product that complements the Centre and its brand.
The proposed Centre includes a retail space, and a high quality café
The Kelly Centre will provide private sector tour operators with a ticketed destination upon which a variety of tour products can be built
Gimme gimme gimme money money money all those relatives and friends on the council
Attachment Ned-Kelly-Interpretive-Centre.pdf
That’s a very old report back before the current NKC group took the name Ned Kelly Centre. The Wang Council never registered that name. Duh!
This has created further confusion and given the current NKC more credibility and perceived ‘history’ than it’s ever earned or deserved.
The Ned Kelly Centre group mentioned in the attachment from the 2017 Ned Kelly Alive report as developing the business plan for the Ned Kelly Interpretive Centre that is after $15 million plus $3 million a year can logically only be the Griffiths group Ned Kelly Centre that their Facebook page boasts about just now having their 8th anniversary from when they registered NKC as a public company in 2015, tri years before the Ned Kelly Alive report was published.
It’s TEN YEARS this year that Joanne Griffiths announced her project at the O l d Melb Gaol on the anniversary of Kelly’s execution and just a few months after the Vault opened in Beechworth.
Ten years.
Getting back to the title of this post for a moment : the answer is clearly NO , Kelly sympathisers as a rule do NOT care about the truth. They care about the fabricated Ian Jones version of the mythology and they are all so certain that its the truth they dont need to bother themselves with checking out anything that doesnt fit.
And woe betide anyone who doesnt agree with them becasue there seems to be nothing they do better than hate people who challenge them and their silly ideas.
That’s it right there. Kelly sympathisers are only interested in the myths, the whitewashed version of the story. Their brains can’t handle big words like ‘facts’ and ‘truth’. People from groups like the BBM and NKS aren’t even interested in the real Ned Kelly, the man they all claim to ‘love’, the version of him they worship, never even existed. He would laugh at them.
Notice how the men and women interested in ‘The Kelly Story’ are almost all overweight, unattractive, lowlife bogans. Because people like that can only mix with their own kind, they are nothing but rejects who found each other, and just use Kelly as an excuse to meet up and piss up. They have to hate on people who dare to challenge their precious myths because they know they could never handle a decent conversation/debate to back up what they believe, and they of course can’t handle any criticism. So instead they use foul language and ridicule to prop themselves up. Nothing but weaklings who all deserve each other.
That’s why their pages are filled with pictures of Ned Kelly beer cans, whiskey bottles, UDLs and commemorative Ned Kelly port bottles, plus room photos with VB beer signs. The iron outlaw website is the same sort of thing in its feedback page. Endless contributions about getting drunk at the old Ned Kelly Beechworth boganfest weekends that have thankfully passed away.
charming.
To Ned!
Attachment
Attachment
Says it all that image : a bogan in flip flops tipping beer onto a grave. What a bloody disgrace.
31 February 1865. Today I went back to school. It was my second year at Avenel state school and I was late. I lost my pants in the creek on the way and every one laughed at me. I said I would fight them and I got sent home. And I lost my lunch.
JT, I don’t know who you are ( why not identify yourself ?) but you are only half right. On FB there are many ‘Ned lover’ groups. One has over 14,000 members. I check them all out often as I am very interested. I challenge people on topics wide ranging from Fitzpatrick to SBC. Whilst you may be right in your derogatory comments about members of these groups you are being very unfair to many. Not all are as you described them. Where I take special offence is your naming of NKS not being interested in the real story. Just tonight I added my 10 c worth to a serious discussion and question that would I agree not be found on most Ned groups. That is the point, NKS is not a Ned Lover group at all. BBM try to weed out the crazies and stop myths such as Kate being raped but once you get to such large numbers of members it’s hard to get to them all. So bash away but know that not everyone with a keen interest is a stupid bogan.
Conveniently ignoring the words ‘almost all’ so you can try to defend your fellow bogans just proves my point. Typical BBM and NKS supporter. And yes, they are both myth loving groups. The only person you’re fooling is yourself. Go try your sermon on someone else. I don’t buy it.
While we’re on the Fitzpatrick topic, that 1980 book by Professor John Molony titled “I am Ned Kelly” also maliciously attacked Fitzpatrick ‘s alleged drinking habit and suggested not very subtly that he had raped Kate Kelly. What a maggot. (The professor with his false accusations, I mean.) Molony went full out in a video he did for the National Museum in Canberra where he directly accused Fitzpatrick of raping Kate. His “evidence” for these malicious lies Is farcical. I tackled these and other moronic academic pronouncements in my own academic article, “Redeeming Fitzpatrick”, which can easily be found and downloaded from several websites by goggling the title.
Molony is a good example of how nasty and partisan academics can be. He went to great lengths to trawl up any negative stories about Fitzpatrick but put no thought or time into reviewing the content of Fitzpatrick’s own evidence (both statements and testimony sworn in court) with the result that his book is a highly polished nothing burger. Just like Jones, his mind was made up before he started to put pen to paper, and he spent all his time searching out only those fragments that suited his perspective and using all sorts of tricks including a bunch of dubious oral history to build a mountain of BS. Then he swanned around University functions lapping up the praise and admiration from other boffins who wouldn’t know shit from sandwiches but though he must be right because after all, he’s a PROFESSOR!
Then his droppings enter the popular Kelly narrative and spread like noxious brambles through an audience that is mostly incapable of the mental effort required to question and then check his claimed source evidence. And find it seriously deficient.
JT, you just outed yourself!
Now I know who you are.
You love slinging mud and name calling, looking forward to your book coming out.
I have no idea myself who JT is, so Dave, be careful about deciding youve worked out who JT is because I can tell you the Toad is constantly announcing he has worked out who various people are – theyre all me, according to the Toad and Bob and various other losers – but he has NEVER been right so far. In the Kelly world all kinds of deceit goes on all the time, though not from me.
I’ll make sure you get a signed copy.
The working title is “Such Is Lowlife : The Delusional World Of Kelly Sympathisers”
dave JT or shall we refer to him as BW. so help him god his so called book better have no mistakes. every word every syllable will be scrutinised.he had better get it right
Hello Bob or shall we say Hazel your fat mates book had better have no mistakes in it too as it will be scrutinised in exact detail every word every reference. ICU
Ned Kelly – Unmasking “Fitzpatrick” The book.
Where myths are put to rest and Dawson sleeps with the disgraced.
Written and researched by
Mick Fitz. Stooge & Researcher
Stew Rowsell. Stooge & adviser
Rob Macgarigle. Stooge & proof reader
Steve Jager. Main stooge & Bodyguard
To be released late 2025
To be launched at the Glenrowan Ned Kelly Discovery Centre by some crazy man in a Ned Kelly suit. The REAL INNER HISTORY OF THE KELLY GANG will be revealed by this clairvoyant insider who was there in spirit and has been reincarnated as something. He nows the truth about Fitzpatrick and will hold nothing back. All of you who have tried to say that Fitzpatrick was a good guy will be PUT BACK IN YOUR PLACE which is LAST. So WATCH OUT for this revenger. You have been WARNED. Where is my BEER.
Attachment
Oh what a shock : Steve Jager and Mick Fitzsimons posting to the Blog : yeah right!
But yes “Fitzpatrick – the Book” courtesy of the Toad will NOT EVER see the light of day, for many reasons but one will be that the mob trying to write it are ignorant morons.
It is my belief that John Molony wrote what he understood to be true at the time.
With his academic credentials and religious background I do not believe that he was out to hoodwink people.
He was a very genuine person too.
Yes you are likely correct Dave , in saying that Moloney was a very genuine person and that he wrote what he understood to be true, and that he wasnt out to hoodwink people. However that is a very naive view of how the human mind operates. I think it would be fair to say the same things about Ian Jones, that he also wasn’t consciously setting out to hoodwink people and he was a genuine person….but you HAVE to agree Dave, dont you, that his central and dominating conviction about Kelly, that he was planing to make the North East a republic was utterly and completely and undoubtedly wrong. he was WRONG about where the police camp was, he was wrong about the Gentleman Ned photo, he was wrong about McIntyre being a perjurer and so on….
My point is that you have fallen into the trap that many fall into if you think that because he was a ‘genuine’ person and he was a christian and he didnt intentionally set out to ‘hoodwink’ people then he must have been correct. The two things are unrelated. Someone can be a terrific genuine great person and be completely deluded and wrong at the same time.
The other trap is to believe that someone who appears to be genuine and a great person and a christian cant actually be, in reality, a very manipulative lying deceitful narcissist and a con artist…..
Hi Dave, it is important to note that Molony did not set out to write a biography of Kelly. The first edition’s title “I am Ned Kelly” is what he set out to write. It is a version of Ned’s story reconstructed by Molony as told through Ned’s eyes; a vindication and attempted justification of what Molony thought was Ned’s dream: page xiv, “Kelly, like so many of his kind, longed to possess the land in freedom. … Ned’s story is one of Australia and her people, the physical grandeur of Victoria’s northeast, the men and women who struggled to make their way there and for some, including the Kellys, the failure to succeed.”
But wait: page xv, “The account of their failure of necessary contains a condemnation of many members of the Victoria Police of that time.” Que? What rubbish is this? As Sergeant Kennedy’s widow quoted in Kiera’s Mrs Kelly said, many came out from Ireland etc but none do bad as the Kellys. Molony’s is a badly lopsided love story with a heavily romanticised Ned.
Molony knew he was writing a romantic fiction: “The fabric in which I have clothed the story of Ned, of his people [sic!], of his time and place was woven deliberately….” p. xv.
In his 2001 preface to the reprint with just a title change to “Ned Kelly”, he says the finest thing said to him about his Ned was that of a father who was reading the book to his children, regarding some things best unsaid to small children. The father replied, “They don’t even hear those things. They listen to the language.”
Truth no longer matters when one is told such beautiful and beguiling lies?. The devil has won there, but those of us on the side of St George do not hold back from slaying the dragon.
Just 21, he could ride like a centaur…
Attachment
More nonsense from the Kelly nuts about Fitzpatrick – it never ends. Here is McMenomy in his 2001 revised Authentic Illustrated History. He claims that “within a month of his arrival [at Benalla], he had made disreputable acquaintances, developed a drinking habit, and was unpopular with his superiors.”
This is all total horseshit, with all three claims directly contradicated by his Record of Service in the Police Museum which McMenomy alledgedly read. What has happened is the influence of Jones, McMenomy’s mentor, once again dragging Kelly authors up the garden path in a fictitious narrative unburdened by documentary evidence.
McMenomy then does a Jones about teh Fitzpatrick incident: “From conflicting accounts it seems most likely…”. Pure Jones again, giving greater weight to demosntrated criminal liars than sworn testimony by Fitzpatrick which, had MNcMenomy not been under teh spell of Jones, he could have taken the trouble to analyse along with Fitzpatrick’s other statements – as I did in my Redeeming Fitzpatrick article – and discover that Fitzpatrick’s testimony can be fleshed out from other of his own statements and very well corroborated.
McMenomy continues: “it seems most likely that he [Dan] or his brother [Ned] heaved teh constable through the back door where he gashed his wrist on the protruding latch.” In other words, take Mrs Kelly’s word for it!! And worse, why would they heave him through the back door when the lounge in which the fracas took place was at the front door?
Then he says, “It seems totally implausible that shjots were fired in a small room crowded with the Kelly family.” Now, which letter of Ned’s did he take that almost directly from? Really, you can’t call this scholarship. It is a total abandonment of critical faculties under the sway of a Kelly-loving narrative dating back through Jones to Kenneally, who gives the story of both brothers throwing Fitzpatrick out the door with him gashing his wrist on the door lock. An utter farce to call that writing history., it is just lazily rewriting fiction
It’s really surprising to realise that not until I did my research for my 2015 Fitzpatrick article, that not one critic had thought to review and analyse all of Fitzpatrick’s statements as the Jonesian narrative was so entranched and dominant. Mind-bogglingly stupid, actually. It shows just how fringe Kelly studies were, that even the few academics that went near it were led by te nose by Jones’s fantasy bulldust.
Attachment
Stuart I believe your quote is from McMenomy 2nd Edition?
Have a look at the attached image : its from McMenomy FIRST edition, which is the one I have. What you see is how significantly McMenomy altered his position between the two : in !st Ed. he attributes the claims about the wrist injury being caused by the door latch, and the idea that Kelly wouldnt have fired in a crowded room to Ned Kelly himself.
In YOUR edition he simply asserts these things as ‘ from the conflicting accounts most likely….’ and neglects to say he is simply repeating Ned Kellys claims.
We’ve tended to focus on Jones as the Chief inventor and purveyor of myth but McMenomy was also heavily involved in it, albeit perhaps largely just pushing Jones ideas, but here we see him adding his own….
Attachment
Hi David, yes, my extracts are from the 2nd edition. As you say, McMenomy has obscured his direct attribution of the claims to Ned Kelly in his first edition to a more “scholarly” presentation of the story in the 2nd edition which just buries the issue by saying that he’s steal clever and even he can’t figure out what happened, LOL. But he has swung more towards Jones’s language of ‘conflicting accounts’ which only Ned-loving geniuses can solve 😂
What he also does is forcibly push a lie: he says “The only believable part of Ned Kelly’s version – with which all the family agree – was that the claim that Mrs Kelly and the two farmers had not been involved in the fight.”
Is this historian on drugs? Mrs Kelly admitted she was there, and so did Williamson in his gaol affadavit. It’s endlessly mind boggling just how badly these Kelly loving nut bags have screwed up fairly basic historical research. And how many general readers are sucked in by these “experts” hook, line and sinker.