Bank Robbery by Human Shield : Not so Brave Ned Kelly

I do apologise most sincereley to the Kelly Fanatics whose day was ruined
by my mis-identification of this building in a previous photo - now deleted - as the Bank. 

One of the lessons Harry Power is supposed to have taught Ned Kelly when he was his “apprentice” was that to survive as a bushranger and outlaw-on-the-run you needed to cultivate and maintain a network of  support within the communities that you moved between. Supporters were often family, and extended family and friends, obviously like-minded people who lived on the fringes of society and had little time for the Law but never-the-less maintainaed an outwardly respectable and legitimate lifestyle but for their own reasons raised no objections to the unlawful activities of the outlaw they would assist from time to time. I imagine they regarded the outlaws victims in some way deserving of their lot, and had no sympathy for them or the Police in their efforts to maintain law and order.  And of course they were pleased to benefit from the outlaws crimes, as he was obliged to pay for their silence and support in cash and kind. It was a mutually beneficial dependency of doubtful ethical quality.

I mention this because in thinking about the next two acts in the criminal history of Ned Kelly, the robbery of the banks at Euroa and Jerilderie, I realized there is a contradiction in the narrative usually spun by the Mythmakers which I hadn’t noticed before. They claim that as outlaws with no legal means of support, Outlawry forced the Kelly Gang to adopt illegal means just to survive.  The contradiction is that Mythmakers also claim Ned Kelly was a master bushman and was skilled in the art of bushcraft which if true would have meant he ought not have needed to rob banks to survive.

I forget where but I have read suggestions that in fact the Gang wasn’t as good at survival in the Bush as the mythmakers would have us believe, and they depended rather heavily on food and supplies being brought out to them by sympathisers.  In truth I imagine the Gang probably could have survived on its wits indefinitely out there, and therefore the reason for the Bank Robberies was not so much to provide for themselves directly  but to obtain cash to keep the Supporters on side. There is most definitely NO evidence that the robberies were “Robin Hood style” undertakings aimed at redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, a myth I exposed in a Post on this topic  last year. Ned Kelly liked to talk about helping the poor but he didn’t ever actually do it himself – he actually robbed and stole and abused them when the opportunity arose. His orders about giving to the poor were hypocritical posturing, talk that he himself never backed up with action. The stolen money only ever turned up in the pockets of family and of supporters.

But what of the robberies themselves?  Most people hearing of Euroa or Jerilderie or Glenrowan imagine that holding an entire town hostage was an original, brave and imaginative innovation from the mind of Ned Kelly, and  some then go on to propose that Ned Kelly would have  been a fine General and a leader of men. In fact most of Ned Kellys exploits were not original ideas of his, but things he had picked up from others. He wasn’t so much an innovator as a quick learner and copy-cat, having adopted the survival lessons taught to him by others, notably Harry Power.  His role model for Bank Robbery was Ben Hall, the Bushranger from New South Wales who seemed to have far better reason for hating the Police than Ned Kelly ever did. He became known as a Gentleman Bushranger, though I expect that much of what was believed about him even then was sentimental mythmaking rather than historical truth. Never-the-less he had a reputation for fairness and became known as “Brave” Ben Hall. This reputation and notoriety was obviously something Ned Kelly admired from a young age.

Perhaps Ben Halls most extraordinary  and most admired exploit was to take an entire town  hostage – the small NSW town of Canowindra. He imprisoned everyone there and passersby, in the Pub for 3 days and created a party atmosphere with food drink and entertainment.  However, no bank was robbed, no shots were fired and it is said that people were given “expenses” money at the conclusion. The local Policeman was not harmed but was made a figure of fun, this humiliation apparently being Halls purpose for the entire event.

Ben Hall was ambushed and killed when Ned Kelly was only 10, but his exploits and anti-police sentiment clearly appealed to certain sectors of society, and theres little doubt,  the life and times of other bushrangers and especially of Ben Hall influenced Ned Kellys  own perceptions, his aspirations and ultimately his methods. Ben Hall was a legend in Ned Kellys lifetime : I think  Ned Kelly wanted to be one too – so wether consciously or not he adopted Bens anti-authoritarian and anti-Police stance as his own, manufactured his own set of  grievances and set off on his doomed criminal path to legend.

Taking an entire town hostage was therefore not an original idea of Ned Kellys but a copy-cat crime. He copied Ben Halls idea of using hostages as an audience to speak his grievances to, to capture and humiliate police, to offer food drink and entertainment to the hostages, and not to harm anyone. Kellys notable embellishment was to then rob the Bank. Strangely these unusual Bank robberies are regarded as bold and defiant acts of a fearless larrikin bushranger, the  acts of a future General, but I have an alternative view to offer : the taking of human hostages and the use of human shields in the form of women and children reflects a distinct lack of the bravery and courage required by the more typical Bank Robber. Rather, Ned Kelly preyed first on the weakest links, ordinary citizens, men women and children,  Policemen in the dead of night, and used them as collateral to ensure the outcome of his robbery, and his own survival. There was nothing admirable or particularly brave in any of this.

Much is made of the fact that these robberies were accomplished without a single shot being fired, the implication being that this was not a crime of violence but a kind of charm offensive, in some way a triumph of persuasion and tact rather than something crude and violent that involved shooting and killing people.  In fact these robberies entailed massive use of intimidation and threats of violence, and as modern psychologists tell us, intimidation and threats of violence, being held hostage and having loaded guns pointed at you by  a gang of known murderers are hugely traumatic and psychologically damaging to the victims.  Anyone in Australia who has seen the accounts on TV provided by survivors of the  recent Lindt Café siege in Sydney, where they were held hostage for most of a day by a lone gunman will know what I mean. The women who spoke up were devastated and terribly damaged by it all.  Heres an example of Ned Kellys violence as told by Peter Fitzsimons :

“In a sudden flash of fury Ned grabs Dudley  by the collar puts his revolver to the old mans temple and says he will blow his brains out if he does not keep quiet.

Its hard enough being an outlaw without taking cheek from a thing like you’ Ned adds morosely.

   Similar treatment is needed for another of the party by the name of Tennant, a proud Scot who refuses to co-operate with these ruffians no matter whom they might threaten.

   Oh, really?

    Roughly grabbing him Ned forces him to open his mouth and then jams the muzzle of his revolver between his teeth. How about co-operation now?

These scenarios were not made up by Peter Fitzsimons – they are taken from  recorded statements given at  Ned Kellys trial, and from a newspaper report of 1878. Threatening an old man with a loaded gun to the side of his head, and forcing a loaded gun into someones mouth are the terrifying acts of a seriously violent  bully, a psychopath. These were entirely innocent  citizens trying to conduct their ordinary lives. Horrifying.

No amount of free food or beer, or trick horse riding or hop-scotch would ever mitigate the terror and fear most of the hostages at these round-ups would have experienced, let alone the two mentioned above. Neither would it have lessened  the post-traumatic stress they would have endured in many cases for years afterwards, at a time when such devastating psychological injuries were not recognized, and help was not available for them. When I mentioned this inevitable outcome on ordinary citizens in an earlier Forum of mine – since deleted by Kelly fanatics – I was dismissed with the claim that country folk back then were much tougher than people are now days, but this is simply not true –  in fact that statement betrays the common misconception about mental illness – that its just about how weak a person is. Mental illness may not have been recognized but that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist at that time, as Leo Kennedys recent talk proved. At the  Morrissey book launch  earlier this month he gave graphic account of the mental pain, depression and  suffering Bridget Kennedy endured for many years after her husband Michael was murdered by the Kelly Gang. Make no mistake about it – among the hostages at Euroa and Jerilderie and Glenrowan there would have been many traumatized and damaged survivors who suffered for many years to come, perhaps for the rest of their lives.    No shots needed to be fired as the hostages were terrified and brow beaten into abject submission. Ned Kelly and ignorant modern sympathise think the fact no shots were fired is some sort of positive truth about Euroa and Jerilderie – in fact they are a testimony to the effectiveness of the over-the-top violent and believable threats the Gang made to its hostages- and just because nobody was shot doesn’t mean there weren’t many people injured – the sad truth is that Psychological injury cant be seen, and in those days was barely recognized.

Something else about which much nonsense is spoken of in relation to these hostage dramas are the various complements paid to the Gang and to Ned Kelly personally by a tiny minority of the hostages. Particular mention is always made of a few women who were apparently thrilled and stimulated by the presence of this rugged Outlaw in their midst. As we all know and agree Ned Kelly had a way with words, but he also employed the deliberate tactic of ingratiating himself towards women.  This was of course a deliberately manipulative tactic, and typical of the behavior of a psychopath who without empathy or the least actual concern for anyone but himself, played on womens emotions when it suited him. These infatuated women and a few men were hoodwinked by Ned Kellys good looks and apparent charm, not realizing it was an act and a cynical façade designed to create and sustain the “Gentleman Bushranger”  image Ned Kelly was trying to copy off people like Ben Hall whom  he aspired to emulate.

Kellys deference to women only lasted as long as it was necessary : he readily threated violence if they failed to obey his orders to the letter, and of course he didn’t hesitate to use them as hostages and human shields.  At Jerilderie for example Ian Jones records how to obtain the hostage Constable Devines co-operation he threatened Devines wife and children :

 “ As long as they remain quiet, you and the children will be safe”

The charm offensive obviously worked on Mrs Devine because later she is reported to have said Ned Kelly was “the kindest man I ever met.”  What nonsense! How could she have forgotten that Ned had used her life and the  lives of her own children to blackmail her husband into doing exactly what Ned wanted? A pity she hadn’t been able to go to Victoria and talk to Bridget Kennedy about the gold watch Ned stole from her dead husbands body and refused to return it to her as a keepsake of the loved one he had murdered a few months before! How kind would she then have thought he was? She obviously didn’t witness Kelly outside shoving his revolver down someones throat! Her opinion of Ned Kelly , based on a few hours of  interaction with him, is laughable nonsense. I am reminded of modern day women who are infatuated with terrorists – they are motivated by a weird sexual attraction to violent dominant hyper masculine figures most women with insight would run a mile from. Seems they could be found on the frontiers of North eastern Victoria 135 years ago as well!

In summary, its time to reject the Myth makers claim that these events were something akin to a weekend Picnic at a Fun Park with the Kelly Gang doing tricks, because nowdays we recognize they would have inflicted massive psychological injury on many of the victims. People co-operated and put up only token resistance because of the high level of intimidation and threatened violence, which was not confined to Bank Clerks and Policemen but to ordinary citizens and women and children.  Placing a loaded revolver beside an old mans head, or forcing it between someones teeth  testify to the ultra- violent nature of these hostage taking and bank robbing crimes of the Kelly Gang. The fact no shots were fired and nobody was actually shot, confirms two things : the bullying and intimidation of ordinary people by the Gang was at such a high level, shooting was unnecessary, and secondly, that the hostages behaved very sensibly – they were all very aware of what happened at Stringybark Creek when Ned Kellys orders were not instantly obeyed! No doubt if they decided to take matters into their own hands at Euroa or Jerilderie, shots would have been  fired and more innocent lives would have been taken by the Kelly Gang. The fact this didn’t happen is no thanks to Ned Kelly, but of course he is happy to take credit for it.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that there are actual recorded personal stories of this sort of post traumatic misery, depression, suicide, alcoholism and relationship difficulties by survivors and family of Kellys hostage taking, Bank robbing and general terrorising of Kelly country. I encourage anyone knowing of any to post a Comment. 

More on the Killing of Lonigan

One of Ned Kellys Rifles : this one is on display at the Imagining Ned Exhibition. 

The Note by the Rifle at the Exhibition : Don’t tell the Neducator anyone - His business model would be wrecked if the truth got out!

The Kelly Fanatic who has a Facebook Page devoted - but utterly failing - to  “Unmask” The Kelly Gang Unmasked book, still thinks I am Ian, the books Author, even though I unreservedly denied that in a Post last year. This fanatic, like heaps of them from the Ned Kelly Forum and Iron Outlaw love to come here to read my Blog and then Post as Anonymous, or as in the case of this particular Fanatic, comment on his anti-Book Facebook Page if he thinks he has a point to make. The only Post he wrote in May was an attack on me and on this Blog, which is all he ever does now that he abandoned his attempt to "Unmask” that book last year sometime - but I am amused that it finished with the immortal words 
"BTW Dee, look at how many 'Likes' this page has!” There were THREE in six weeks! What a joke!

But back to Lonigan! The Anti-Book Facebook Fanatic has now posted his explanation of what happened, and included a diagram that he thinks somehow explains exactly how Lonigan was shot in the thigh. He subscribes to the single shot, quartered Bullet theory, and uses McIntyres diagram in support, and quotes from his Deposition. This has Lonigan running away from Ned and the Gang toward a tree, but he is felled before reaching it, brought down by a single shot from Ned Kelly using a quartered bullet. He says Dr Reynolds could easily have mistaken a quartered rifle bullet for a smaller revolver bullet.

When I last looked this regurgitated SwanDrops  explanation had been “Liked” by 7 and commented on by one, but somehow I don’t think these knee-jerk “Likes” followed even the slightest attempt to see if this proposal makes any sense at all - because it doesn’t! Its another epic FAIL by the book-hater, a laughably flimsy and silly proposition that raises more questions than it answers, and can be safely put in the bin along with the “Cross-Fire” farce, the “self-inflicted wound” and the “head was the only target” thought bubbles.

What the book-Hater will have to draw in his next diagram, is the trajectory of these four quarters fired at a man running AWAY to his right, so that one goes into his eye from the FRONT - who cares what angle, any will do - another going through his upper LEFT arm and another through the LEFT thigh from the OUTSIDE, which of course is the opposite side from which it would approach the leg if fired by Ned according to the diagram provided on the FB Page. This scenario is completely impossible: Firing at someone from behind and to their right, and hitting them from in front and to their left. Ridiculous nonsense!

The two other things he will have to do is admit that if his theory and diagram are correct, then Ned Kelly lied when he said Lonigan was BEHIND a log and aiming at him over the top of it when he was shot. He will also have to explain if his theory and diagram are correct, how shooting and killing a man running away is not murder but “Self Defence” as Ned Kelly claimed.  Essentially, the book-hater has created a scenario that wrecks Kellys credibility as a witness, and his defence of “self defence”. Either that, or he will have to retract his whole stupid thought bubble and start again. Either way his credibility as a Kelly expert is in even greater shreds. 

Incidentally, Peter Fitzsimons refers to the deposition of George Stephens, who reported the following words of Ned Kelly when Stephens was his hostage at Faithfulls Creek : 
“Lonigan made off for the logs, trying to draw his revolver as he did so, and he got down behind a log, rested his revolver on the top of it. I then took  my rifle and fired at Lonigan and the ball grazed him along the temple. Lonigan then disappeared behind a  log. He gradually then rose his hands up above the log and when his head appeared again I fired again and shot him through the head” 
This quote is interesting and important because it supports the idea that Lonigan was shot at least once before the fatal head shot, as I have been suggesting. I also find it interesting that Ian Jones quotes other parts of Stephens deposition but not that part. We are still left with the problem of the left thigh wound and the left arm wound. Any advances on Bills theory will be welcome.

Kelly Book Launch

On Saturday June 6^th I went back to Bendigo to attend a Presentation on Ned Kelly by Doug Morrissey and Leo Kennedy, and afterwards to the formal launching of Morrisseys book, “Ned Kelly: A Lawless Life”. These two events were linked to a course offered by Latrobe University called “Exhibiting Culture: Imagining Ned”, designed to make use of the Bendigo Art Galleries Exhibition, “Imagining Ned”, which runs till the end of this month. I visited the Exhibition itself a few weeks ago.

Morrisseys talk was based on his book, but to further illuminate the development of the Mythology that sprang up around Ned he played examples of the folksongs that were being sung at the time. They were catchy tunes with romantic emotive and colourful  lyrics about the plight of the Kellys and the gang. Some of the words  and imagery in the ballad “Morton Bay” were plagiarized by Ned and included in the Jerilderie Letter. We also heard “Lonigans Widow” a rare example of a song about Ned Kelly that paints him in a poor light. It was written for the 1970 movie "Ned Kelly" starring Mick Jagger, and sung on the soundtrack album by Waylon Jennings:Have a listen:

Leo Kennedy followed Doug Morrissey with a passionate and moving exposition of the impact of the Kelly outbreak on the Kennedy family. Leos’ great grandfather was Sergeant Michael Kennedy, a respected and decent Irish Catholic, father of four and husband of Bridget. From the agonizing wait to find out if her husband was still alive, to having to put up with the Public utterances of Kelly sympathisers, and Ned Kellys boasting and parading of the gold watch he stole from Kennedys dead body, attacks on the motivations and professionalism of the Sergeant, right down to the recent discovery at Mansfield that Kennedys grave had been co-opted into a Tourist Trail celebrating the life and times of his killer,Ned Kelly, and to the Kelly musical that premiered only a few weeks ago, the Kennedys have borne mostly silently enormous personal grief and anguish. Undoubtedly so too have the families of all the other victims of Ned Kellys violence and hatred.  Leo regards Morrisseys book as part of the long overdue fightback against Kelly mythology, and having heard him speak so powerfully from a personal perspective, I am pleased to have been making my contribution in a small way to that quest to restore  truth and balance to the historical record regarding the Kelly Outbreak. Leos truth was something I hadn’t thought about much before, so for that alone I was glad I had made the return trip to Bendigo.

That a  fightback is clearly needed is demonstrated right now on the Facebook page of the largest Kelly place  on the Internet, Iron Outlaw. The sites owner  has finally acknowledged the existence of Morrisseys book, three months after its release providing a link to an ABC book review, but in his typically arrogant way he disrespectfully describes the author as 
“some fellow called Dr Doug Morrissey ( a mate of Alex McDermott )”.

The only other comment made by the clever IO owner - the person who identified me as Bills daughter, no less – is this typically ignorant claim : “strangely no mention of police shooting children to death at Glenrowan. I wonder why..”
I call this ignorant because a single child, John Jones – not CHILDREN – died at Glenrowan, and this incident IS described in the book. What we need to wonder why is how the IO writer could be so stupid as to write about the content of a book he has so obviously not read, and to believe that CHILDREN died at Glenrowan. Poor John Jones died there because Ned Kelly took him hostage and used him as a human shield.  Ned Kelly thought he could hide behind innocent citizens, including children and babies, put on armor and shoot at the Police and they wouldn’t respond!

Following the IO writers rotten example, the ignorance and the disrespect that Kelly sympathisers wallow in is on revolting display in the comments  that follow the book review link. The buffoon whose whining had my two forums deleted leads the way with a description of Leo as a muppet,  of Ian MacFarlane as Numb-nuts and Morrissey ( spelled as More hissey) as “pinup boy for those who are compulsive porky pie tellers.” 
He finishes up with this :  “Remember the Victorian Police Motto; ‘It’s better to convict an innocent man than no man at all’, continuing the disgusting anti-Police ranting that Kelly fanatics are so fond of doing.  

The ignorant self described ‘Neducator' repeats the discredited “body straps” nonsense and then writes : “The police also were armed to the teeth, with revolvers, repeating rifles and shotguns and massive amount of ammo” repeating and exaggerating a well known lie – the Police had their usual ONE revolver each, and ONE additional shotgun, and ONE repeating rifle – and this is from a man who offers his services to schoolchildren claiming to tell them “what really occurred”  He clearly has no idea and also hasn’t read the book he criticizes! As I said once before Neducation is their made-up word for made-up history. He doesn’t have the courage to defend these beliefs of his here amongst adults, having vowed never to Post here and face the music! Someone else says most of the cops were convicts and that Ned was just defending his family! Another says hes getting tired of the Kennedy familes complaining!

Sadly, there isn’t a single comment from someone able or willing to challenge these dreadful Comments, and I have been banned from the Page so am doing it here.  I am  going to continue to expose these ignorant beliefs and stupid comments, because I agree with Leo Kennedy : its time to fight back against the odious Kelly myth and the bigots and anti-Police ignoramuses who promote it.

Cant wait for the next two books of Morrisseys trilogy to further expose the Kelly mythology to the light of reason and intelligent analysis.

A closer look at the Killing of Lonigan

In the Jerilderie Letter Ned Kelly recalled his killing of Lonigan at Stringybark Creek as follows: 

“When I called on them to throw up their hands McIntyre obeyed and Lonigan ran some six or seven yards to a battery of logs instead of dropping behind the one he was sitting on, he had just got to the logs and put his head up to take aim when I shot him that instant or he would have shot me”…………

“As soon as I shot Lonigan he jumped up and staggered some distance from the Logs with his hands raised he then fell he surrendered but too late”

The bullet that killed Lonigan had smashed its way into his brain through the right eye and bony eye socket. Such an injury would not permit a person to leap to his feet and stagger about with arms raised - unconsciousness would have been instant, and death within a few seconds. In other places, Lonigan is also reported to have uttered the words “Christ, Ive been shot”. So theres something not right with Neds recollection already!

Neds claim that Lonigan was aiming at him when Ned shot him, supposedly in self defence, is proven false by the angle at which the bullet entered the brain.  The post mortem examination showed that the bullet entered obliquely from in front and to the right of Lonigans head; if Lonigan had been aiming at Ned, then Lonigans head would have been pointing straight at Ned, and the bullet would have entered from directly in front but it didn’t – it entered from the side proving that Lonigan was looking elsewhere when Kelly shot him.

 

My diagram of the path of the fatal bullet, shows Lonigan could not have been looking at and therefore not aiming at Ned Kelly when he was killed. Ned Kelly said he was looking at him : this diagram based on the Forensic reports proves he wasn’t. The four circles in a line represent the 4 advancing Kelly Gang members with Ned (NK) at one end ( as in McIntyres drawings of the scene) CORRECTION: The Gang members should be on the OTHER side of NK, to his left not his right as I have wrongly drawn it. This correction has no effect on the argument about the angle hat the bullet entered Lonigans head.

Dr Reynolds post mortem also revealed that Lonigan was not shot once but three or possibly four times.  In addition to the bullet that had smashed through his right eye and eye socket into the brain, another bullet had gone right through his upper left arm, another had entered his left thigh and travelled under the skin towards the inside of the thigh, and the fourth appeared to have grazed his right temple.

This ghastly but important forensic evidence makes a lie of Ned Kellys claims that Lonigan was taking aim at him,  and that he was shot just once: Lonigan was not even looking at Kelly, and he was shot four times.

As usual, Ned Kellys self serving account cannot be trusted.  So what did happen? I wrote about this last year, (Click here) but kelly sympathiser comments have given me a bit more to add to the debate.   

Kelly sympathisers embarrassment at the discrepancy between the forensic evidence and Ned Kellys account has led them to devise some very creative attempts at reconciling the two. Some say that Ned used “Swan drops” or else a “quartered bullet”, so that four or more projectiles emerged from his gun with the one firing, and they simultaneously created the damage to the right side of his head, his left arm and left leg.  Some say that the bullet that went into Lonigans eye first of all went through his raised left arm. Unfortunately for the sympathsiers, swan drops or bullet quarters would have to defy the known laws of physics to simultaneously enter the right and left sides of  Lonigans body, and to reach his left leg when it was concealed behind a log.  I invite anyone who thinks the bullet went through the left arm before the right eye to try to get your left upper arm way across in front of your right eye, and at the same time imagine you are aiming at Ned Kelly with a gun in your right hand –  if you could you would be contorted into a ridiculous posture that immediately reveals the silliness of that suggestion. The suggestion is preposterous but Kelly sympathisers keep making it!

Others have said the wound in the left leg was self inflicted, that is to say, Lonigan would have to have been left handed, and in his haste to get his gun out he fired it into his own leg. So was he left handed or right handed? And why, if he fired a Police revolver into his thigh, was there not a gaping hole in his left thigh rather than a small wound with a bullet still lodged under the skin of the medial thigh? The damage from a Webley fired at point blank range into a thigh would make a huge mess! Another stupid theory postulated by sympathisers fails the slightest scrutiny!

“Anonymous” – which one I wonder? – claimed recently  that the additional wounds to Lonigans body were inflicted by “crossfire” when the Gang was chasing Kennedy through the bush. Is he serious? What are the odds that Kennedy, shooting back at the 4 gang members chasing him, missed them all every single time but managed to hit his dead mate lying on the ground not once but two or possibly three times? Some people will believe anything but the bloody obvious! Another preposterous thought bubble from the Kelly “intellectuals".

Another “Anonymous”- or is it the same one ? -  wrote this: “Lonigan was shot in the eye/head area because that was the biggest target Ned saw of him as he was looking over the log he was behind and taking aim at Ned. There's another fact you can scoff at and leave out, and of course you will as it supports Ned's version of what happened.” Well actually its NOT a fact that a person only gets shot in the head when the body is not available as a target. For all we know Ned Kelly WAS aiming at the body but missed and struck him in the eye instead. Furthermore, as already described, Lonigan was NOT taking aim at Ned when he was shot - he was probably looking at the other gang members.  And how does “Anonymous” explain the left leg bullet wound? Was that sticking up above the log as well? More nonsense.

Bills suggestion that the additional bullets were fired into Lonigans dead body after Kennedy had been killed and after McIntyre had fled the scene is certainly possible. If true it’s a sickening act of disrespect that further undermines the Sympathiser claim about Kelly having respect for the dead Policemen, but it has the virtue, from the Sympathisers perspective of preserving the possibility that Ned killed Lonigan with a single shot. It is also consistent with McIntyres recollection of a single shot being fired to kill Lonigan, though I have previously discussed the possibility that an experience as traumatic as ambush by armed men and witness of the murder of comrades can easily result in unreliable memories. I think Lonigan received a non fatal shot, leapt up and cried “Christ Ive been shot” put his hands up to surrender but was shot again, and killed.

The truth is that we cant be sure of exactly what did happen when Lonigan was killed, but we can be certain that it didn’t happen in the way Ned Kelly claimed it did,  because the forensic evidence is incontrovertible, and it doesn’t fit with Neds  description. The absurd thought bubbles that sympathisers have generated to try to reconcile these differences all burst with the merest critical evaluation, and all we are left with is two facts : Ned Kelly killed Lonigan and he didn’t tell the truth about it.