To celebrate the 25thAnniversary of the 1967 Kelly Symposium at Wangaratta, a second Kelly Symposium took place at Beechworth, on November 13th and 14th, 1993, but unfortunately no official publication resulted from this second Kelly symposium. However the Lectures were transcribed by a now vanished Kelly enthusiast, Marian Matta, into a document which seems to have circulated within the Kelly world, but which thanks to Bill Denheld, is now available to read and download for free on his terrific website. ( CLICK HERE – its about 70 pages)
The title of the lectures that have been transcribed from the 1993 Symposium were
1. CONVERSATIONS WITH SILENT PICTURES
Keith McMenomy
2. THE KILLINGS AT STRINGYBARK CREEK: NEW EVIDENCE FROM A SURVIVING WITNESS Ian Jones
3. THE TRIAL OF NED KELLY: MR BINDON KNOWS NOTHING OF MY CASE.
The Chief Justice of Victoria, His Honour John H. Phillips
4. THE KELLYS & BEECHWORTH REVISITED
Ian Jones
5. NED KELLY: SOCIAL BANDIT OR RURAL CRIMINAL?
Dr. John McQuilton
6. MODERN MYTH: SIDNEY NOLAN’S NED KELLY
Jane Clark
As I said in one of my comments about the original Symposium at Wangaratta, it was the catalyst to a great flourishing of interest in the Kelly story, and in the years that followed, after a 10 year gestation period there was a proliferation of publications of one kind or another about the Kelly saga: John Molonys “I am Ned Kelly” and “Ned Kelly – After a Century of Acrimony” by John Meredith and Bill Scott, were both published in 1980, the anniversary year of Ned Kelly’s execution. 1980 was also the year that the influential and hugely popular, award winning TV Miniseries “The Last Outlaw” went to air. In 1984 there was Keith McMenomy’s amazing “Ned Kelly : the authentic Illustrated history” in 1987 Doug Morrissey wrote his PhD thesis “A Social History of Kelly Country” , John Phillips published “The Trial of Ned Kelly”, and John McQuilton published “The Kelly Outbreak”. Ian Jones’ “The Friendship that destroyed Ned Kelly” was first published in 1992.
The following year, 1993 when the Symposium was convened, Marian Matta made this extraordinary claim : “The past quarter century has seen Ned and the Kelly Outbreak recognised as a major theme in the study of Australian social history, not just an embarrassing aberration or a case of idiosyncratic criminal behaviour. It would be safe to say that Ned is no longer seen as Colin Caves ‘bearded braggart brawling Irishman; horse thief bank robber bushranger and murderer; the loud mouth lawbreaking swaggering son of an Irish convict’ but as a complex and extraordinary man whose ethical standards and moral courage eclipse his relatively minor criminal tendencies”
“relatively minor criminal tendencies” – Really? And yet that it would seem was how Ned Kelly was increasingly being seen in Australia, a man who had been ‘shabbily treated by the Law of the day’ (Aust Womens weekly 8/10/80) but rebelled and became an Australian Legend!
Two years later, in 1995 Ian Jones finally published the biography that overshadows all other Kelly biographies. “A Short Life” and five years after that one of the enduring images beamed to the entire globe from the opening ceremony of the Sydney Olympics, was of gun-toting Kelly images in the style of the famous Nolan series of oil paintings. As noted above, these images were discussed in great detail at the 1993 Symposium.
There have been many other publications of varying quality, continuing right to the present day, but theres no doubt , 25 years after the first Symposium, and for much of the next 25 years as well, Kelly enthusiasm was huge in Australia.
However, as we discussed in the review of the original Symposium, that enthusiasm is now dramatically on the wane, because key pillars of the Kelly legend have finally been subject to proper scrutiny and the spell cast by Ian Jones is dissipating. We are returning to discover that the truth about Ned Kelly is that he was in fact that man described by Colin Cave and dismissed by Marian Matta, “horse thief, bank robber, bushranger and murderer”
I am a bit Kellyed out at present, after writing up all the reviews of the original Symposium and enduring the onslaught of Kelly trolls on the Ned Kelly :The True Story Facebook page. I suggest readers who are interested download the 1993 Symposium documents from Bill Denhelds website and post their observations and thoughts here. I may yet write up posts on at least a couple of those 1993 papers but for now I’ll wait to see if anyone else is interested in doing so.
(Visited 150 times)
The following drivel will only make sense after you have read the second talk in the 1993 Symposium papers from Bill's site: THE KILLINGS AT STRINGYBARK CREEK –
NEW EVIDENCE FROM A SURVIVING WITNESS
Picture me, in the Wombat Ranges, eight and a half months ago, pushing through dense bush near Stringybark Creek. Ahead in the scrub I see a wombat hole part hidden by fallen branches. At first I'm surprised by this but then I see cubes of fresh scat, indicating the hole is possibly inhabited. I bend towards the hole, curious. I see a slight movement within, and a few centimetres of wombat snout emerge. So as it watches me with one bright, black, wary eye, I say with characteristic wit and originality, "Hello, wombat!" Imagine my amazement as the old warrior raises its furry head and grunts, "Ned Kelly’s a bastard!"
Obviously someone at some time has taught the old fellow’s ancestors this grunt and, of course, the idea is utterly fantastic but could it have been Thomas McIntyre, during his overnight emergency refuge? So with some misgivings but encouraged by the thought this aged twelfth generation wombat isn't going to live much longer in the wild, I take him back to the Melbourne University's Veterinary Science School. Picture six months of extraordinary, trail-blazing research at the School's very well-known Department of Marsupial Psychology, stimulating the old forester’s memories and then training him to put those memories into words. Imagine my feelings as I'm given a recording in which I hear in words sometimes grunted, sometimes squealed, sometimes scarcely audible, what is really a marsupial’s eye view of Stringybark Creek.
Hey Dee, you deserve a holiday. I've enjoyed your take on the 67 symposium very much!
Too bad the Kelly retards are mucking up the FB page. They've got almost nowhere else to comment having destroyed most of the pro-Kelly sites by woeful research, stupid posts and alarming ignorance of the real Kelly story.
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
Justice Phillips, who I much admired when he was with us, acknowledged that Mr Bindon knew nothing about Ned's case. That's because Bindon was a ring in, recently returned from overseas. But Justice Phillips then went on to conjure up the ludicrous self-defense theory at SBC. How could experienced criminals ambush a police party deep in the bush and claim self-defense for killing them?
Justice Phillips cloaked his theory in legalistic gobbledegook in his "The Trial of Ned Kelly".
I doubt he would subscribe to that view if alive today with all the amazing new evidence recently uncovered.
With respect, Phillips is very old commentary, and as you say, not put simply. The key points that are made as to whether or not NK got a fair trial are much better presented by QC Julian Burnside. His article, "R v Edward (Ned) Kelly) is on his website here http://www.julianburnside.com.au/law/r-v-edward-ned-kelly/
According to Burnside, "Kelly was inadequately represented; the only eye-witness was not adequately challenged; a viable case of self-defence was not properly developed. Kelly did not get a fair trial."
When one reviews Burnsides' case, one is immediately struck by how much of his backg tory rests only on Kelly myth. He lists the following points about Kelly: "His family had been victimized by a local policeman, Brook Smith, and probably by others. Kelly himself had had several experiences of rough justice with other policemen. He was a skilled bushman who had no real difficulty keeping out of the way of the police if he chose to. The party carried more weapons and more ammunition than prescribed by regulation. Their equipment included several long straps capable of slinging bodies on a packhorse."
All these points are unfounded or distorted myth. Burnside then adopts the Jerilderie Letter as the basis of his narrative: "Kelly came across their tracks, and recognised them as police tracks because of the distinctive markings on government-issue horseshoes. Together with Dan Kelly, Joe Byrne and Steve Hart he approached the camp and saw two men only: McIntyre and Lonigan." There is nothing here about their watching the camp, or the act of ambush itself. Judge Barry stated clearly that whether the party were a police party, or any other party of citizens, armed or not, the gang had no business to bail them up in an act of armed bushranging, which carried a capital sentence in any case.
Burnside follows the Jerilderie Letter again, that "Scanlon reached for his gun and was shot dead. Kennedy ran for cover and after an exchange of fire he also was shot dead." More nonsense from Kelly. Kennedy was pursued for close to a kilometre before severely wounded and disarmed, then interrogated for an hour and a half on Kelly's own statement, before being shotgunned to death against his request to be given a chance to live, then his corpse robbed. He was on Kelly's own account, murder5ed in cold blood.
After that, we get to Burnsides' discussion of the trial evidence, starting with McIntyre's five statements, and claiming that "They differed in significant details." That is one view, and it is no longer the dominant one for good reasons. The rest of Burnsides' case develops from these foundations or perspective, and needs revisiting.
That is a pretty nasty piece of writing Stuart. As we know, soon after McIntyre disclosed that he had hid in a wombat hole, many branded him a coward and he carried that burden with him to his grave. Our own instincts for survival are very strong and in life and death situations, take over. After what he had witnessed and then his pell-mell ride away from SBC, probably saw him in a state of almost complete psychological breakdown. And of course he had suffered many injuries during that mad ride and was physically exhausted. I think that had I been in the same situation, I too would have welcomed a wombat hole! But what this odious piece of writing really discloses is Ian Jones' apparent distaste for the Kelly era police and McIntyre in particular.
Hi Spudee, I never promised you a baumgarten! I was pretty shocked when I saw the tale Jones told about the imaginary surviving 120 year old cockatoo that abuses Fitzpatrick, hence my spoof. Jones launched plenty of bile at Fitzpatrick and made him the central villain of his 1995 "Short Life". His comments about Fitzpatrick at the start of this 1993 symposium talk show the extraordinary level of bias about Fitzpatrick that underpins his book. It helps see why he ignored the positive comments about Fitzpatrick in Fitzpatrick's Record of Service during his first year in the police force. It helps make clear how he fell under the spell of the Jerilderie letter, the thief's tale, and re-interpreted much of the Kelly story from that perspective, wrongly thinking he had found a hidden truth rather than gaolbird talk.
As I showed in my "Redeeming Fitzpatrick" article (anyone can Google to find it), Jones twisted and misrepresented historical evidence to conduct his vile campaign against the memory of Fitzpatrick, who was a respected and popular constable at Lancefield, after the Kelly saga, until he was hounded out of the force by the Lancefield Officer in Charge from personal bias and following some dodgy behaviour in NSW, again after all the Kelly stuff. It's all documented in my article for anyone that hasn't heard it before. The Kelly story is one of the best documented historical episodes in existence, yet enthusiasts have let their biases and imaginations run riot against abundant evidence to the contrary. School teachers are still teaching retarded old crap about the glorious Kellys, by the way. Curriculum is as ever a good 20 years behind the times.
Stewart you say “Kennedy was pursued for close to a kilometre before severely wounded and disarmed, then interrogated for an hour and a half on Kelly's own statement, before being shotgunned to death against his request to be given a chance to live,” can you please tell us when Kelly said this and give a reference.
Burnside also contended in another blog that Lonigan shot himself in the leg attempting to unholster his revolver. Macfarlane's book completely demolished this theory, noting Ned's under-powered pocket Colt, which earlier caused Fitspatrick's superficial wrist wound, was most likely responsible.
Ned was possibly lucky Burnside was not available to him back then.
Cam I agree the idea he shot himself in the leg is ridiculous – he didn't have the time needed for a start, to unbuckle the holster and get it out, and the wound would have been huge – it wasn't.
But if you think it was Ned who shot him in the thigh with a revolver, when do you think that would have happened? It had to be when he was still alive as the autopsy report was that all the wounds were inflicted before death, and McIntyre only ever said there was one gunshot….
Stuart, if I may. Kindle edition of Ellen by Grantlee's Kieza (no page number in my edition) where he cites Sergeant Kennedy's Last Moments, Argus (Melbourne) 13 December 1878 and The Kelly Gang, Wilson Hall, page 34.
Stuart I hope you didn't think I was referring to your writing as I was actually commenting on Jones' wombat story. By the way, I like the Baumgarten quip. Very witty!
Thank you Spudee but why you are answering for Stuart. Is it to save him embarrassment as no such statement by Kelly exists? Both citations come from the same source GW Hall and he cites a source not Kelly himself. This is like quoting Dee because it is written on her blog. So the answer to my question is there is no proof only hearsay. Why cant we deal with facts and not fiction?
Hi Anonymous, if you download my free transcript of Hall's "Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges", the Kennedy saga is pages 47-55.
Hi Spudee, of course I knew you were referring to Jones' cockatoo story in the seminar, not my wombat spoof of it. (There still seems a little confusion there, the way you put it!) And anyone is welcome to comment on discussions, they are not the province of the person who first posted…
BTW does anyone remember the song ‘Eat, root and leave’, by the very forgettable 80’s post-punk pub band, ‘Kelly and the Wombats’? Now I have to get some work done; back tomorrow maybe.
Hi Anonymous, you're right, Hall is not Kelly himself. Hall presented both sides of the story as his investigations showed it, including directly sourcing his story from the Kelly gang as he says. He is the only such contemporary source to have done so. If that is not good enough, so be it. BTW I can't see any connection between quoting Hall who was there in 1878 and investigated both sides at length, and quoting Dee or anyone else modern and pretending they were a contemporary source of the Kelly era. Hall is; anyone later is commentary. There is no proof of body straps either; it is only hearsay. Yet some have invested much energy into pushing that barrow. So we are back into balancing historical sources. With Hall, I think it is fair to say he did his best as he saw it to present both sides of the story, and it is not written unfavourably to the Kellys.
My sincere apologies 'Anonymous', I was simply trying to help.
Stuart I don't remember that song but certain fellow antipodeans habits were likened to a flightless national bird because it eats roots and leaves. But I hope I wasn't the only one who laughed at your "I never promised you a baumgarten…"
I beg your pardon.
Anonymous even if Stuart could give you a quote from Ned Kelly about Kennedys death, you still would have no idea if you were dealing with fact or fiction. I don't say that simply because we know Ned Kelly was a notorious liar but because something doesn't become a fact just because someone says it is a fact. However it would be a fact to write that Hall claimed that Ned Kelly told him …..{certain things about Kennedys death)…..but this makes for pretty ponderous prose. So I believe Hall certainly heard this from Kelly but as Kelly told other self-serving lies about what happened at SBC I have my doubts that Kelly told the truth about Kennedys death.
Hi Dee and Anonymous, my point is simply that Hall claims to have gone to great trouble to get "as truthful .. a story as possible … from the best and most reliable sources", and that "no pains have been spared in travelling for its collection" (Preface), including sending someone out to meet the Kelly gang in the bush. Hall is as reliable a source as any of Kelly's statements relayed to the papers of the day by others, e.g. by his hostages at the banks and Glenrowan. I am not critiquing Hall here; I am citing him as contemporary evidence, which he was much better placed to get than anyone today (unless they can rebuild Black Adder's time machine).
Dee you are correct with “but because something doesn't become a fact just because someone says it is a fact. However it would be a fact to write that Hall claimed that Ned Kelly told him …..{certain things about Kennedys death)” but Stuart is stating it is fact with no mention of Hall.
Spudee, not a problem I just thought Stuart was old enough to answer for himself.
Stuart thank you for your reply. You now quote correctly from Hall that he used the best and most reliable sources though you did not state that on the several occasions you have mentioned these things. People reading your posts will think you are quoting fact and this is misleading. Hall did not attribute any quotes directly to Kelly any any one person.
When we assure our readers that we obtained a great part of our information from the very best authorities, and that, to say the least, no pains have been spared in travelling for its collection, with that view, we give, by inference, but a meagre idea of the great difficulties we have had to contend with at the outset of our enterprise.
Stuart in your notes on page 31 you say.
23 The cloak was likely draped over the corpse in an attempt to conceal it from discovery. As Hall has related, Kennedy was chased over half a kilometre through the bush and shot as he tried to surrender. Despite his plea to be let live, he was subsequently shot gunned to death by Ned Kelly on Kelly’s own account, and his corpse looted. Ned Kelly kept his watch as a souvenir. (Joe Byrne took and wore Lonigan’s and Scanlon’s rings.) Fifteen years after the murder, a Kelly cousin sold the watch for £10 to a publican, who had advertised for it so as to return it to Kennedy’s family (Brian Cookson, “The Kelly Gang from Within”, Sydney Sun, 14 Sept. 1911; cf. Argus, 25 April 1893, p. 5; Royal Commission Minutes, Q.14791). Kennedy’s face was so mutilated that his wife was prevented from viewing the body.
Did I miss Hall saying the cape was to hide the body? Are you saying Kelly said this to Hall? And “Despite his plea to be let live, he was subsequently shot gunned to death by Ned Kelly on Kelly’s own account” you this came from Kellys mouth. Again misleading. And “Kennedy’s face was so mutilated that his wife was prevented from viewing the body.” This looks like an attempt to say Kelly did this and was a monster.
Only those who were there know what really happened and to present heresay as fact is not good historical research so leaves your writing on the subject highly questionable like some of Dees tall stories. I also failed to find where Hall states he or others on his behalf spoke to the Kelly Gang. Even if Hall got it second hand it is still heresay.
I dont object to some of my writing being called Dees tall stories, but I wish if people think thats what they are they would post a comment and say why. ( and abusing me is not what I am talking about)
Anonymous your line of argument seems to be a kind of radical scepticism when it comes to sources which, disallowing what you call hearsay. I keep hearing this idea that only the people who were there know what really happened – though even that isn't necessarily correct – but It seems to be a mantra that is recited like a spell that gives permission for anything to be dismissed, but also for anything else to be asserted, and is a partner to the 'Ned Kelly hero or villain – you decide' false dichotomy which again has the effects of suggesting to everyone that really whatever you decide was the truth of the matter, your opinion is as good as anyones. In fact opinions are not all equal. But if anonymous line is applied to Kelly history, there will be large chunks of Ian Jones 'tall stories' that would be inadmissable because he relied on hearsay of many Kelly country old-timers, descendants and so on. Kelly history is rife with anecdote and 'family tradition" and so forth. How do you get round all that Anonymous?
Hi Anonymous, when you say “I just thought Stuart was old enough to answer for himself”, you may be wrong. (Just saying.) Or perhaps you think I spend all day looking at this blog and owe an immediate response as soon as you post something online. Hmmm… I might need time to reflect… I might need to look up a reference…. It’s a very academic thing, arguing the toss and expecting people to furnish instant knowledgeable answers on the run. But I have never worked like that. Let us turn to the post.
E. Rickards (1920), “Bishop Moorhouse of Melbourne and Manchester”, Moorhouse relates, “When I was at Mansfield they brought in the body of Sgt Kennedy. … I was fortunately able to prevent his poor widow from going in to see the poor disfigured corpse”, p. 128. There is no implication anywhere in my notes there that Kelly or the others did any bodily disfiguring of Kennedy. You seem to be making a straw argument here, about what you think I might have said but didn't.
Hall, “Outlaws”, pages 130-131 is where Hall’s associate meets and speaks with the Kelly gang. It’s hard to miss, actually, as the “traveller meets the Kellys” narrative fills chapters 24 and 25 of his book. Perhaps you wish to reject Hall’s book as a valid historical source?
With respect, you appear to be trying to represent one of my footnoted comments as pretending to be a statement by Kelly. Footnotes are for comment/discussion; and as I said on page ii of the PDF, are done that way so as to be obviously separate from Hall’s text. You’re clearly a smart chap and don’t need me to explain that; so I have to assume you’re taking the mickey.
If we were to say that only those who were there (at Stringybark Creek) know what really happened, we are reduced to McIntyre’s statement vs the Cameron/Jerilderie letters, plus a few other scattered statements by Ned Kelly. Perhaps you would favour us readers with your opinion as to which of these two gave the truer narrative of events?
Stuart you are very clever in the way you present things and play on words to suit your narrative. By your own quote “I was fortunately able to prevent his poor widow from going in to see the poor disfigured corpse”, is quite different to “Kennedy’s face was so mutilated that his wife was prevented from viewing the body.”
Like your claim “The cloak was likely draped over the corpse in an attempt to conceal it from discovery.” You completely dismiss the account in the Cameron/Jerilderie letters regarding the placing of then cloak over Kennedy’s body, yet do not question Kellys praise of him. To conceal a body in the bush, most people would not have walked back to the camp to retrieve a cloak they would have used the abundance of tree branches at the scene. Please don’t ask how I know there would be an abundance of branches to cover the body as this would be evident to anyone who has been outside the city.
Footnotes can also be used to add legs or push an opinion where the narrative fails to do so as you have done so here. People like Dee and Spudee hang off your every word take it as gospel and are likely to use your view because Stuart said so and he would know and quote it as fact.
Dee seeing an obvious misrepresentation of something is not some kind of radical skepticism. What I have pointed out is not oral history being dismissed, it is pure fabrication presented as fact but this would not bother you as you thrive on such things. If you fill in gaps with an opinion or theory then state that and don’t present it a fact.
Also found much of what I have posted is also mentioned in Ian Jones' Ned Kelly – A Short Life (p.137 & 138).
Anonymous, a lengthy article was published in the Ovens and Murray Advertiser on 14 December 1878. Most of it deals with the Euroa hold up and what Ned had said to some of his captives ("conversed freely") about Stringybark Creek. In a section of the article entitled 'Kelly's Account of How the Police were Shot' Ned spoke of the wounding of Sgt Kennedy. In yet another sub-section entitled 'Death of Sergeant Kennedy' he apparently said that he and Dan following Kennedy for "…about a quarter of a mile…". Ned then actually make a very interesting statement "…as I came within pistol shot he (Kennedy) fired his LAST (my emphasis) remaining charge." This shot apparently went just over Ned's head. Ned then fires again and Kennedy fell at the foot of the tree where his body was later located. Not sure how Ned knew that Kennedy had fired his '…last remaining charge' but apparently he did. So why the need to fire again at Kennedy who was not only wounded but apparently, according to what Ned said, holding an empty pistol?
Ned is then reported to have told his Euroa hostages that "I should say we were with him for two hours TRYING TO GET WHAT INFORMATION WE COULD OUT OF HIM (my emphasis)". He then goes on to say that during this time Kennedy "…always endeavoured to turn the conversation in the direction of domestic affairs, his home, his wife and family…" and the recent death of his child. This to me is interesting as it seems to add credence to the reporting of Ned's conversation with his Euroa captives. Ned then speaks of Kennedy's obvious suffering and agony and that he decided to put the wounded policeman out of his misery. Ned is then reported to have said "When he saw that I was going to shoot him he begged of me to leave him alive, saying 'Let me alone to live, if I can, for the sake of my wife and family. You surely have shed blood enough.'"
Stuart in answer to your question, I believe a lot of was McIntyre said was true, but not all. Much agreed with Kellys version and McIntyre said Kelly showed remorse at killing Lonigan and his true intention was to get Kennedy and Scanlan to surrender.
McInyres version shows there was no intent to kill anyone so the presumption of murder was wrong. I’m sure you understand the definition of murder as judge Barry certainly did. From your comments 17 page 21. “In his summing up at Ned Kelly’s trial for the murder of Constable Lonigan, Judge Barry directed the jury that, “If two or three or more persons made preparation, with malice aforethought, to murder an man, and he was murdered, even if some being present ready to assist did not take any actual part in the murder, they would be principals in the second degree and as equally guilty of the crime as the man who actually committed it”, and that the same applied in the present situation.”
According to McIntyre there was no malice aforethought (premeditation or predetermination) or intent of murder, it was to capture and disarm. This also fits what Kelly claimed. I’m sure you Dee and Spudee will want to argue this point but the facts remain as thus. Of course the absence of malice aforethought opens a whole new avenue of which you have all made your feeling known so there is no point in continuing this line of thought as blind hatred will never soften or see reason.
I think it can be argued that the reason Neds account of SBC is similar to McINtyres, is because Ned wrote his account long after McIntyres and so had plenty of time to work it up into something self serving but plausible. We KNOW Ned Kelly told many big lies and I wouldn't regard him as a reliable witness of anything. He LIED about the Fitzpatrick affair, he LIED about what happened to Lonigan, he forged signatures and lied to protect his brother, he even attempted to deny he was a horse thief he wrote amazing lies from prison not long before he was hanged…a totally unbelievable liar.
In relation to the question of malice aforethought, and Lonigans death, I am inclined to agree that there was none. In fact there was a complete absence of 'aforethought ' of any kind whatsoever. What happened was that the impetuous and violent hothead Ned Kelly stupidly launched himself and the gang members into an outrageously dangerous and unpredictable confrontation with Police, and as a result three Police died. As Professor Louis Waller explain HALF A CENTURY AGO there was never actually any need to prove malice aforethought in the case of Police Killing, because Police have a double protection under law : If you kill a Policeman in the lawful execution of his duty, its murder. Period. ( to quote Sean Spicer ) Not manslaughter but Murder. That was the law in 1878 and in 1967 and I presume still today, but Kelly fanciers have still not got the message.
If you think that Ned Kelly believed it was either kill the police or be killed, that the police were about to behave UNLAWFULLY and so he killed in self defence, then in the case of Lonigan such an argument could be put. However, neither Waller or Judge Phillips was prepared to say that that defence would have been successful. Their criticism was that because that possibility was not put before the Jury, Ned did not receive a fair trial. They never said if it had been he would have been acquitted. And certainly both also said the same arguments could NOT have been made in regard to Kennedy, and on that killing its hard to imagine how he wouldn't have been convicted of murder, and hanged as was the usual custom of the day.
All these arguments about self defence and malice aforethought relate to Lonigans death. Is there anyone in the Kelly world who would argue Kelly didn't MURDER Kennedy? Anonymous ? Or have you excused yourself from the debate now because you can see where its going ?
Hi Anonymous, I see that Spudee has just cited an article from Ovens and Murray Advertiser on 14 December 1878, which corroborates Hall's presentation of events, and does do by quoting witnesses to Kelly's own words.
If you would take the trouble to read Rickard's chapter before saying that I am being clever and playing on words, you will see that me the Bishop's quote, “I was fortunately able to prevent his poor widow from going in to see the poor disfigured corpse”, is the source evidence for my sentence, “Kennedy’s face was so mutilated that his wife was prevented from viewing the body.” I anticipated that objection when I wrote that note in the first place, as it is straight from Moorhouse; whether that is clever or not, or just stating facts, is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that it shows who has done their homework before going public.
The rest of my comments on Moorhouse are in the last note (n. 29) of my Hall transcript, where Moorhouse speaks of the "horror of the deed" (SBC), and that "bushranging is so horrible, … so abominable a thing, that it must be stamped out at any cost". Would you not agree that this is a reasonable position to take?
Stuart a “poor disfigured corpse” is a lot different to “Kennedy’s face was so mutilated”, no matter how you dress it up. Also your claim Kennedy’s body was covered with the cape to hide it. These are you words and a complete fabrication and not everyone is fooled by what you write. Obviously some here haven’t got the grey matter to see the truth and are following you like lemmings over the proverbial cliff of misinformation. I knew it would be futile to point these things out and it only caused your attack dogs (Dee and Spudee) to spring into action. If my comments have helped one person to see through the hypocrisy of this blog then my time has not been completely wasted but I will not waste any more of it.
Hi Anonymous, see Hall, p. 73, "The head and face of the corpse, which was in an advanced state of decomposition, presented a shocking appearance, being swollen and discoloured so as almost to defy recognition, while the fleshy part of the nose and the right ear had been eaten away by insects." I think it is very rude of you to refer to Dee and Spudee as "attack dogs", especially to link them with me as such, when this is a blog that anyone including yourself can post on. I have noting to do with either of them except for commenting on this blog, and haven't agreed with everything either of them have said on a umber of occasions. You are now also abusing other people as not having enough grey matter to see the truth, whatever you think that is but haven't presented, and say they are following me like lemmings! Unbelievable.
First you misrepresent my Hall book footnote comments as masquerading as the words of Kelly, then you attack my paraphrase of Bishop Moorhouse without having a clue where it came from, as the source is not in that note – nor need it to have been. It is my note, not a historical thesis. What are you doing, marking my post as an essay? I encourage anyone else who may be interested in this increasingly nonsensical analysis of one of my footnoted comments about GW Hall's "Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges", to download a copy free from Bill's Iron-Icon website (or now the Trove library link), and enjoy Hall's classic text (with bonus debateable footnotes) for themselves, free of charge. I also invite people who have a problem with any of my footnotes to ignore them if they're not happy. You must read articles in the newspapers every day that you don't agree with. What's the big deal about Kelly? There are multiple opinions on Kelly and the boys, and no-one is obliged to agree with any of mine. I couldn't care less. Instead of putting me down, and others with whom I am happy to blog about it with, why not write your own contribution to the debate instead of poo-pooing other people's efforts?
The reality is this: I spent a few weeks polishing up Hall's 1879 almost inaccessible classic "Outlaws" book as a transcript for interested historians. I gave it away totally free online, so anyone can read it, circulate it, etc. I put about 30 footnotes in, of which you don't like 2. Now you think you have a right to repeatedly insult me and anyone else about it; call us lemmings, and so on. Well, goody for you, anonymous. If my lips teach the public that men are made mad by bad manners, and if anonymous bloggers are taught that that they may exasperate to madness men they persecute and ill-treat, my life will not be entirely thrown away.
Anonymous – how did McIntyre know that Ned had "no malice aforethought" in his doings at SBC? Only Ned could have known this.
McIntyre witnessed it first hand by not being murdered by hiding assailants and he also said this in his statements and memoirs when talking to his captors. That is why he asked Kelly to let him try to get Kennedy and Scanlan to surrender. Would he have done so if he thought they would be murdered the minute they threw down their arms?
As I said , I don't think there was 'aforethought' of any kind. And you're probably right – he came thinking he could just disarm the police and ride off with their guns and ammo and it would be all fine. Maybe we could have a discussion about how sensible a plan that was – Ive already said I think it was crazy reckless foolish plan that he didn't think through, and probably was based on his experience with Harry Power who had charm and intelligence that Kelly did t have, so always managed to get what he wanted from travellers by waving a gun in their faces. But Powers victims weren't armed Police, and he seemed to know how to intimidate sufficiently to get submission rather than provoke an escalation in violence.
What do you think anonymous?
I think your baiting me. With the demeaning comments you make you are incapable of having a civilized debate as your judgment is far too closed and clouded.
Anonymous, I am surprised you say that I am incapable of having a civilised debate because I would say I have been very civil in this debate, whereas you have called me an attack dog, referred to 'lemmings', 'tall stories' and the 'hypocrisy' of my Blog, mentioned 'blind hatred' and said I thrive on such things as 'pure fabrication presented as fact'.
Ive made light of or just ignored all those uncivilised references of yours and tried to keep the debate on topic. Ive agreed with you about 'malice aforethought' and introduced some ideas into the discussion about that, and expressed my own view of what might or might not have been happening inside Neds head when he decided to confront the Police.
None of that was "baiting'" – just because I have views and I express them without compromise this doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding and thinking about the views of others, and even changing my mind now and then.
But anonymous no one is duty-bound to defend the Kelly legends. In fact, it seems theres almost nobody who wants to do anything about defending them other than by attacking me personally and trying to silence me, so I appreciated your willingness to do what so few of the rest of your mob ever do. But what you do now is your call.
Dee I did not want to post here because of the way you and your followers treat any dissenters and the only purpose was for pointing out Stuart Dawsons indefensible claims and misleading you and others. Stuart made a feeble attempt to defend his words but didn’t address that he was being misleading in the way he wrote about it. On his claim the cloak was to hide the body he stayed well clear of as he knows that was pure fabrication, again designed to mislead. I am pleased you now see that there was no malice aforethought on behalf of Kelly, but why do your supporters go missing in action when they are presented with something they cannot side step or counter like a politician and change the subject. I now know what others have faced when posting here, maybe I’ll be back maybe not.
Hi Anonymous, you still seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between a quote, a comment, and an opinion. After your last hissy fit you said you wouldn't be back, so I didn't respond further. The bit about the cloak is the only point I didn't waste time on. It is a comment, a possible explanation, as good as any other. The only other "explanation" is Kelly's, from a letter full of lies and distortions. Your anonymous reply went on about how you know there are trees in the bush and the body could have been covered with branches without going back to retrieve Kennedys' cloak. You weren't there either. You don't know he wasn't wearing it the whole time. You don't know if Kelly's tale should be believed. You said, "I believe a lot of was McIntyre said was true, but not all", which suggests (although I may be wrong) that you accept the parts of McIntyre's statement that agree with what Kelly said, and not the parts that don't. If this is the case, I can read the Jerilderie Letter for myself. You haven't admitted that the newspaper quoted above by Spudee, that Ned is then reported to have told his Euroa hostages that "I should say we were with him for two hours TRYING TO GET WHAT INFORMATION WE COULD OUT OF HIM", corroborated Hall's commentary and my mention of it. You said I was implying that the Kellys mutilated Kennedy's face when I said no such thing, and you obviously hadn't read through Hall, who says – as I subsequently quoted – p. 73, "The head and face of the corpse, which was in an advanced state of decomposition, presented a shocking appearance, being swollen and discoloured so as almost to defy recognition, while the fleshy part of the nose and the right ear had been eaten away by insects." That is a fact from Hall, and your attempts to imply that I am saying anything contrary to Hall are ludicrous. I am not Dee and don't have her policies, so I'll say this: I have answered you so far using your
"Anonymous" title. When you can put your name to your comments, I will be happy to debate them further. Until then, I have put up with your abuse and misrepresentations of my footnote long enough. If you don't like my book, send it back for a full refund. If you do like it, read the whole thing through before you start niggling, and put your real name to your comments if you want any further replies from me.
Stuart Ive received quite a few angry requests via Comments that I haven't posted, that this Anonymous no longer be allowed to post here, along the lines of your complaint. It would be hypocrisy for me to ban anyone on the basis that they were anonymous – but there have been many comments that I haven't posted on the basis they were rude and just personal attacks.
As I commented a couple of days ago, this Anonymous has indeed posted some personal attacks on me, and now on you but, so far I have allowed them through on the basis that they accompanied an attempt to conduct a legitimate argument ( giving anonymous the benefit of the doubt )
I would request that if this 'anonymous' returns to the Blog that future comments are respectful and offered in the spirit of true debate. I want the debates to continue not descend into slanging matches that I have to delete.
Stuart it looks like I hit a nerve. You appear to have a issue with people posting anonymously yet posting on a blog of an anonymous person doesn’t bother you. Can we now add hypocrite to your list of failings?
To any reasonable person that read the footnote mentioned would think that what you presented was fact. You know well the power of words as they are the tools of your trade. Kelly was claimed to have said many things to groups yet there is ever only one that seems to recall these things, never and corroborating evidence from others present. You would be quick to dismiss anything negative said about police. And whether Kennedy was wearing his coat or not, if you want to hide a body in the bush you would cover it with branches shrubs leaves or what ever was available to make it blend in. You are fee to write what you want but if you are misleading expect to be challenged.
Anonymous , was it really necessary to provoke with the comment about being a hypocrite? In the future no comments on this topic from you that contain gratuitous insults will appear on the blog. That was your last warning.
Hi Anonymous, I have no issue at all with people posting anonymously provided they stick to the issue and don't get abusive. I have had discussions with many anonymous people over the years, and with named people in various countries who I know nothing about personally and have never met or are likely to. I see you have now added "hypocrite" your list of my failings, and yet I have answered you throughout under your title of "Anonymous", despite your stream of insults. Furthermore, I couldn't care less who Dee is; at least she doesn't insult me like you do, although she has argued against some of the things I have said. Your next sentence says that Kelly's various reported statements to groups of people are not cross-collaborated by multiple people. So you don't accept historical witness testimony whenever it differs from Ned's version, unless there are multiple witnesses? Then you assume that I "would be quick to dismiss anything negative said about police". Hmmm, smelly lot, the police, especially the ones in Aaron Sherritt's hut for days on end… Pity that Byrne and young Danny went there so Byrne could shoot the unarmed Sherritt to death in front of his mother and his wife. Our Kelly gang heroes. Real men. BTW any reasonable person reading my much disputed footnote 23 (get yourselves a free copy of Hall's book from the Iron-Icon website if you've just arrived at this discussion) would probably think it said what it said in plain English… Maybe I'll do an Esperanto edition just for you. I see you aren't man enough to use your own name yet while you continue your insult parade. Ned Kelly would never have backed away like that. It's interesting that you say words are the tools of my trade. Should I use semaphore? What about humming? I'm not sure how else I can blog. Maybe I'll do it in cartoons and see if I can upload them somehow. Maybe I'll write my own Ned Kelly picture book. Hey, that's a great idea! Thanks, anonymous, I'll make it my next artistic project. First frame: Ned Kelly on the scaffold. (Like the Kelly film with Jagger, start with a retrospective.) "Such is life", the poor sod says, as the evil Upjohn puts the rope around his neck, carbuncled nose bulging. Second frame, the stork arrives flying towards the Kelly ramshackle hut, baby Ned dangling in a swaddling cloth from its beak. It is December 1854; the smoke from Eureka blows over from Ballarat, infusing the infant with a spirit of rebellion. Oops, editorial, it was June 1855 – see Alan Creighton's excellent article on the Iron Outlaw site at http://www.ironoutlaw.com/keep-ya-powder-dry/ned-kellys-lost-birthday/
Another myth bites the dust. Another myth bites the dust. Another myth bites, another myth bites, another myth bites the dust.
Saying you are ‘misleading’ is offensive to you and others here. You fail to comprehend or take on board the points I made which were quite valid. How dare anyone question Stuart or his motives. Yet being condescending and sarcastic towards somebody who does not agree with you is perfectly ok. You like many here use very derogatory and insulting terms towards Kelly and those who you believe support him to provoke a response yet are become furious when ignored. If somebody does engage they are accused of hero worship of a murderer and liar plus any other derogatory thing that can be thought of. Who would want to come here and invite such distasteful comments to be directed at them? This blog is a closed shop with everyone repeating the same thing and lots of back slapping. I should have known better that to post at all.
You are much too kind Dee. In my post (which you deleted) I identified this serial internet pest and timewaster who has misidentified you (yet again) on his FB hatepage against that book he thought was good dunny paper. Get rid of the daft, fat, retired, aging Irish Sod!
Dee you said to me (In the future no comments on this topic from you that contain gratuitous insults will appear on the blog.) Obviously this does not apply to Horrie in his personal attack on somebody. The FB hatepage horrie mentions is often referred to here so what is it. Do you have link as I would like to see who Horrie has misidentified me as. As you posted Horries comment it would seem that I was right about how people are treated here that do not agree with you. This is a very nasty place no wonder people dont question what is said here. Horrie I may be daft (what ever that means) but I am not irish aging fat or retired. Is Horrie short for horrible.
Horrie can you please express yourself in less derogatory terms? As you correctly say I have deleted some of your comments even though I am inclined to agree with their sentiments, because its not helpful to be personally abiusive. I know who you're referring to as a 'daft fat tired aging Irish sod', but I have no way of knowing if that person is the person presently posting as 'anonymous' so I think its better if we stop trying to guess at who is posting what and focus on the content of their comment. If you disgree with it please say why rather than just abuse the person making it.
Some points I will make here after reading so much about the SBC events, is that no one has actually discussed why the 4 men were in the Stringybark Creek area at that time. Everyone takes the angle that they were "on the run" but were they? Why hide down there? Plenty of better places to hide where they would never be found.
Also I have read nothing hear about the misdemeanours of Const. Alexander Fitzpatrick. Why was he sent to the North East from Richmond in Melbourne? What about the fiance and the other young girl in Frankston he fathered a child to? Why was he really dismissed from the force after Ellen Kelly was charged, convicted and imprisoned? Why do modern day descendants of Alexander Fitzpatrick have nothing nice to say about him? When you can answer these questions without bias, then you can give a proper informed account of what happened at SBC, and also the Fitzpatrick incident at the Kelly House at Greta. Until then I suggest you all go away and do some proper research yourselves rather than just opening someone authors book and quoting their words as being the real facts about what happened. And in the laughable accounts re McIntyre's statement, no one has mentioned that he and Ned chatted in the train on the return journey to Beechworth. No one mentioned that McIntyre was in the Beechworth gaol with Const. Bill Moore, sharing the condemned mans cell, and watching Ned's cell door day and night, so having plenty of opportunity to talk to Ned. I doubt that any of you even know which cell Ned was in when he was in the Beechworth Gaol in 1880. So can I suggest that so many of you who know so little go away, hide all the books written by other people with biased opinions, and do some honest and serious research. It's becoming childish on here.
Darren do you think the Kelly brothers were NOT on the run? Ive always wondered why if they were convinced of their innocence, they fled the Kelly home the very same night of the Fitzpatrick incident, before the Police had time to do anything let alone issue warrants for anyones arrest.
Darren, are you for real? The murderous yobbos were in hiding at German's alternatively Kelly's Creek since the attempted murder of Fitzpatrick. This was about a mile from where the police murders took place at Stringybark Creek.
What on earth have you been reading that you didn't know these simple facts?
Daft: Silly; foolish.
Hi Dee, as I pointed out in my several deleted posts Anonymous gave himself away with the misspelled word in one of his posts. He consistently misspells this word. As well, this is the fourth Anonymous timewasting attack on your blog in three months. You and Stuart because of your accommodating natures are prepared to respond to these bankers.
I am not.
I am not sure if anyone has replied to this before I did since we have moderation on due to all of the abusers, so excuse me if I am echoing anyone else.
Darren, anyone who has been in the Kelly world for even a short while and who has read Molony knows all about FitzP and his seduction of gullible young women and subsequent "shot gun" wedding and so forth. We have talked at length about FitzP and his dismissal and about Mayes' opinion of him and the petitions and all of the shenanigans that FitzP was involved in during his duty in Sydney. Stuart Dawson and his "Redeeming Fitzpatrick" article gives his interpretation of events of April 1878 but one can read Jones and others for other views. As for me, I have a very low opinion of Alexander Fitzpatrick.
Everyone who has read McIntyre's memoirs knows about how Mac had accompanied Ned on the train to Beechworth with the infamous "Et tu, Brute" comment being uttered by Ned. I am not sure what went on during the return trip, though. One thing that I don't understand is where you say that McIntyre, due to the positioning of the cell he was bunking in could watch Ned's cell door and, thus, have opportunity to have conversations with him. In the memoirs he says that the cell he himself was in immediately faced the gallows but that the cell Ned was in was "one of the lower cells on the other side of the corridor almost directly opposite to me." Could he see the cell door from that angle? I am not familiar with the layout but I know that you are. Even if he could watch him, he did NOT talk with Ned from his cell, though, as he stated that while he was on sentry duty Ned was outside and Ned had tried to get into a convo – "[Ned was] waving his hand he seemed inclined to enter into conversation. FEARING TO INFRINGE THE JAIL REGULATIONS BY CONVERSING WITH HIM I waved my hand to him and walked out of his sight." So, it would seem that McIntyre did not take advantage of any opportunity to have conversation with Ned at Beechworth Gaol.
Hi Darren, I did a Beechworth gaol tour about 3 years ago, great tour, and I remember that the guide pointed out the cell Ned Kelly occupied, and also mentioned there used to be dark cells (underground punishment cells) at Beechworth, but they had been covered over at some point and had not been relocated. In his Jerilderie letter, Ned wrote that he “got 3 years experience in Beechworth Pentridges dungeons” (p. 12). I searched without success for gaol plans, and for prison offences books that also listed punishments such as floggings and dark cells, with how many days were given. I was unable to find where the old gaol records are now, or what has survived. We know from Castieau’s memoir there was a dark cell at the old Melbourne Gaol, and we know there were a couple of dark cells in Pentridge (B division, I think, but don’t quote me). Do you know if any Beechworth dark cells have ever been located, or any relevant records? This might explain the reference to “dungeons” in the Jerilderie letter.
Re. Fitzpatrick’s descendants, I have only been able to locate one, on a genealogy site, and he seems to have a different take. He says, “Alexander Wilson Fitzpatrick was the Constable involved with the Ned Kelly saga. Much misleading information has been written about him and his role in the Ned Kelly story.” There is nothing more on it, and my couple of attempts to contact him got rejected email address messages. Maybe he has some different knowledge from the 140 years of Fitzpatrick bashing that was all anyone had to go on before my Fitzpatrick article. BTW, I was not writing a lifetime character reference for Fitzpatrick, just examining his role in the 1878 Kelly affair and showing that most of what had been written about that particular part of his life and role was bunkum.
I have spoken at length with Fitzpatricks descendants and they do not have anything nice to say about him.
Henry Golding, where did you get YOUR information? I never said they weren't on the run I simply asked the question. I also question your comments. At the time they were hiding at Germans Gully they had not committed murder, or robbed banks, or tried to derail a train. Neither did the armour exist either. So what about Ned and Joe and the goldmine near SBC. Were they mining for gold to raise money for an appeal to get Ellen out of the Beechworth Gaol? If so where was the mine near SBC? I know, and have been there, but has anyone on this forum? I doubt it.
Sharon, McIntyre could clearly see Ned's cell from the cell he and Bill Moore shared. McIntyres cell door was not closed so if he leaned on the railing he would have been say 10 or 12 feet from the door of Ned's cell. Again I question the source being Moloney's book.
Stuart, as for the underground cells in the Beechworth Gaol, I can assure you they exist, and considerable effort is being made to find the entrance which was filled with rubble and cemented over in 1977. I have spoken to someone who went down there in 1977. Ned's comment in reference to Beechworth Gaol's dungeons most likely refers to the normal miserable cells rather than the solitary cells under the floor.
My point here is that everyone bases their opinion of the Kelly story on books written by people many years after the Kelly era was over.
My other point here is that there have many attacks on people who have an opinion on the Kelly story, either way, but whose information is simply based on some previous authors writings. Do your own research folks as I do. You will find out much more.
Hi Darren, I am fascinated that you have met someone who saw the Beechworth underground cells in 1977 and that attempts continue to locate the entrance, which I hope is successful. I have been able to find limited info about other underground cells in other prisons of that era, both in Australia and England. Some were fully dark cells, i.e. no light at all, whereas some underground cells were almost no light but not totally black. The OMG and Pentridge cells appear to have been totally dark underground cells; the Beechworth ones being underground sound likely to have been the same. As Ned was imprisoned in a hulk at one point, as well as various holding cells and above ground cells, I'm speculating that his bitterness and use of "dungeons" might possibly have been intensified by additional punishment in dark cells. Only speculation, but worth keeping an eye on in case anything turns up. Some Beechworth prison records apparently went to Melbourne when it was shut. Some of the Melbourne records at inaccessible due to "fragility" and have not been indexed or catalogued, so no-one knows what may turn up. It's silly keeping them locked away; they should be scanned as PDFs and made available online before they all just rot away.
Darren, what you are suggesting, that everyone has to do their own research before they have an opinion worth listening to, is contrary to the way all of science and all of the accumulated knowledge of the entire human story works. Every advance there has ever been in knowledge and human understanding has come about because people have accepted the validated research findings of people who have gone before, and have then added to it, improved it, broadened and enriched it. When it comes to what you know about plate tectonics and the science of how rocks were formed, or the periodic table or the story of the second world war or even the story of Ned Kelly,did you go and re-discover all these things for yourself? Of course you didn't. What you did was accept what you were taught and what you learned from the books written by learned experts down through the ages. And then, perhaps added your own insights and discoveries to the accumulated wisdom. There is abslutely nothing wrong with having an opinion 'based on some previous authors writings' Your advice is even more ironic when one considers the fact that when the ANSTO Scientists DID do exactly what you are advocating, and did their own research, and tested the metal you gave them thinking it was from Joes Byrnes armour, you refused to accept their findings.
David nice to see that your attacks on my credibility continue unabated. Fascinating. You just can't help yourself can you.
Stuart, I had a look at Bendigo and Castlemaine gaols last week to view their underground cells, and to gain a better understanding of where they were, and what they look like.
The modern records of Beechworth Gaol went to Melbourne when it closed, but the early records were taken to Pentridge in the 1970's by a Pentridge prison officer called George Armstrong, to use as research material for a book which he eventually published called From Pentonville to Pentridge. Sadly Beechworth gets barely a mention. Those records included the visitor book which dated back to the 1800's and had Kate Kelly's signature in it when she visited Ellen in the gaol. I believe that the Beechworth records are mixed in with the Pentridge records which sadly have not all been catalogued or digitised. The person I have spoken to, who went underground, still lives in Beechworth and worked in the gaol in 1977 when the kitchen was burned in a fire. His story of going underground has been corroborated by other staff. He refuses to tell anyone where the entrance is.
Its a bit like the story we heard about bones being removed from the gaol when the pool was built. Always speculation until we received documentary evidence about four weeks back. We now know that it is most likely that bones were removed when the pool was constructed in 1958. Why? Because the bodies of those hanged were buried in the location where the pool is now not against the wall as was the common belief. I now know what the markings were on the walls near the graves etc. This is what I am talking about when I say that people are getting "excited" about stuff they believe is real because they read it somewhere. It's like the Peter Carey book. So many believe what Carey wrote is gospel fact. Same with the abominable Heath Ledger, Ned Kelly movie. And in a final word David Dee, I also researched and questioned the ANSTO report and it is full of holes. I take nothing at face value, and always do my own research. You mentioned geology etc. Well the early geology of this region said there was a glacier, and the diamonds recovered in the gold rush days came from the glacier. Well that's also now proven wrong. In fact there is no mention of any volcanic minerals yet I have located a number of lamproite pipes which in Australia are the host for the diamond deposits at Argyle etc.and most likely here.
Again my point. Just because it is written in a book does not mean it is true. Whether its geology, Ned Kelly, or the price of spuds in 1867. Everything is open to question and interpretation.
Hi Darren, here is what I have on Pentridge: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/infoserv/lee/htm/carlton_stockade.htm
What are referred to as "underground cells" exist at Pentridge Prison. It is likely that the underground cells , located in 'C' Division, now demolished; could have been similar to the punishment cells built at Collingwood Stockade, as the Pentridge cells were commenced in 1858, the same time the bluestone underground cells were constructed at Collingwood Stockade; and are below the floor level of the building, with double close fitting doors.48 Underground cells still exist in the basement of Pentridge Prison's 'B' Division (see illus.15. in Appendix Two).
Also, you might like this:
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1836918/see-the-gaol-cells-underneath-the-university-of-ballarat/
University of Ballarat's SMB campus. The Courier was given access to the dank and gloomy cells beneath what was the Old Ballarat Gaol. There were fears the air inside the access shaft and the cells themselves would be stale and make the visit impossible. But as soon as the hatch was lifted, a cool breeze blew from the hole in the floor, confirming hidden tunnels – somewhere – were supplying the long forgotten area with some fresh air. Just to be on the safe side, experts accompanied The Courier down the hole and into those places of solitary confinement with an oxygen meter. The readings said levels were slightly lower than the air on the outside, but more than enough for sometime to survive – and take pictures. Inside, a stone barrel-vaulted roof a little over 2m tall joined run-down clay and bluestone walls.
Darren yes I am afraid you're right, I do have serious doubts about your credibility, at least in as much as it rests on the claims you've made in relation to the metal on display at the Kelly Vault in Beechworth. Your credibility rests on proving your claim that the metal comes from the breastplate of Joe Byrnes suit of armour, a claim that was specifically refuted by ANSTO scientists who did what you advocated above and tested it and concluded that it wasn't. I can point to the actual reports of the actual scientists who did the actual scientific studies. You claim their report is full of holes and you have also claimed repeatedly in the past that you had testing done that proved them wrong. You have never revealed the results of the testing you said you did. You have never explained exactly what the 'holes' are in the ANSTO Report. So far you have nothing but a piece of metal and nothing that backs up your claims. The scientists claims are backed up by test results.
Darren. I can't find anyone posting here as 'David' who you criticise.
What are you on about?
Horrie, he thinks I am David, Fitzy thinks I am Ian, Brad thinks I am Bill, or his daughter, but I am supposed to also be Horrie, Warren, Brian, Ians ex-wife,and just about every other named person who has ever posted here.Identi-Dee is a favourite game of the Kelly sympathisers!
My last word and I am gone from this abysmal blog forever. I will never give my information to someone who is anonymous. The thing is that you made a mistake about 3 years ago and again last year, and you left an indelible clue to your identity. I am sure that this is why you have taken once more to attacking me as you are. You are doing everything you can to discredit me because you know, I know who you are. I know what you do, and everything else about you. I also know why you defend and pump up the book by Ian McFarlane. I guess you are just keeping it in the family. Hmmm getting too close. So I expect another tirade. Can't wait. Say what you like, I will not be back. Asshole.
So you wont give out your information 'to someone who is anonymous'. Really Darren? Suppose Stuart Dawson or Mark Perry or Matt Shore or Sharon, Brian Stevenson, Bill, Carla, Leigh Olver, Bob McG, Fitzy or any one of the myriad known identities in the Kelly world called you out and asked you to make good on your boasting? Would you tell them because they not anonymous or would you dream up another excuse to continue to hide the fact you haven't disproven the ANSTO scientists findings?
Dee, for at least the third time, please do not link my name into any of the blog wars on this site. I am not on anyone's side, and in fairness to Darren, he did not raise the armour making issue in his post and there was no need for any of this carry on. I always answer responses to anything I post politely, except for the very rare occasions where someone insulted me first, but I will not continue posting on pages that have degenerated into a blog war. Simple as that.
Darren, please stick around. I for one value your contributions.
Hi Darren. Yes, please hang around. Cheers.
As I said earlier people should do their own research rather than take some other authors work as gospel. If you Dee had bothered to look at the Ansto tests on Joe's suit, and the tests on mine you would see yourself where the errors are. And it is here that I will give you the one and only clue. Look at the percentages of trace metals making up the suit, and my piece of metal. Then explain to me how the sum of elements making up a piece of metal can equal more than 100 percent. A bucket can only be 100 percent full. And that Dee, is where the doubts about the Ansto tests started and why I paid considerable money to have independent testing done by three unrelated groups. As I said, no more from me on this abysmal, vindictive, and poorly managed blog. You will never see me here again. Enjoy your own hypocrisy.
Darren I have looked again at the Table in the ANSTO Report that lists the results of their analyses of the various elements that were found in Joes armour. Tests were made of all the different pieces including the helmet. When I add up the percentages of the listed elements found in each piece I get totals of between 96.88 and 99.04. You will have to explain where it was that you found totals adding up to greater than 100% , but it certainly isn't in the published 1994 ANSTO Report.
The reason ANSTO concluded your find was NOT an offcut from any part of Joes suit was because it contained absolutely no lead. EVERY component of Joes suit was tested, and they ALL contained lead which was incorporated at the time the steel was made. The lead was found in very small amounts – less than one fifth of one percent of the total (0.18%). However lead was found at much higher concentration at the site of a single bullet impact, where it was 14%. As you know this area also had traces of Tungsten which means the bullet impact occurred well after the Siege because Tungsten wasn't used in bullets until WW1. But most of the lead in the armour was there from the time of manufacture in very small quantities and it should have been present in any offcuts like the one you have, but because there was none, it was rightly concluded your piece could not have been a part of Joes armour.
I am sure all readers would like to see the results of the independent testing you say you went to considerable expense to get. I am perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong on this but at the moment the only evidence accessible to everyone else in the world apart from yourself, indicates what Ive stated above.
Could you at the very least explain which table you are referring to that had totals exceeding 100%?
Hi Darren, I would love to know more about that mine near SBC. I presume this is the occasionally referenced "Kelly Mine Cave". I have tried to find it, but had no luck. Judging by the information you provided us about the Prince of Wales mine at Hillsborough (the Ovens-Murray newspaper article 'Our Local Industries') it appears Ned may have known a thing or two about mining for gold. You may be right about mining being a possible reason for Ned hiding out at German Creek, because as you say there were probably better places to hide away. You added another dimension to the Kelly story that I was not aware of (and which has not been mentioned in any of the Kelly literature). You obviously know a lot about the mining history in North East Victoria which I think is quite interesting in its own right.