I don’t know why Mark Perry was expelled from “Ned Kelly Sympathisers” FB page but he must be getting close to being expelled from the one he started himself , Best Bloody Man, because he has been pricking a few of the apologists balloons of late. A week or two back he wrote “Some of these stupid Kelly myths need to be put to bed once and for all. Its time”. And to Dave White he said “Ned wasn’t the hero a lot of people believe he was”. And then he wrote that police hate won’t be tolerated on his site, and directed his comment at “slow learners”. And this : “Yeah it does indeed suggest Ned may have just been human after all, rather than the superhero he was to me when I first got to know him as a kid.”
Now he has referred to the famous Kelly story about Ned Kelly fighting Wild Wright and suggested its a myth. The only evidence it ever happened is that famous photograph of Ned in a boxing pose, and the words written on it “Ned Kelly fought Wild Wright 20 and won. August 8/1874”
Joey Shogun long ago dismissed this claim as a myth. As is obvious from his own FB Page about Red Kelly and his contributions to this latest BBM thread he is a very careful and thorough analyst of the Kelly story, a person committed to uncovering the true story by following the evidence, wherever it leads him. I have immense respect for his opinions, as they are all evidence based. Naturally the rank and file at BBM are objecting strenuously to the blasphemy about their hero not being the great pugilist they want him to be.
Perry has also further aroused the ire of the mob not only by mentioning the work of Doug Morrissey, one of the historians Kelly myth defenders like the Toad and the anti-woke crusader love to vilify, but by directing them to Edwin Graves who claimed that he gave Ned Kelly a thrashing for trying to steal some horses in 1874.
The threads discussing the doubt about the Kelly-Wild Wright boxing encounter, and the thrashing Kelly got from Graves are worth reading, not because either of these two incidents are of any particular significance in the big scheme of things, but for the way they illustrate Kelly apologists appalling double standards when it comes to discussing evidence and the sources for things that challenge their heart-felt convictions about Ned Kelly.
So, when it suits their purpose, and they are being asked to consider something that challenges their Kelly theology, they quite correctly insist on being shown evidence. Recently someone claimed Ellen Kelly was a sex worker and they went ballistic denying even the possibility because there was no direct evidence of it being true. Wouldn’t it be great if that was always their stance – that direct evidence was needed before something could be accepted as true ? Under that guideline the Republic would have long ago been dumped, as would almost every single one of the libels they’ve attached to Fitzpatrick about being a liar and perjurer, about him being a womaniser and a drunk. Also rejected becasue of an absence of evidence would be the claim the Kellys were unjustly harassed and persecuted, that Lonigans killing was self-defence…..so much of the Kelly legend is not based on any evidence.
The problem though is that when there IS evidence, they only accept it if it supports what they already believe. If it doesn’t support their pre-existing belief then they search about for any excuse they can think of to reject it.
My all-time favourite illustration of this completely bogus approach to evidence was the response of the Kennedy Tree group of sympathisers to being shown an 1878 newspaper description of the site of the Police camp at SBC which comprehensively debunked their claims about fences and the proximity of a slope they said they could see in the 1878 photo of the site. This direct primary evidence from an actual eye-witness was summarily dismissed without even an attempt to say why. But accepting it would have sunk their entire thesis, so they rejected the evidence in preference to their dubious theory.
Here is what BBM Admin PJ “Kelly” wrote about Graves sworn evidence :
“Joey why did Ned make no mention of it happening why were there no other witnesses to see this event, why was Ned Kelly on his own there to take horses when he was an expert horse thief who usually worked with others when doing this and under cover of darkness,what document did he have to claim he was justified in taking the horses,and if so why did he just take the horses and not go to the pound keeper graves to show him the document and why was this alledged flogging graves supposedly gave Ned only mentioned 26yrs after Ned Kellys death and during some sort of inquiry,how did neds name get brought up in it and why in 1906 Kelly was long gone so I don’t get it mate”
Elsewhere this same guy defends the claimed Kelly-Wild Wright boxing match even though, as Dave White pointed out, that event wasn’t mentioned by anyone anywhere until 90 years after it was supposed to have happened! So is he sceptical about the boxing match?– no way!
This is what the Toad wrote on the subject of Graves testimony:
“I feel he was just big-noting himself and trying to look like a hero in front of his interrogators. If he played as big a part and was so important to the hunt for the Kelly Gang, why hasn’t there been mention of him by authors and historians? This bloke appears to be a legend in his own mind!”
Oh that’s how you FEEL is it? Your feelings are your guide? And you claim to be a research assistant? Give me a break – feelings are not evidence, and they have no part to play in genuine objective fact finding and research.
Heres Shoguns perfect response:
“ I know thats how others view it because they can’t accept the fact, that our Ned copped a bloody flogging. I told you I was gob-smacked when I found the said report – it threw me for a six. I’m sorry folks these are the facts : accept it …… I have.”
Here is a reference to Edwin Graves as an Inspector, from the 1906 Royal Commission into Victoria Police report. So he gave Ned Kelly a good beating, did he? Ned the boxing champion of what – Ian Jones’ mythology? As I’ve said before, the 20 could potentially refer to what the scribbler thought to be Wright’s age, or to 20 minutes, not 20 rounds.
Attachment
I should add that I have not traced if this was the same Edwin Graves who gave Ned a thrashing many years earlier. Otherwise a coincidence of name. I will try to check this when I get a chance.
Here’s the extract from Leo Kennedy’s ‘Black Snake – the real story of Ned Kelly’:
Attachment
I really don’t love it when you refer to me as Perry. But you know that as I have said it many times.
When I learnt if the Graves/Kelly incident some years ago, it rocked my little world. But these facts are important to an understanding of the story. I believe it happened. It’s sworn, documented evidence. The Wright/Kelly match may have indeed also occurred. It’s all very fascinating. Morrisseys books are confronting but I never shy away from it.
So stop calling me a Kelly apologist. It ill behooves you. David. From Mark.
I really dont love it when you refer to me as ….well I am not going to repeat the list of absolutely vulgar terms you continue to use to describe me.
But somethings going on isnt it Mark? Youve been making some vey provocative statements on your page , and here you are giving me Oxygen on the Blog, something you havent done for years. Are you starting to sense the shift thats coming and wanting to avoid being trapped with the toad and his ilk on the wrong side of history? Very cunning.
My name is mentioned so I should do a short reply. I am one of the trio questioning the fight. I must be a simple man, I had not even heard of this fella who gave Ned a hiding. For me it was just that I couldn’t find anything to confirm the boxing photo. Writing on a Ned photo always sets off alarm bells for me lol I am told that modern authors agree the fight took place. There is a sign on location to say it is so. My question is why did Pro authors Keneally and Brown not mention it? Or did I miss it? I admit that this was all I based my theory on. Above all I trust in Joe’s research.
I trust Joeys research too Dave but the Fight story does have one thing going for it and thats the photo. Its possible that like the Graves incident, it really happened but for some reason it was ignored until recently, and then it was elevated to the status of a title fight and all kinds of embellishments added. But interpretation of photos has been a huge quagmire in the Kelly world : this one is now owned by Joanne Griffiths – I wonder if she knows what the history of the photo is…does anyone?
Kennedy the Pound Keeper also thrashed Kelly when Kennedy reused in Chiltern. Was reported in the O&M Observer some time later. Maybe why Kelly tried to frame Kennedy ( referred to as Whitlow) in Bricky Williamson’s letter.
*when Kennedy used to live in Chiltern
Hi Anonymous, that’s one I’ve never heard of. Can you give an O&M date or reference to save me having to search Trove? (Call me lazy but I love short cuts)
I am on my mobile but google Oxley Pound Keeper Chiltern Ned Kelly.
Hi Anonymous, I have found in Jones’s ‘Short Life’ 208 p. 112, “On 12 March [1877] ‘Meesrs Byrne and Whitty’ impounded 15 horses with Oxley poundkeeper George Kennedy (probably the man who claimed to have given Ned ‘a good thrashing’ during his time with Harry Power”. Jones’ abstract referencing gives only O&M 15-3-1877 and 17-3-1877 for Ned and Tom’s horses impounded and then rescued.
Jones’ hopeless references don’t indicate anything about Kelly being given a thrashing and given Jones’ habitual omission of anything critical of his hero, I haven’t bothered to look these up. Suffice to say he appears to acknowledge that the poundkeeper gave Ned a thrashing; he appears to have buried it by not referencing it; and this would be a different thrashing to the one Ned got from Edwin Graves, stockman. Jonesey’s hero is looking rather spotty at this point. Sort of like a snot-nosed school bully.
For more inane Jonesy romancing of Ned, check out p. 107 for a mention of the King Valley: “This was still a special haunt of Ned’s – a boyhood domain that may have gained new magic with he reading of ‘Lorna Done’, R.D. Vlackmore’s classic adventure set against the wilds of Exmoor. It would be remebered as his favorite book [claimed by some 20th century lunatic.] How that story must have reasonated for him – the formidable young hero, Jan Ridd, fighter, farmer and horseman…”. Barf – I just can’t type more of it out. I’ve read Lorna Doone. It is a tedious and turgid long novel that requires a much higher level of literacy than Kelly had due to its complex and flowery vocabulary, with many words of three and four syllables. The reading age is Year 10 and above; I have mentioned this before on this blog. There is no way Kelly ever slogged his way through this book. Jones also claimed that the novel inspired Kelly to dream up armour; but the only bit about armour is on one page, about 25 pages in, where the eveil Doones are going back to their lair in the hills, wearing armour, with the body of a dead girl draped across one of their saddles. Jones’ claims are so full of it, and this sort of rubbish fills his book from cover to cover. Body straps, all sorts of crap.
By page 113 Jones imagines Ned teh Rebel, his fantasy that dates back to the 1967 Wangaratta kelly seminar where Jones first launched his “New View of Ned Kelly”. In ‘Short Life’, the same nonsense continues: “Like all young men who see themselves as fighters for a cause, Ned was awaere of the philosophy behind the land war, embodied in his picture of ‘poor farmers’ and the ‘poor man’ oppressed by land-rich graziers”. Give it a rest Jonsey, you hair brained fiction writer. Kelly was a drunken layabout stock thief and thug who stole predominantly from other poor selectors, often taking and selling their draft horses and leaving them unable to farm. The Kelly fictions that Jones created in 1967 and built up with selective quotations and referencing, multiple factual omissions and ingenious narrative skills are long overdue for the long drop.
I cant decide if this should be a question or a statement but Stuart, I dont think Jones consciously set out to deceive The Australian public and promote lies and myths about Ned Kelly, even though thats what he effectively did. I think he became obsessed with an idea about Kelly and developed a severe case of tunnel vision, and used his academic abilities and his skill as a writer to construct the version of Kellys life that we are now know was not historical in so many centrally important aspects. The myths are all being exposed and at just about every turn stuff is being found that reveals Jones highly subjective approach to evidence. But I think Jones believed passionately in all of it and in the correctness of his view.
The other myth being stripped away is the one surrounding Jones himself. For a couple of decades he was almost untouchable, but I think even people in the kelly world are starting to question him.
Hi David, I think it’s more a case that he set out to vindicate JJ Kenneally’s version of Kelly and in the process of doing so not only developed tunnel vision but actively manipulated, twisted and distorted historical source evidence to push his narrative. If you recall a couple of years ago I published my academic article “Ned Kelly’s shooting of George Metcalf, labourer”, the result of some two year’s analysis of how Jones both selectively used and ignore, and actually deliberately misquoted lines from source evidence to try and show against actual written evidence of the day that Kelly accidentally shot Metcalf in the face before the Glenrowan siege, then kept him prisoner with the rest of his citizen victims during the siege.
He attacked Piazzi the foreman’s evidence, deliberately misquoting it, just as he did the detective’s statement annotated with the names of two witnesses to Kelly shooting Metcalf.
It is the same perverse manipulation of facts and evidence that he used to attack McIntyre’s numerous consistent statements about Kelly killing Lonigan at Stringybark Creek.
It is the same manipulation and distortion of evidence that he used to claim a land war between selectors and squatters in Kelly’s day that had been resolved a decade earlier in the selectors’ favour, as an academic historian pointed out to him at the end of the 1967 Wangaratta Kelly seminar (published in Man and Myth).
These and many other cases are deliberate perversions of historical fact that go well beyond incompetence. They are a conscious rewriting of history to favour Kelly and denigrate anyone and everything critical of him. This emerges most clearly in the vicious buckets of spleen and sarcasm he readily and frequently dealt out to anyone who’s views differed from his, or who criticised his work.
Remember the invective he spitefully hurled at legal historian Alex Castles on the front page of the Age? Remember the torrents of abuse he hurled at most of the police involved in the Kelly hunt; his endless lambasting of Kelly’s barrister Bindon (ignoring the Bindon was instructed by Gaunson); and his mounting an impossible argument about self defence that was never raised in court for reasons Jones knew full well – that McIntyre’s first statement about SBC had been located after the Beechworth committal hearing and was in the Melbourne trial prosecution file, collapsing any possibility of that line getting of the ground.
Jones kept these and multiple other errors and distortions going through all editions of Short Life from 1995 to 2008. The whole book in my opinion is a pack of historical lies, blunders and deliberate distortions that Jones repeated in his well polished narrative to the end, impervious to criticism which by and large he failed to address, answering critics only by character assassination.
He had all his faculties working well when Ian MacFarlane’s ‘Kelly Gang Unmasked’ came out in 2012; and like other critics of that book, he not only didn’t address the numerous issues it raised, but actually advised others not to read it. Basically he was no scholar; incapable of debate with evidence that showed him in error in his misinterpretations. All he did was stick to his script.
Did he believe his own narrative? Yes, that seems clear enough in its early days. The video version oh the narrative is his very watchable 1980 “Last Outlaw” mini- series. Beautifully filmed and highly entertaining, but factually wrong in just about every word and scene in all four episodes. A work of pure fantasy.
Then later, by the late 1990s after the heady days of 1980 and its spate of 100 years since execution Kelly books, when he published Short Life, it was clear that much of the narrative was heavily romanticised indulgence. Investigation of his references would have raised doubts about numerous point in the narrative with any critical reader. But there were none. No academic study of Kelly had happened outside of McQuilton’s thesis published as the Kelly Outbreak, and McMenomy’s Illustrated History, both written under the sway of Jones. Molony doesn’t count: his 1980 I am Ned Kelly is an indulgence in how he thought Kelly might have seen the world, not an analysis or biography, and it is also riddled with historical distortions and selective (non-representative) quotations. No academic had critically examined Jones’s claims. Short Life became the book that librarians and researchers would turn to for a one volume Kelly tale. Jones’s reputation grew from that and he became untouchable.
By the late 1990s it would have been obvious to any academic outside of Jones’s circle that the book made numerous obviously questionable claims, but Kelly was not even fringe academia. No one did any deep analysis of his claims until MacFarlane. ‘The Kelly Gang Unmasked’ was the work that launched a dozen long overdue critical ships.
Not many people question Jones’s narrative even today. You might have found from your own experience that if you raise issues with how museums of galleries present Kelly, they consult their copy of Jones as the authority of choice. I have encountered this several times.
Until there is a new coherent Kelly narrative in a one book format, I think we are stuck with the ongoing influence of Jones’s multilevel BS.
yes Stuart – that would be George Whitelaw Kennedy. He was also the first Chairman of the Chiltern Road Board. Have wondered why Kelly looked to blame ‘Whitlow’ for shooting Fitzpatrick. Might have been a memorable thrashing!
Hi Anonymous, that solves another mystery – who “Whitlow” that Kelly referred to was. (I will still have to find the source reference before repeating it!) I have wondered on and off why I couldn’t seem to track “Whitlow” down.
Perhaps GW Kennedy was known by his middle name of Whitelaw? My dad went by his middle name of Ken rather than his first name which was the same as his father’s. Just speculating here.
stuart
George Whitelaw Kennedy the Oxley poundkeeper often referred too as whitlow
Hi Anonymous, thanks for that. Here is a short mention of him in June 1868 as a court witness in a drunkenness case against some guy: ” Mr George Whitelaw Kennedy, late Mayor of the Borough of Chiltern, and now poundkeeper at Oxley”; https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/197427558
So that’s two thrashings we know Ned got outside of a boxing ring: one by George Whitelaw (“Whitlow”) Kennedy and one by Edwin Greaves. I wonder how many more he got.
The Boxing Ned photo seems more like a publicity photo for the Wild Wright fight (assuming it happened) or some other posed rationale. A pre-fight photo taken in advance. It would be odd if a photographer just happened to be passing that day and set up his elaborate equipment after persuading Ned to get changed into ring gear and pose, just at the time when when according to Jones tempers were hot and the two men had to be persudad out of brawling in the pub to take it outside, then organise boxing clothes, then go and take a photo inside first. No, the whole Jones version is preposterous nonsense.
More likely it was a staged boxing match which the pub ran at the time (boxing and wrestling matches), put up with the connivance of the two men making an offer to put on a fight for part of the take. TThe reason no-one ever heard of it until the photo emerged is liklely that it was a completely non- noteworthy. Just an average pub match with some betting taken and no real damage done. That’s the staged bit. Look at the way those old World Championship Wrestling performers used to carry on with mock grudges against each other. It’s all just show and smoke and mirrors for money.
Kelly was never one to face up to anyone who stood up to him. He turned down the Jeriderie policeman Richard’s offer of a unarmed fight outside the pub. His fictional boasts of his fights both with troopers Hall and Fitzpatrick are miles at odds with their testimony in both cases. They are his imaginary descriptions of how he wished he took them down and humilated them. Without a firearm in his hand or some of his mates with him, or picking on someone clearly weaker than himself, Kelly was a common bullying coward. He never had a prize fight for money that anyone ever heard of.
BTW happy Christmas!
Also assists in assessing in Dufty’s recent theory that Whitlow disappeared (i.e. was done away with).
Hi Thomas, I don’t remember that from Dufty’s book but no, if you look at the post below this set of posts, Anonymous gave a link to Whitlow’s death notice. He passed away at home aged 61 years.
Hi Anonymous : you say that George Whitelaw Kennedy was “often referred to as Whitlow” Can you say by whom and what reference do you have for that statement, because that is the critical link between the Oxley poundkeepr and “Whitlow” an otherwise mysterious figure .
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/200578676 death notice
DEATH. KENNEDY – On the 17th April, 1886, at his residence, Oxley Pound, Oxley, George Whitelaw Kennedy, beloved husband of Jeanie R. Kennedy, aged 61 years.
ovens and Murray 24 April 1886
Thanks Anonymous, appreciated
Whitlow daughter Ann married Robert Culph in 1881, brother of Charles Culph. Maker of the gangs amour
Kelly trying to frame Whitlow is in Bricky Williams letter.
Thanks Anonymous; the turncoat here is William (“Bricky”) Williamson. For anyone trying to find it, the PDF is in the VPRO Kelly files, “Williamson, remission letter”, 6 August 1881, VPRS 4969 Unit 1 Item 52.
I stand with Stuart and Doug Morrissey on their subjective view of Ian Jones. The more I read in Jones “A Short Life” book, the more convinced I am that he purposely hid derogatory material that degraded Kelly and through that book his consistent attacks on the police were appalling, and in almost all cases, factually wrong. His consistent statements that all police gave perjured evidence, is long proven fiction. His total acceptance of the Kelly family lies, clouded any semblance of integrity that he may have once had.
As many of you know, I am personally on a crusade to remove all the Jones mythological rubbish from government and quasi government sites, and that crusade is bearing fruit.
I am hopeful that my book, that will be out sometime this coming year, will be a catalyst for the youth of this country to learn the truth and reject the Jones myths once and for all. I will be satisfied when Jones books are placed on the fiction list.
New book put us down for a copy.
Sam who are you? How do you fit in with the Kelly BS?
Not everyone knows that Doug Morrissey’s PhD thesis was a rigorously detailed analysis and demolition of McQuilton’s “The Kelly Outbreak”. The reason his books are lacking in references is that the VPRO Kelly files were rearranged and renumbered in the couple of decades between when Morrissey did his PhD, which was meticulously referenced to source documents. It was simply a question of the huge amount of time it would have taken to track down the documents to their new reference numbers for his books. It is a pity that LaTrobe History couldn’t rustle up some research assistant funds to get someone in for a few months to help him out. They have plenty of money for historical gender studies and other imaginative drivel however …
Correct in what you’re saying Stuart, Morrisse’s thesis was brilliant. I enjoyed reading his trilogy series. I think he took it a bit far in some aspects, the thesis and the first book are some of his best works
Especially useful are his two academic articles, “Ned Kelly’s Sympathisers” and Ned Kelly and Horse and Cattle Stealing”. Do you have these?
I am answering my own question about an original source that links “whitlow” to the Oxley Pound Keeper -thanks to Anonymous who mentioned Brickey Williamsons letter and he link provided by Stuart :
Heres the screenshot of the relevant part, where according to Williamson, Ned Kelly tried to get Williamson to go along with a crazy story about Fitzpatricks wound being caused by ‘Whitlow the poundkeeper’
Attachment
Thanks David. Could it be Kelly/Byrne’s semi-literacy that resulted in the great Witlow hunt?
It would be good if Anonymous could provide the claimed source that shows George Whitelaw Kennedy was commonly known as Whitelaw or Whitlow.
Hi again. Bricky Williamson’s letter refers to Witlow the pound keeper. George Whitelaw Kennedy was the pound keeper. I haven’t seen him referred to as either Witlow or Whitlow elsewhere by others or him self. I have several documents signed by him and he doesn’t refer to himself by his middle name either.
Bricky didn’t dissapear – he was foaled on release moved to NSW.
I note the below on another social page:
“ CAN’T THEY GET ANYTHING RIGHT?
Over on the Nuffy’s Blog, they are claiming they have found the “Whitlow” (they even have this name wrong), that Fitzpatrick falsely claims Ned tried to implicate in horse duffing (stealing), the night he also falsely claimed Ned shot him. They claim that that ‘Whitlow’ was George ‘Whitelaw’ Kennedy, the Oxley pound keeper. Dawson, a Thomas and Anonymous are overjoyed that they have uncovered this mystery, with Dawson stating; – “Hi Anonymous, that solves another mystery – who “Whitlow” that Kelly referred to was.”
I hate to disillusion these intellectual pygmies (um, not really), and highlight their non-existent research skills, but you have the wrong bloke! Fitzpatrick claims he told Ned that he didn’t know who this bloke was, when he would have known him very well and this bloke did disappear after some dodgy horse dealing that he was wanted for.
That should start tongues wagging and get the kn!ves out for me once again, but I can’t wait to see them try and justify how they come to the conclusion they did”
George Kennedy wasn’t wanted for horse stealing. He did appear in court for improperly impounding horses but was found to have no case to answer for.
That pathetic idiot on the ‘social page’ claims we have the wrong bloke but has not provided any evidence of any kind to suggest who Whitlow is if its not Kennedy. So if he has no f’n idea who Whitlow is how can he claim who it wasnt?
The idiot also screws up in trying to have us believe Fitzpatrick tried to implicate Kennedy in horse stealing : this is the same genius who constantly attacks others for their ‘comprehension skills’ and is now referring to us as ‘intellectual pygnies’ : so for his benefit I’ll explain : These schemes are what WILLIAMSON reported Ned Kelly trying to persuade him to adopt as his explanation for Fitzpatricks wound if he was ever asked about what happened to Fitzpatrick.
And BTW this same piece of work is the one who thinks he’s an expert on Fitzpatrick, claims to be a research assistant/muck-raker to someone writing a book about Fitzpatrick, and believes Ned Kelly was not at the shanty when the ‘fracas’ took place. Yes, a genius…that book will NEVER see the light of day unless they go down to Office Works and spend half a day photocopying…
I don’t know which Anonymous this is, but it was an Anonymous who claimed that GW Kennedy was Witlow and that he was the pound keeper. I said that was good to know if true and asked for evidence to show it. No evidence has been provided yet, so it may or may not be right.
The other stuff about GWK not disappearing was established by an Anonymous giving a death notice link here. So I don’t know what this disorganised post is on about, or why anyone is blaming me for things other people posted which are pending proof. More exercises in mind reading I think?
Whatever other website is being referred to here. I have no interest in seeing. Either reference historical documents or sources, or forget about it.
So far the only link we have between Whitlow and Kennedy is Williamsons letter which says Whitlow was the Pound Keeper and I grant it didnt say the “Oxley” pound keeper but what other Pounds and Pound Keepers are there? I dont believe there Is any record of a Pound keeper called Whitlow, so the link seems very plausible. One gets the impression Williamsons reference to Whitlow as being the pound keeper was common knowledge.
That extract posted above is from a Facebook page Stuart, and not worth having any attention paid to it.
*sorry – not sure how to edit my post but the comment on the social page suggests George Kennedy disappeared. (I mentioned Bricky being gaoled and then moving to NSW which is relevent).
George Kennedy didn’t dissapear – he stayed local to the area and is buried at Milawa.
Stuart – I did reference Bricky Williamson’s letter and David has posted a copy of it where Witlow is mentioned as the pound keeper. It seems too coincidental the the pound keeper at the time was George Whitelaw Kennedy and in all my many years of local history research no Witlow has been found either as a pound keeper or otherwise.
I made the original post and another Anon added to to it. I will now use the the handle Anon X
Thanks Anon X. I’m perfectly happy for people to be Anons, but it gets horribly confusing when sometimes there have been at least 3 Anons posting!
I tried to sort out the confusion over multiple Anons years ago by suggesting people use a false name and keep using it if they didnt want their true name exposed. Some people obviously did this, and ARE still doing it, which is perfectly fine but the idiotic Kelly mobsters then criticised me for having people with fake names, and often suggested they were all ME. You just cant win with these desperate losers , several of whom by the way then posted using fake names – which again is fine except that its rank hypocrisy to use a fake name yourself and hen criticise anyone else who does….
So AnonX your contributions are very welcome and your ID is yours to keep private if thats your preference. Its none of anyone elses damn business, something the mobsters know but wont respect.
It is the Oxley pound that is mentioned by whining Ned in both the Euroa and Jerilderie letters.
The racists calling other people intellectual pygmies sound like they only like selective historical research. But Ned Kelly had lots of personal issues apart from psycopathy (as established by Scott & MacFarlane’s article). His own brother Jim wrote a letter published in Kenneally’s ‘Inner History’ that said Ned never had a girl. Ned might have been the first documented incel!
Happy New Year for 2023 BTW!
Attachment
Ive just looked up Duftys reference to Whitlow and this is his reference from O&M Advertiser Nov 27 1877: (IMAGE) Here he is named as “Alexander Whitla (nicknamed Whitlow)A key witness for the prosecution he could potentially identify individuals who had delivered and collected stolen animals from the pound but he could not be found anywhere”
I take it that Oxley Pound and Benalla Pound are different places, so is this a different Whitlow or did he leave Benalla Pound and go to Oxley, and disappear from there?
Attachment
There is a reference in the O&M of 10 February 1877, p. 1, of G.W. Kennedy reporting the number of impoundings to Oxley Shire Council.
We have the location of the Oxley Pound identified in the O&M 26 November 1867, p. 3.
Clearly Oxley had a long-established pound in Kelly’s day.
Oxley is 36km (22 miles) from Benalla.
A question is whether Benalla would have had it’s own pound, and there is a mention in the O&M of 13 September 1877, p. 2, of a refund of 4-18-6 pound fees by the Benalla Shire Council.
However, the O&M a month later, on 19 October 1877, p. 2, listed an objection to the Benalla Shire Council of the proposed location of a pound in the centre of the town, with a result that the site was to be fixed.
Nothing certain from all this but it seems unclear if Benalla had a formal pound early on. Did it need one? Oxley did, and GW Kennedy was clearly involved in it in 1877.
Further to that David’s extract from O&M November 1877 states that Benalla had a pound for BBC a long time. So what the O&M in October 1877 must refer to is a proposal to relocate the Benalla pound.
There may be something in David’s comment that a Benalla poundkeeper known as Whitlow moved to Oxley at some point.. Or these may be different men…
Something to while away some time on New Year’s Day..
To summarise these various dates and names about pound keepers:
In O&M 27 Nov 1877 p. 2, William Skelton was the Benalla pound keeper. He told the court that in relation to a sale of horses by the pound on 9 May, his predecessor Whitlow could not be found, so the court had to go by the pound book.
This Whitlow, who was in the Benalla pound keeper job in May 1877, is named by David Dufty as Alexander Whitla; he says Whitow was a nickame for him, but there is no reference for either statement. Perhaps there is evidence; perhaps it is a guess based on similarity. In any case, Whitla is a legitimate Welsh-English name that appears in Ancestree.
Anon X suggested that Witlow (as spelled by Bricky Williamson) was George Whitelaw Kennedy, the Oxley pound keeper. In which case, I suggested, Whitelaw might have been the name by which Kennedy was commonly called.
Kelly’s letters refer to the Oxley pound, so if guesses are to be made, I’m guessing the Oxley Whitelaw would be just as likely as the Benalla Whitlow. Neither matches Williamson’s spelling.
It may be that David D has inferred Witlow to mean the then vanished Benalla pound keeper from the theory that Ned Kelly, in telling Fitzpatrick a story to relate, would have known that the Benalla Whitlow had vanished and therefore couldn’t contradict his story.
But another explanation is possible: Kelly’s grudge was against the Oxley pound keeper. In the Euroa letter (and similarly in the later Jerilderie letter) he wrote, ” I have known over 60 head of horses to be in one day impounded by Whitty and Burns all belonging to poor men of the district they would never have to leave their harvest or ploughing and go to Oxley and then perhaps not have money enough to release them & have to give a bill of sale or borrow the money which is no easy matter”.
According to Ian Jones ‘Short Life’, 112, it was March 1877 when Oxley pound keeper George Whitelaw Kennedy was about to sell Kelly’s own impounded horses if pound fees were not paid; Kelly and Tom Lloyd broke into the pound and got their horses back.
Telling a tale to throw dirt at ‘Witlow’ would be very much Kelly’s style. None of this is conclusive, but I think it is no more speculative than David D’s suggestion (unless direct evidence is provided) that the Benalla pound keeper named Whitlow, as said by his successor in court, was actually named Alexander Whitla.
I am inclined to favour the Oxley ‘Whiltelaw’ being Witlow at this point, pending further evidence.
Hi Stuart, I’ll have to rustle through my source material, but I’m confident that the following are all verifiable:
* Alexander Whitla was the Benalla poundkeeper until some time in 1877;
* he was known as “Whitlow” (see image above posted by David Mac)
* he could not be located to give evidence in one of the Baumgarten-related horse theft cases
* Ned Kelly tried unsuccessfully to get Constable Fitzpatrick to accuse Whitlow of shooting him, and also attempted to pin various other unspecified things on him.
* from that point, Whitlow is not mentioned in any other contemporary documents surrounding the Kelly outbreak.
I’ll have a look around and get back to you.
There is a smattering of mentions of Alexander Whitla in Benalla in local newspapers through the 1870s. Here’s the last record of him that I can find that refers to him as the Benalla poundkeeper, from 28 July 1877. In this one, he’s only “A. Whitla,” but that is sufficient to confirm the lin: Alexander Whitla was the Benalla poundkeeper until mid 1877. There are other documents that give his full name but surely that one’s enough to confirm the claim.
Looking back over the sections of “Nabbing Ned Kelly” that mention Whitlow, I see now that I didn’t document all the sources that I had. I try to be diligent in making an endnote for everything, but as the mountain of source material grows, this gets harder to do. In the end, in the interests of space and practicality, some minor things don’t make it in; or subjects get a cursory mention in the endnotes with a suggestion to read a more detailed source that I provide.
But I can tell you now that although the endnotes don’t show it, I went on quite a hunt for the elusive Whitlow. I didn’t completely solve the mystery, but I came to believe that mischief of some kind was involved, either by Whitlow, or (more likely) against him, or perhaps both.
Attachment
Hi David, thanks for putting that clip up; I’m happy with that (although it would be good to have a second clip that confirms the full name of Alexander Whitla for him). I see that this clip is from the Australasian, a paper I wouldn’t have thought of scouring. Thank goodness for Trove!
It is a big call to document every last thing, and this Whitlow/Whitla thing is a bit of a tangent from Kelly, but interesting to pursue. In a different post on this blog ages ago a Thomas posted the folowing: “Trove has an Alexander Whitla dying at Mt Alexandra aged 77 in Sept 1917, meaning he was born c 1840. Which means he was about 38 at time of Fitzpatrick incident. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136913570?searchTerm=alexander%20whitla“. But this article said only that that Whitla was a longstanding resident and that “For a considerable period he was employed as a maintenance man by the town council”. As it is a Dubbo NSW paper, it may or may not be the Benalla Whitla.
That means we seem to have in early 1877 Alexander Whitla as Benalla pound keeper and George Whitelaw Kennedy as Oxley pound keeper. So who did William “Bricky” Williamson mean when he said Witlow? Did he dictate his statement which a policeman wrote down, then sign it? If so – which is likely – did the policeman simply write what Bricky pronounced as ‘Witlow’? And when William Skelton the Benalla pound keeper in late 1877 testified as a witness in an unrelated matter in court, and said his predecessor was ‘Whitlow’, are we able to be certain which of the two early 1877 pound keepers – Benala and Oxley – either of them meant? I’m witless on this now.
I’ll come to the next post in a minute.
Mr Dufty/Dawson and the good doctor Have ye consulted the rate books, land titles and the electoral? Sands & McDougall is also worth a try. Relying soley upon trove is an injustice for any form of research
I’ll have a go at the Electoral.
Argh Amigo, thank’ee kindly for mentioning Sands & Mcdougall, just found out they are now digitised online from 1860 to 1974 at the SLV, with a write up at PROV here:
https://prov.vic.gov.au/about-us/our-blog/sands-and-mcdougall-directories-online
Stuart, you are most welcome. I now regret mentioning the resources, due to the fact that the unmasked leader is oblivious to what is openly available. I can hear the outcry now from the raving lunatic as he pens his reply in defence.
My message to him is simple; we don’t care, nor do we acknowledge you.
Ahoy Amigo, sorry for double posting the SLV info but it didn’t appear the first time I uploaded my comment yesterday. Some glitches in the internet I suppose.
Arg, Amigo, thankee for mentioning Sands & McDougall which I just discovered by looking up from your comment, is now digitised online from 1860 to 1974 at the SLV.
As to what is worth consulting, it depends what one is looking for and how much depth is warranted, and what is accessible if it still exists. For example the PROV has a stack of old Pentridge and (Old) Melbourne Gaol prison records that may include punishment records for when Ned Kelly was in those nicks. That may show when and for how long he was sent to dark cells. (If those books were preserved.) But PROV has classed them all as fragile and no one can access them; and there isn’t even a list of what record books and years they have in boxes there. I tried to get white glove access (white cotton gloves for rare and fragile documents) but no go. So no good to anyone…
Here is an excerpt of Constable Fitzpatrick’s testimony in the case against Ned’s mother, Ellen Kelly, for hitting him with a shovel on the night of the infamous “Fitzpatrick Incident”. At this point of his account, he has already been assaulted by Ellen and shot by Ned, passed out, then woke up later that night.
You can find it for yourself by going to https://prov.vic.gov.au/ and doing a search for KELLY HISTORICAL REGINA ELLEN and then going to page 28. You’d better be able to read cursive.
The relevant section is the bottom half of the page. Constable Fitzpatrick and Ned Kelly are outside the Kelly homestead, talking. Fitzpatrick recounts:
“He asked did I know Whitlow, I said no. He said say this. Two men rushed from a tree as you were arresting Dan describe them as two large men. One of them like me and they’ll think it’s my brother Jim and the other Whitlow and then say I heard one of them sing out Oh! Whitlow you’ve shot him. He gave as a reason for naming these men that they were miles away. He told me to say a lot of other things that Whitlow was supposed to have said. He made me make an entry in my book ”
I was surprised, when writing “Nabbing Ned Kelly”, at the large number of loose ends in the story of the Kelly gang. There are, supposedly, more books about Ned Kelly than about _any_ other Australian, yet yawning gaps and omissions and dubious claims persist. Worse, there were not only unanswered questions, but unasked questions. For example, “Who the hell was Whitlow?”
Attachment
When Fitzpatrick said to Kelly that he did not know Whitlow, he may or may not be telling Kelly the truth. If he had said yes, who knows what Kelly’s response might have been given that the Oxley pound keeper had impounded some of Kelly’s own horses in early 1877 and Kelly and Tom Lloyd broke in and got them back (see Ian Jones Short Life 2008: 112), IF Kennedy was known by his middle name of Whitelaw…
Hi David D, that’s great to confirm Whitla as the Benalla pound keeper in early 1877, given the complication that his successor Skelton gave his name as Whitlow. A second source confirming his full name as Alexander Whitla would be good. Then there is George Whitelaw Kennedy as the Oxley pound keeper in 1877.
There is still the tricky bit that William ‘Bricky’ Williamson said ‘Witlow’, or sounded it like that when his statement was written down; a different spelling to both names, so not conclusive that Whitla or Whitelaw (Benalla or Oxley) might have been the pound keeper he meant…
Stuart, ‘Whitlow’ was a verbal nickname so it’s not surprising that different people spelled it differently. And variations in name spelling was common at the time: it doesn’t change anything in this context.
More to the point, I can’t see how the Oxley ‘Whitlow’ theory has any legs at all.
* We have evidence that the Benalla poundkeeper ‘Whitla’ was nicknamed ‘Whitlow’, but we have no such evidence for the Oxley poundkeeper ‘George Whitelaw Kennedy’.
* Whitla could not be located for a period of time (perhaps permanently); not so for Kennedy.
* While Whitla’s involvement in the Baumgarten crimes and court cases is unknown, he was sought (but unable to be located) as a witness, one way or another. I have seen no evidence that George Kennedy had anything to do with any of it.
* George Whitelaw Kennedy was a member of the Chiltern Road Board and long-time law-abiding enemy of the Kellys; this makes him less likely to be a scapegoat in a crime, because he wouldn’t be a credible suspect. Note that the other person Kelly tried to frame was his own brother Jim, a hardened criminal. If Kelly wanted to provide Constable Fitzpatrick with a plausible story, framing Oxley poundkeeper George Kennedy in the shooting of a police officer wouldn’t have worked.
As an aside, the fact that Ned Kelly named Jim as the second fake shooter is interesting. It suggests that knew something that the police did not: namely, that Jim was serving time in New South Wales under an alias.
Hi David D, I’m happy with all that. In a past blog on this site there was a post by Thomas who had found a death notice for an Alexander Whitla, who died in NSW aged 77 after some years working as a maintenance man for a council, presumably in NSW. I can’t find the post on my mobile phone just now but it’s on the blog somewhere. Thomas suggested it might be the same Whitla as he would have been about 40 in 1877. Just throwing this in there, no idea myself.
Stuart, Doubtful it will be of any use
Ireland 1835 NSW 1917
ALEXANDER WHITLA.
A very old and well known identity in the person of Mr Alexander Whitla, passed away at the District Hospital early on Sunday morning. Deceased had been ailing for the last few years and was removed to the hospital about a fortnight prior to his demise, being then in a very low condition. For a considerable period he was employed as a maintenance man by the town council, but was compelled to relinquish the post some years ago owing to his health. He was 77 years of age, and leaves a sorrowing widow, three daughters. Mrs. F. Holly (Cobar), Mrs F. Lee (New Lambton), Mrs Toll (Gilgandra), and two sons, Messrs Harry and Jack Whitla (Cobar) to mourn the loss of an affectionate husband and father. The remains were interred in the Presbyterian portion of the cemetery.
Attachment
nice find.
Thanks Anon; here’s the link to that article that Thomas had posted on the blog a while back, https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136913570?searchTerm=alexander%20whitla
Thanks Anon; here’s the link to that death notice article that Thomas had posted on the blog a while back: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136913570?searchTerm=alexander%20whitla
David Dufty
I’m elated you find the above of use. I’ll email the good doctor where the above information can be obtained.
At this stage the information on Whitla is sketchy. Certain family members claim he is the same Whitla, you believe is from Benalla. More to come.
They seem to be the same person. This clarifies his fate, but it doesn’t change my opinion of his role in events or why he disappeared.
Hi Amigo, here it is from Thomas:
Trove has an Alexander Whitla dying at Mt Alexandra aged 77 in Sept 1917, meaning he was born c 1840. Which means he was about 38 at time of Fitzpatrick incident.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136913570?searchTerm=alexander%20whitla
Stuart, David D, I concur we have the same Whitla
A. M. Whitla born to John and Grace Whitla 1847. Northern Ireland. He passed away after a short illness 16 September 1917 in Cobar NSW. Whitla married his second wife Louisanna Ethersey in Benalla 4 December 1875. Whitla had been in the colony for 21 yrs. This ties Whitla in Benalla. He is listed as a Labourer. In the NWS 1913 Electoral Whitla is registered as a labourer. I’ll get back to you with details about his first wife and where they were married.
Alex M. Whitla married Amy 1870. Amy passed away 1872 and is buried at Benalla.
Whitla marries Louisanna in 1875 [Benalla?]
I’m aware of the conflicting data for Whitla’s date of birth. 1835, 1841, 1847. We’re working on it. At the same time trove is turning up zero results
In the rush I failed to add that the Whitla’s had a son born in Benalla 1876. He died in Cobar 1959. It can be certain that Alexander M. Whitla is the person that Stuart and David D are referring too. No further trace can be found of Alexander on the Electoral or trove.
Enjoying a glass of tequila I bid you all good night Amigo’s
Harriba 🍶typing “Alexander M Whitla Benalla” into google produced first result of Alexander McKee Whitla in a genealogy site. Has him born 1835 Ireland, names of his first and second wife with the second married in Benalla 1875. Later died in NSW 1917.
Interesting conversation! I am late to the party, but will share a nugget or two I have run across. In the Victoria Government Gazette I found that George Whitelaw Kennedy was appointed poundkeeper at Oxley on February 4, 1871. That would contradict the article that Stuart found where it said he was the Oxley poundkeeper in June of 1868. The Gazette says that George Whitelaw Kennedy was appointed as the Hurdle Creek poundkeeper on April 4, 1868. Also, he remained as the Oxley poundkeeper until 1886 (year of his death as noted above) and his wife Jeanie was appointed as poundkeeper on May 1, 1886. Maybe someone somewhere else found this info before me, but I just found it for myself, so I am not “stealing” anyone’s research! Ha!
Great sleuthing Sharon as always!
[In reply to the incompetent fool]
The raving lunatic is at it again, singing like a bird. Micky boy put a sock in it.
Micky, Micky, Micky, what are we going to do with you? The network around you is closing in, in fact, it has been for some time. Have a pair of gum boots on standby, you’re sinking.
We have no reason to thank you Micky boy, IN FACT you should be thanking us. Dawson led YOU to Whitla. Did he not? So, who is the incompetent fool now? You, you, you!
Until a few days ago, I knew nothing about Whitla. It was Stuart Dawson’s comment on the 3rd that triggered my interest and in under an hour we collectively compiled more than enough information to satisfy us we have the right person. We have much more on Whitla. Have you discovered the remarkable life of Whitla? He was a man of honour and respect. I guess you already know that NOT.
STUART REPLY
January 3, 2023 at 1:40 pm
Hi David D, I’m happy with all that. In a past blog on this site there was a post by Thomas who had found a death notice for an Alexander Whitla, who died in NSW aged 77 after some years working as a maintenance man for a council, presumably in NSW. I can’t find the post on my mobile phone just now but it’s on the blog somewhere. Thomas suggested it might be the same Whitla as he would have been about 40 in 1877. Just throwing this in there, no idea myself.
Mouthing off gets you nowhere Micky boy. Stick around YOU imbecile we’ll educate you yet. Come, come now wipe the egg and dung off ya face. YOU incompetent foolish man.
Amigo that guy cant help himself, and he cant be educated. He is the brilliant research assistant/muck raker who has linked himself to someone writing a book about Fitzpatrick and has declared its going to be all about Police corruption. His brilliance is such that he has discovered I am lying when I say I am not related to Ian MacFarlane. He announced how brilliant he is at determining who someone is by analysing their writing styles, and I lost count of the number of people he unmasked as me as a result of this great skill of his : all were wrong and today he has just scored another direct MISS in announcing you are Tim. Cant he get anything right?
I see he has just been praised by the anti-woke Conspiracy theorist : these two are a perfect match.
The two of them are absolutely not worth paying one scintilla of attention to.
Were moving on Amigo
Have been away hiking last few days and just reading all this now. Great to see the Whitla mystery (both who he was and what happened to him) appears to now be more or less solved and glad my little find on trove was of assistance.
Another thought, the Graves beating story is also at odd with the idea Ned went straight after being released from prison in Feb 1874. Seems like he was back ‘at it’ pretty much as soon as he was released…
Hi Thomas, interesting thought. I’ve always doubted Jones’s “three quiet years” tale supported almost entirely by Kelly’s claims about his working in two sawmills but without as far as I know a single shred of actual evidence for any of it.
We’ve debunked the Jones myth that Kelly learned any stonemason skills in gaol (he was breaking rocks into road gravel for a bit at Williamstown, that was all), and had zero skills to build the granite house that Jones claimed he built.
If he was leading an honest life building the dozens of bush barns that tales evolved about (did you know, kid, that NED KELLY built that barn [chuckle at gullibility]?). then why did Kelly never once claim such basic honest work? We are told he built a house for his mother. Did he? Sounds too much like hard work for Ned, who never helped her in any other known way. Maybe some of his less layabout relatives did and he helped out a bit some days as an alibi? Just wondering….
More likely he was continually keeping an eye out for stock he could lift for easy money…
Then came off the worse one day when Mr Graves was about?
It’s not completely solved. What was his role in the horse stealing racket; why was he a prosecution witness; and why did he and his wife suddenly leave the colony, whereabouts unknown to those they left behind. I’ve made my views on this clear enough, with some dot-connecting.
G’day to you Thomas. Your sudden re-appearance is welcomed.
Micky owes you a great deal, [as do we all]. It is evident Micky has a habit of snooping around where he is not welcomed, and in doing so jumps upon any information he struggles to find for himself.
Your article is a perfect example of his incompetence to navigate a simple search process. The article you passed on to Dawson, has assisted us in confirming many aspects of Whitla’s life and a most interesting one at that.
Micky boy you’re exposed as a fraudulent singing galah.
Straight? Ned going straight [LMFAO]. He’s a bloody thug and always has been. Hey what was the deal with one of his uncles chasing Ned down the street and the little shit did a runner #%@% hero my ass. Hey Micky care to share your thoughts you galah?
Moving on are we? consider it done.
Firstly, a note to Mr Rowsel. You speak of arrogance? and yet you can’t talk the walk. I’ve followed your remarkable insight into the Kelly story and I’m astounded by your lack of knowledge and utter bullshit. Stick to what you know best. Whatever that is.
Before I disappear into the abyss with a bottle Tequila, a few parting words to Micky boy the defender of all things Kelly.
You’re many claims of me are false.
You’ve suggested I compiled facts over a duration of 10 days. If this is so, it’s you that needs to take a good long look at the ‘dates.’ I guess this will be too difficult for an incompetent fool as yourself.
And Mick Fitz calls himself a researcher. Say who? say what?
Micky wrote in response to me on his unmasked page
“I compiled my chart 20-May-2022 and revised it (that means I added something to it), on 11-Oct-2022.”
You can wipe ya ass with that old boy. You edited the document in favour of this argument. Like I said your fraudulent in every way.
The sooner your remaining followers realise this the better of the Kelly community will be. You’re the instigator and the cause of all this.
Bottle of Tequila in hand and Buenas noches to all
harsh.