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.”