Sunday, 4 June 2017

Understand the Fitzpatrick Incident


“I honestly believe the whole scenario at the Kelly hut on the 15th of April 1878 was one big setup by police long before Fitzpatricks arrival at the hut.” (‘Crichton’s view’ – can be found on the Iron Outlaw website as ‘Keep ya powder dry’)

The simple facts of the events of April 15th 1878 are that Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick visited the Kelly home to arrest Dan Kelly on a charge of horse stealing. There was a ‘fracas’, Fitzpatrick received a wound to his wrist, and returned empty handed. Warrants were then issued for the arrest of various people involved in this ‘fracas’ for attempted murder. 

The Kellys and their sympathiser followers have forever maintained their innocence in all this, denying there was any wrongdoing on their part, and yet all of them lied about it, including Ned Kelly who claimed he was 400 miles away when it happened.  Jim Kelly lied about it, years later claiming he was there but the records show he was in a NSW prison at the time. Ellen Kelly also lied and at first told police that neither Ned nor Fitzpatrick had been at the house for several months. At other times however Neds sister Kate, his brother Jim and uncle Patrick Quinn all said  that Ned had fired a gun  and wounded Fitzpatrick and a couple of years later Ned Kelly admitted that he also had lied and confessed that indeed he did shoot at Fitzpatrick.  

As was so recently observed yet again, the Kellys version “…will change every time they open their mouths, but Fitzpatricks will hardly deviate in the 35 years between 15th April 1878 and when he is interviewed for newspapers in 1911.” (Grantlee Kieza : “Ellen Kelly”) 

Ive said repeatedly  that the greatest of the Kelly myths – or in other words the biggest lie that the Kelly believers tell about the entire saga – is that the Kellys were victims of unjustified police harassment and persecution, and it was Police behaviour that drove Ned Kelly to do what he did. In keeping with that conspiracy theory ‘Crichtons view’ as expressed in a  recently reposted  out-of-date essay taken from The Iron Outlaw site from several years ago, is an example of this conspiracy theory approach to the Kelly outbreak. The conspiracy theory is that Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick was a drunk, a womaniser, a liar and a thoroughly bad cop whose visit to the Kelly homestead was a corrupt act designed to entrap the innocent Kellys, and that everything Fitzpatrick said about what happened that evening were lies. This version is  like music to the ears of Kelly sympathisers because it presses all their tiny buttons: police corruption, persecution of innocent Kellys, conspiracy theory, and especially vilification of Fitzpatrick. “beautiful” said one;”I  could read this all day’ wrote another! There’s nobody in the Kelly story that Kelly sympathisers hate more than Fitzpatrick, whose memory is ceaselessly smeared and ridiculed. I will address this vilification in Part Two. 

But close examination of the entire Kelly construct around the so called ‘Fitzpatrick incident’ shows that the liars were the Kellys. Their conspiracy theory version is a lie – one giant lie made up of innumerable smaller ones designed to deflect the blame for the violence and mayhem of the Kelly Outbreak onto the Kellys traditional enemy, the Police. Criminals almost invariably look for someone else to blame for the trouble they find themselves in, and the Kelly’s, and Ned in particular were no exception. What is exceptional however, is how widely they have managed to persuade  the public that their lies are true.

The Kelly sympathiser view, as expressed quite typically by Crichton, always deliberately conceals several crucial facts, and invariably misrepresents several others to try to make their case. For example they never comment on the fact that the Kelly brothers fled the scene immediately after, and left their mother there to face the music alone. Apart from not being behaviour one would expect from an innocent person, their flight into the bush is the opposite behaviour one would expect from the devoted son Ned Kelly was supposed to be. 

Kellys flight into the bush also proves the lie to the purported claim by Ned Kelly later that his mothers freedom was so important that in exchange for her freedom he would hand himself in. If Kelly was really the devoted mother-loving son he is claimed to have been, and if he had really wanted to help her he would have stuck around the house and faced the music right from the start - after all, he was innocent, wasn't he? Instead he high-tailed it for the bush to save his own skin and then made this offer which was a grandstanding bit of theatre by a master manipulator who would have known full well there had never been and there wasn’t ever going to be an example of a convicted criminal being released from prison in exchange for a suspect handing himself in. That ‘offer’, something altogether different from a ‘plea bargain’ could never have been accepted by the Police in Victoria or anywhere else in the civilised world, but rejection of it would help Kelly in his PR campaign against the police.  It was a pretence, an empty gesture, but in re-telling this silly charade as an example of Ned Kellys magnificence, Kelly sympathisers merely expose their gullibility to the master manipulators wiles. No system of justice has ever worked that way.

Another lie that is often repeated in this context is Mrs Kellys claim, repeated by Ned Kelly in the Jerilderie Letter that Dan needn’t go with the Policeman because he didn’t take to the Kellys place the actual warrant for his arrest. This claim has been refuted time and time again over many years, but still poorly informed Kelly sympathisers (is there any other kind?) drag it up time and again. Do they think that Policemen as they go about their daily duties should carry with them great sheaves of warrants in case they happen to come across a known criminal? Even when a warrant has yet to be issued, Police are empowered to arrest people they suspect of being criminals! A moments reflection would reveal to any informed person the absurdity of that claim, and yet its still part of the Kelly myths. 

Crightons conspiracy theory about Fitzpatrick’s involvement, in line with all of them, ignores the most important aspect of this incident , which is that Fitzpatrick did actually have a perfectly legitimate reason to go to the Kelly homestead - there was a warrant for the arrest of Dan Kelly in relation to a major stock theft that Dan was believed to be involved in. Ned Kelly subsequently openly boasted in the Jerilderie Letter that he was indeed the mastermind of an illegal ‘wholesale and retail’ horse and cattle stealing operation, confirming the police suspicions in relation to Dan were correct, and completely undermining people like Crighton who say the ‘scenario’  at the Kelly homestead was ‘was one big setup by police’. Why the HELL would they bother to engineer and set up such a ‘scenario’ when the Kellys had already provided them with a perfectly legitimate reason to visit them? If the Police had been looking for a reason to visit, they didn’t need to go about creating an excuse for themselves because the Kellys  gave them a very good one on a plate. The ‘setup’ that resulted in Fitzpatrick’s visit was Kellys criminal stock thieving organisation. Crichtons premise is complete nonsense.


The Kelly apologists like Crichton who ignore this foolish confession by Ned Kelly don’t want to admit that the true origin of the ‘outbreak’ was what Kelly confessed to - major criminal activity that drew the Kellys to the attention of the Police. So they pretend Ned Kelly wasn’t actually a major regional crime figure, they elaborate a fanciful conspiracy theory to explain why Fitzpatrick went there to make an arrest, and they vilify and demonise Fitzpatrick. They are simply echoing the words and the behaviour of their hero Ned Kelly who wished to absolve himself of any blame for the murders he committed and blame them on Fitzpatrick :“Fitzpatrick will be the cause of greater slaughter to the Union Jack than St Patrick was to the snakes and toads in Ireland” 

Next week I will write about Fitzpatrick. 

But just to quickly recap what we know are the facts of the case so far :
·     1.  Police had absolutely no need to invent a reason to go to the Kelly house - the Kellys gave them one on a plate: They were running a major crime racket dealing in stolen horses and cattle.

·      2. The arrest warrant existed but it did not need to be shown to the suspect before he could be arrested and taken into custody

·      3. The police were not 'persecuting' the Kellys when Fitzpatrick went to arrest Dan - he was doing his job.

·      4.  The Kellys all lied about what happened

·      5. Ned Kelly more or less admitted his guilt by fleeing the scene, and confirmed it to Steele after his arrest at Glenrowan a couple of years later.

70 comments:

  1. And I assume Fitzpatrick was "On duty" when he called in to arrest Dan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As opposed to being on holiday? It was a Monday, he was in uniform so clearly he was on duty!

      Delete
  2. Did he disobey a direct order by going to the Kelly house alone?

    ReplyDelete
  3. No he didn't. I'll be explaining all the myths about Fitzpatrick next week such as this one, that he was told not to go there but disobeyed orders and went anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fitzpatricks role in the Kelly story has always been overstated. He was merely a Policeman in the execution of his duty. Had he not returned to the Kelly hut a second time he would not have attempted to arrest Dan Kelly and the subsequent fracas would not have occurred.

    It is however a certainty that some Policeman somewhere at some other time would have arrested both Dan and Ned on the very same warrants due to the simple fact they were in existence.

    Had the arrests taken place somewhere apart from the Kelly hut the difference would have been that the volatile Ellen Kelly would not be present to light the fuse of violence that occurred in the hut.

    Had the execution of the warrants played out in a different way Fitzpatrick would not even be a footnote in this story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mike, a brilliant point that I have not seen made before, that puts the whole Fitzpatrick thing into perspective. Warrants were out and the jig was up, it was just a matter of time. It shows how ludicrously overblown the Fitzpatrick incident was, both in its day and more especially since some prominent so-called Kelly historians turned an arrest gone bad into a whole secret republican movement with thousands of armed supporters ready to take on the government of the day, declare a separate state, and elect Ned Kelly president... Now if only we had been Queensland, we could have hosted the first Banana Republic down here! (The Wombat Republic doesn't sound so good.) Strike up the sheep-stealing band! And for an anthem, what about "Once a jolly swagman"? Primary school kids could be taught all about Brave President Ned and his Green Sash. Intercontinental ballistic testicle parcels could be lobbed at foreign powers (like NSW, Victoria, and especially Van Diemen's Land). A bronze statue of General Ned on horseback could be mounted outside the Benalla Selector's Library. His Little Jerilderie Book could be on the new state history curriculum. The youth could be taught to revere bushrangers living fearless, free and bold. Teachers would glorify his deeds to eager young scholars. Songs and poems would abound. Too, too happy...

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, come the Revolution and everyone will be driving a Rolls. 'But I don't want to drive a Rolls' someone pipes up. The reply? "Come the revolution you'll do as you're bloody well told"

      Yes I too hadn't looked at it from that perspective!

      I would like to propose that if the arrests had occurred at a different time and place and by a different Policeman the really crucial element missing might be Mrs Kelly. She is the one who wrongly persuaded everyone there that Dans arrest was illegal because Fitzpatrick didn't have the warrant to wave around, and with her inflammatory rhetoric and short temper turned what seemed like a very civil process into a violent debacle, wherein her hothead son Ned nearly killed the copper and so began the flight by them that led to SBC and Glenrowan.

      Delete
  5. So now its Mrs. Kelly's fault.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you even considered the possibility? Was it not her wrong advice about warrants that created the dispute, when at first Dan had expressed a willingness to go along?

      Delete
  6. Did Fitzpatrick consume alcohol on his way to the Kelly house?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Fitzpatrick he had lemonade and brandy at Winton, where he stopped for information. Its a long way from that to where I think you're heading which is the slur made by the Kelly's, all known liars, that he was drunk when he got there. Thats a myth.

      Delete
    2. According to Fitzpatrick...... Of course would cover his arse!!! And you believe the words of a man named by the Royal Commission as a liar.

      Delete
    3. And YOU believe the words of a man named by the Royal Commission as "cruel, wanton, and inhuman" on the basis of the way he murdered Kennedy.

      Yes, it was alleged Fitzpatrick was a liar and a larrikin but no evidence was ever asked for or presented by anyone to back up this allegation.

      On the other hand there is plenty of ACTUAL evidence of the lying behaviour of Ned Kelly. So who would it be best to believe - an actual proven serial liar, thief murderer and bully, or a Policeman against whom an allegation of lying was made but no evidence ever produced, and yet who received the support of TWO petitions, presented and signed by named actual good citizens of Lancefield attesting to his good character,?

      You will probably never be able to take off your Fitzpatrick-hate coloured spectacles, but anyone who does will realise theres only one person who has been unfairly picked on and persecuted here, and its not the convicted murderer.

      Delete
  7. Was Ned Kelly leglessly drunk when he burst in and shot at Fitzpatrick? Is that how he missed him at a yard and a half? Was Williamson lying when he said Ned Kelly shot at Fitzpatrick, in his prison statement? Was Mrs Kelly lying when she confessed in her trial that she had knocked Fitzpatrick down with a shovel? (The Argus, 10 August 1880 page 7, see Doug Morrissey, 'Ned Kelly: a Lawless Life' page 6.) Yes, it was Mrs Kelly's fault, by the sound of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So normal to drink on the job? Was he a convicted criminal?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You going to publish the latest questions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK troll everyone is wise to your technique : ignore the facts about the criminal family who lied about what happened and focus on Fitzpatrick, blame him for all your trouble using whatever slur and character assassination technique you can dream up. When are you going to admit that if Ned Kelly wasn't the mastermind behind a big criminal stock thieving syndicate, no policeman would have ever gone there? When are you going to explain why if they were innocent they Fled to the hills? Sorry but the age of Fitzpatricks demonisation by the Kelly mob is over. Instead its the dawning of the age of the Kellys being made to own up and be accountable for their criminal ways.

      Delete
    2. What about the illegitimate child Fitzpatrick fathered in Frankston in Melbourne?

      Delete
    3. No this is not trolling. This is exactly the line of questioning that should have taken place when Ellen Kelly was on trial to determine whether or not Fitzpatrick was a credible witness. No blaming here. Just trying to sort the facts from the fiction. You can do it from the police side, and I can do it from the Kelly side. You may refrain from being a smartarse in future madam.

      Delete
    4. Seems that sme of the prominent members of the Lancefield community thought highly of Fitzpatrick. Why else would over 100 of them have signed a petition calling for his reinstatement after he was dismissed from the police service in April 1880? They wrote " “zealous,diligent, obliging, and universally liked, while we never saw him in company of any but the best citizens. Had he been what [Mayes’] report was said to allege it could not have escaped our attention. He made several clever captures and appeared to us as one of the most efficient and obliging men in the force” The petition was ignored. However, these citizens obviously felt strongly about the dismissal as 12 months later they submitted another by way of their local member, Alfred Deakin, a future prime minister. Seems that some people thought he was a good cop.

      Delete
  10. Dee, these weren't warrants for general horse and cattle stealing. They were for the stolen horses sold to the Baumgartens at Barnawartha, later recovered by police, stolen again from police paddocks - and eventually found mutilated on the banks of the Murray. The warrants for Dan and Ned were issued at Chiltern. Fitzpatrick heard about the warrant for Dan and headed for the Kelly home...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why was he transferred from Richmond to the North East then?

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Fitzpatrick stopped for a drink on the way to the Kelly house, and then again when returning to Benalla whilst on duty, some might suggest a drinking problem, which may account for erratic and unmeritorious behaviour wouldn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Royal Commission described Fitzpatrick a liar and a larrikin so how can anyone honestly believe anything that came from his mouth.The facts are that Dawson,Crichton or anyone else simply does not know the truth.That also applies to the admin of this site and are simply guessing to what happened in April 1878.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Vintage 47 go back to the Royal Commission and when you've found the basis for that claim about Fitzpatrick, that he was a liar and a larrikin, come back and tell us . (My prediction ? You wont find anything - its just an allegation not backed up by one scrap of evidence)

      But when you come back don't write nonsense like you just have, that we are all 'Simply guessing' about what happened. We don't know everything that happened but we do KNOW a whole lot. We KNOW Ned Kelly and all the rest of the Kelly mob told lies about what happened there. We KNOW Fitzpatrick was injured and we KNOW he had a legitimate right to be there to arrest Dan Kelly and we KNOW that he resisted arrest and fled into the bush. Thats for starters...

      Delete
    2. I have absolutely no idea why the RC came to that conclusion but they certainly did.I am trying to simply point out there has been a lot of innuendo and falsehoods spoken in all this Fitzpatrick business on both sides for and against him. No one including you and I admin have any idea what really happened that particular day.Then again I and everyone else are not as smart a person like you are we?Talking of allegations your pretty good at doing that yourself especially unfounded ones.You seem to me to be excellent at doing just that and a touch biased with your points of view.As hard as it is for you to understand, other people can have different opinions to you whether you like it or not.

      Delete
    3. No-one has any idea why the RC came to that conclusion, other than they accepted the view of someone who clearly had it in for him. They were remiss in not trying to get to the bottom of his problem with Fitzpatrick.

      So, if you believe nobody can know what happened there, you would have to accept one possibility is that what happened was what Fitzpatrick said happened, that he told the truth. Correct?

      Delete
    4. I like that last possibility, and for those who haven't read Fitzpatrick's version of what happened, the only place you will find it reconstructed from its fragmentary parts, corroborated and vindicated is in my "Redeeming Fitzpatrick" article, which can easily be found and downloaded by Googling that term. That will answer most of the questions that have been posted here in the last 2 days. As that is the first re-examination of the Fitzpatrick Incident in nearly 140 years, it might not answer every question that could be asked. But it is the only attempt that has ever been made to try to test Fitzpatrick's evidence objectively against what else can be known about that day 15 April 1878 and the immediately surrounding events. It is not true that "no-one can ever know what happened". That is the Ian Jones/Peter FitzSimons view, which comes from giving most weight to the often obviously false statements in Ned Kelly's Euroa and Jerilderie letters, and using them to attack partial extracts from one or other parts of Fitzpatrick's testimony. This extraordinarily weak excuse for scholarship is not viable since I wrote my article. Now anyone wishing to defend the Kelly's position has to put forward a full, alternative construction of events that explains, at least as well as my article, a coherent pro-Kelly position. But as Jones himself admitted in his "Short Life" book, it can't be done.

      Delete
  14. Fitzpatrick didn't 'stop for a drink' on the way to the Kelly house - he stopped to get information and by his own account had lemonade and brandy. He could barely stand when he returned to Winton and was given a drink in the time honoured way for its 'medicinal' purposes. Your suggestion is just more of the typical Kelly vilification and slur of Fitzpatrick that is baseless . And exactly to which 'erratic and unmeritorious behaviour" up to April 15th 1878 are you referring? More slur and unfounded vilification unless you can provide the evidence otherwise. And if you think premarital sex and illegitimate children is a blot on his character, put the same blot on Mrs Kellys character - she was pregnant to Red before they got married, she had an illegitimate child to Bill Frost and another one to George King, only marrying him when that baby was a few months old. So is someone who has a child out of wedlock a nasty immoral wretch?

    ReplyDelete
  15. He could have had a lemonade without the brandy as he WAS ON DUTY!! HE stopped for a drink, period!! He had no reason whatsoever to consume alcohol other than his need for it. So does that mean a copper today can go into a pub to get information and have an alcoholic drink just because he is there. He would be booted from the force. Isn't that right Brian? The difference between Mrs Kelly and Fitzpatrick is cavernous. Mrs. Kelly didn't get a 13 year old pregnant did she!! Fitzpatrick was known for his interest in very young ladies, which is the reason he was transferred to the North East. The family of the 13 y.o girl were after his hide so they shipped him off to the North East rather than put his sorry arse in the lock up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps someone can enlighten us all as to the status of lemonade and brandy while on Duty in 1878? It may have been perfectly acceptable for all I know. I wonder if you can provide any references for your statement that "Fitzpatrick was known for his interest in very young ladies" Somehow I doubt you will be able to but you will forever feel no hesitation in repeating this libellous slur as long as it helps you maintain your delusional beliefs about Fitzpatrick and the 'hero' Ned Kelly.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous made an accusation that Fitzpatrick had an interest in 'very young ladies' and when challenged to produce the evidence has failed to do so. This is the usual standard of 'scholarship' by the gutless wonder Kelly cop haters: Allegation, slur, vilification, lies - just chuck as much dirt as you can and see what sticks. They have NOTHING to back up their claims, NOTHING to base their hate of Fitzpatrick on other than that he exposed Ned Kellys lies and thieving, and NOTHING to offer but blind prejudice and police hate.

      Delete
    3. Ask his great great grandchildren who their great great grandfather was. They have nothing nice to say. I have to say Madam, you do "FIRE UP" very quickly.

      Delete
    4. Sadly their g/g/grandfather ended up in a bad place but I am not talking about where he ended up but about where he was in April 1878. Where is the evidence that AT THAT TIME he was any of the things he is claimed to be? SO I ask you again, where is the evidence for your slanderous accusation that in 1878 he was fond of 'very young ladies" ? If you cant produce any then you shouldn't repeat it because you're just repeating a filthy lie about a man that the Kelly people have chosen to be the scapegoat for all the problems Ned Kellys violence created, but they would never accept responsibility for.

      And as to where he ended up, this man was vilified and hounded all his life, and I can fully appreciate why his life might have gone pear shaped after he was victimised by the Kellys, the press and even the Police.

      Has it EVER occurred to you that Fitzpatrick might not be the person the Kellys want you to think he was? Surely you can see exactly why it suits THEIR purposes to vilify him, to distract everyones attention from Ned Kellys admitted criminality and propensity to violence, and his lies about what happened that evening, and complain that it was all Fitzpatricks fault?

      Delete
  16. Mounted Constable Fitzpatrick was stationed at Benalla and was travelling on duty to Greta to temporarily take over the station there. He had to pass through Winton where he stopped for a brandy lemonade cocktail. His route then took him past the Kelly home where he called in hoping to arrest Dan Kelly.

    Re police and drinking: "Some diversity of opinion existed amongst the witnesses in reference to the continuance of the canteen at Russell street. The Chief Commissioner and a number
    of witnesses favor its maintenance, but many others allege the facility thus afforded
    to the men of procuring drink at all hours leads to habits of inebriety. Your
    Commissioners have no hesitation in recommending the abolition of the canteen in
    connection with the Depot, the Russell-street Barracks, and all police stations".

    (Royal Commission on Police, General Report, 1883, p. xx)

    ReplyDelete
  17. This blog has been plagued this year by many Anonymous layabouts. Dee you are far too easy on them. The reality is that they bog down the blog with incessant foolish questions, rude comments, and frivolous or uneducated observations. This ties us all up in refuting their follies, which of course is their purpose.

    The obvious course is to ban anonymity or consign them to your FB page...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ned was a cop killing machine.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No more than the police. Did they really need to arrange for a 12lb cannon to be sent to Glenrowan to destroy the Inn and everyone in it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Did the Kelly gang really need to manufacture armour and carry multiple guns and ammunition so they could conduct a deliberately planned massacre of any survivors from a derailed police train that had plunged off the tracks into a gully? Survivors that might have included railway staff and other non-police travellers on the special train? Did the Kelly gang need to imprison 60 people in the Glenrowan inn that resulted in several deaths from police fire when the police shot back at them after surrounding the inn? Why did the Kelly gang not leave the inn and go and fight in open ground like Ann Jones yelled at them to? Were not the Kelly gang gutless cowards hiding behind their prisoners like Ann Jones accused them of being?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ahhh Lance, A new name. Now let me guess, you're Brian Tate too.
    Why did the police shoot at an Inn full of innocent people and not wait for the cannon and kill them all. They fired knowing that innocent people were inside, and didn't give a toss. They are in fact murderers themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Mickey I am sorry to disappoint you but 'Lance' is not me. From what I have read it seems that the police fired on the inn because they were fired on by Kelly and his mates who were on the verandah, full well knowing that they had a pile of hostages behind them. Not particularly brave I should think. Similar behaviour to Man Monis really.

      Delete
    2. Just for the record mate. As you are not Lance, I am not Mickey either.

      Delete
    3. So why did you suggest that I was "Lance'?

      Delete
    4. Mick, I love you, I really do. You have been doing incredible damage to the Kelly brand for many years.

      Keep up your excellent destructive work!

      You've moved house, but I would love to buy you a very expensive sherry Mate!

      Delete
    5. Sadly Brian Tate, Lance, Matt Johnson, and others, I am not "Mickey", so maybe an apology needed here for making assumptions that are not true. As I said previously a new player in the game. I know whom you refer to as Mickey, and he is not me, or anyone else you know. So now that you all look a little silly, lets get on with the show. To correct a little point made by Lance re the cannon and armour. At the time the Garrison Artillery were being despatched to the North East, it was not known that the gang were actually wearing armour. And further, ask the descendants of the Cherry family what they think about the Kelly family and the police. You might get quite a surprise with their answer. They were certainly not angry with the gang members. The police, well that's a different story. They could have pulled back, surrounded the place completely when the re-enforcements arrived from Seymour and forced the boys to lay down their weapons. but no, they blazed away knowing full well there were innocent people inside the Inn including women, children, and the boy Cherry.

      Delete
    6. Perhaps you can offer up a reasonable explanation as to why Ned and company "...blazed away knowing full well there were innocent people inside the Inn including women, children, and the boy Cherry" as the police first advanced? (Hope you don't mind me quoting you). That doesn't sound particularly heroic Mickey.

      Delete
    7. Would police today start firing into a building full of innocent civilians. No they wouldn't. They didn't at Lindt until many hours had passed and the killing started. Well Neddy and the boys did not kill anyone inside the Inn. The police did. Oh and Brian or Warren, or any of the other aliases you use, please keep calling me Mickey. I am enjoying this. You have no idea who I am. It's about time the sympathisers started a rebellion against this shameful tirade of hatred against the Kelly Gang. In fact it's the jack boots approach, by jack boot wearing fools masquerading as police in the 1800's that led to the whole Kelly outbreak in the first place. It is comical to see that the police supporters still won't let the truth get in the way of a good story. The rebellion has begun. C'mon all the sympathisers out there. lets get stuck in!!!

      Delete
    8. Hmm, I did reply Brian Tate but again my post was not put up.

      Delete
    9. The roof of the inn was peppered with bullet holes. The coppers were firing high to avoid the hostages. Stop wasting our time you anonymous twit!

      Delete
    10. There was no boy Cherry killed at Glenrowan, just adult railways worker Martin Cherry. You were thinking of boy Jack Jones, the thirteen year old son of the Glenrowan Inn owner who died next day at Wangaratta hospital..

      Stop wasting our time.

      Just shut the hell up, Fool!

      Delete
    11. Well I don't know your name and couldn't care less what it is, but I DO know you're delusional if you think the 'whole Kelly outbreak' was caused by the Police. Have you forgotten about the findings of the Royal Commission? As for who started the killing, have you forgotten that the Kelly gang MURDERED three police at SBC, have you forgotten they MURDERED Aaron Sherrit, have you forgotten THEY started the shooting at Glenrowan (with human shields to protect them ) and nearly murdered Hare in the first few minutes. As for your call for sympathisers to 'get stuck in' against this 'shameful tirade of hatred against the Kelly gang' - good luck with that. Who isn't going to hate a violent killer, a psychopath, a serial liar, self confessed stock thief and convicted murderer?

      Delete
    12. Oh and I forgot to point out that by the time the Police arrived, your hero was looking at complete and utter defeat, his entire plan had failed completely. So did he surrender and let the innocent hostages go, realising the while thing was a massive failure? No, the four times klller decided to keep them here as some sort of human shield, as some sort of bargaining chip, thinking he could fire at will at the Police but they wouldn't be able to fire back. Bracken ( from memory) was the guy who told all the hostages tp lie low on the floor ( not your areshole gang members ) and the Police were told to fire high. Yeah sympathisers, get stuck in and explain how your genius of a leader was such a brilliant success at Glenrowan. Like Man Aaron Monis was at Lindt. And how like Monis, Kelly was entirely responsible for the entire debacle.

      Delete
    13. Who said "Neddy and the boys did not kill anyone inside the Inn". Ned Kelly shot the workman George Metcalfe in the eye outside the inn hours before the siege and put him in with the other hostages. Metcalfe died months later from the wound. Are you saying that is ok because Ned Kelly didn't shoot him "inside" the inn? Or do you pretend the police killed Metcalfe because Max Brown got it wrong and blamed them? What rebellion are you leading? Are you the one posting as Ned Kelly?

      Delete
  22. Anonymous says Police 'didn't give a toss'. Thats Complete bullshit and theres plenty of evidence of Police trying NOT to harm innocent people. As for the cannon it was a dumb idea that was quickly sen as dumb and no cannon ever got to Glenrowan. However your hero had a drum full of dynamite.

    Let me just point out to you again that you're entitled to think whatever you like about the Police but as was recently pointed out very clearly indeed by the NSW Coroner, no matter how they are caused, the person solely responsible for deaths in a hostage situation is the hostage taker. Thats how normal balanced fair minded people see it, but police haters like yourself think scumbag cop killer Gangs can create mayhem and put innocent peoples lives in grave danger then wash their hands of any responsibility for the outcomes . Youre in an extremist fringe of Kelly worshipping cop haters .

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Kelly gang started the shooting didn't they? The siege wouldn't have happened if Ned Kelly hadn't started it would it? The Kelly gang put all the innocent prisoners in the inn didn't they? The Kellys didn't let the innocent prisoners go did they? Ned Kelly was a psychopath killer wasn't he? That anonymous hasn't said anything good about Ned Kelly yet, just complaints about the police. Go and have a few more beers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That anonymous hasn't said anything good about Ned Kelly yet...". I guess it's hard to defend the indefensible. So anonymous please tell us all the 'good' things about Neddy? You can include rescuing the drowning kid if you want, that should help.

      Delete
    2. since February 1873 I worked as a faller at Mr J. Saunders and R. Rules sawmills then for Heach and Dockendorf I never worked for less than two pounds ten a week since I left Pentridge and in 1875 or 1876 I was overseer for Saunders and Rule. Bourkes water-holes sawmills in Victoria so there

      Delete
    3. Even to take the police evidence all through and the two years career of me and my companions will show that we were anything but blood thirsty, and likewise in the whole of our career we never ill-treated not maltreated man, woman or child and always refrained from doing a cowardly act.

      Delete
    4. For gawd's sake mickey learn to spell. People who chop down trees in forests are fEllers not fallers. And stop using that stolen photo of Ned the day before he was executed on your FB hate page against that book. By then Ned was cactus and he knew it. The same photo is used on the cover of Brad's forthcoming nonsense. A younger photo of Ned would have been heaps smarter. Brad is going to give the Ned republic a firm shove. Hope he has the refs and evidence which no-one else has been able to find.

      We can hardly wait to unload his book after all so many errors in the Ned pictorial book, which was riven.

      Delete
    5. my spelling is from my jerilderie letter and my letter from my condemned cell to the Marquis of Normandy the 10 November 1880 the day before they strung me up for crimes I did not commit but was never understood and persecuted all my life and there never was such a thing as justice in the English laws but any amount of injustice to be had, and who is mickey not me, you cant even spell Ned my name I left school young and lookd after my ma and is my brothers & sisters and my mother not to be pitied. There is one wish, in conclusion, I would like you to grant me, that is the release of my mother before my execution as detaining her in prison could not make any difference to the Government now

      Delete
    6. Oh geez, so many lies and errors in this post I don't know where to start! Come to think of it, I won't bother.

      Delete
    7. Poor old "Ned" was delusional asking for "the release of my mother before my execution as detaining her in prison could not make any difference to the Government now", which does come from the end of the above-mentioned Condemned Cell letter - well done, "Ned", but Normandy is in France. The sentence reads like he thought his mother was imprisoned as a hostage to get him to give himself up, which doesn't sound like he ever had the faintest notion of how the law works. What a brain dead loser. What kind of moron worships that criminal idiot as an Australian "icon". You're a "Kelly sympathiser" right now? Wait till you get robbed or someone in your family gets attacked and you'll go running off to the police trying to get justice as fast as your stupid hypocritical legs can carry you, dummy.

      Delete
  24. This Anonymous is about the most higorant that has ever commented here. A 12-pounder gun is inconsequential and the small projectile would have passed through the Inn leaving four inch holes. As Dee rightly points out no such light artillery piece ever reached Glenrowan. Why does this dumb oaf raise another redundant issue that never happened?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On 28 June 1880, a further artillery detachment
      complete with a 12 pounder field gun, was
      dispatched from Melbourne by train to take part
      in the seige at the Glenrowan Inn. Such a gun
      would have reduced the hotel to splinters in
      minutes. But the seige ended early when Ned
      Kelly, clad in armour, exchanged shots with
      police and the hotel was set on fire--while the
      artillerymen camped impatiently at Seymour.
      So Mr. Karl Coyle, here is an extract from the History of Artillery in Victoria. You wish to call me a dumb oaf you should look in the mirror. Your obvious lack of knowledge is only overshadowed by the fool you now appear to be.

      Delete
    2. So ... the artillery never ever, ever got to Glenrowan, did they? Just as I said Dumbass!

      Buzz off! Leave this blog alone. We're busy...

      Delete
    3. Karl Coyle you are very good at name calling. The artillery was on route, and was intended for use.
      I thought abusive posts weren't allowed here Dee. I have been called a dumb oaf, and a dumbass.
      Seems like a bit of a double standard.
      FIX IT!!

      Delete
  25. Get rid of the anonymous time wasters Dee.

    Your blog is killing them and the Ned legend stone dead.

    That's why they keep turning up here.

    Deadbeats!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Funny how the item I posted earlier has not been seen. An article from the History of Victorian Artillery.
    On 28 June 1880, a further artillery detachment
    complete with a 12 pounder field gun, was
    dispatched from Melbourne by train to take part
    in the seige at the Glenrowan Inn. Such a gun
    would have reduced the hotel to splinters in
    minutes. But the seige ended early when Ned
    Kelly, clad in armour, exchanged shots with
    police and the hotel was set on fire--while the
    artillerymen camped impatiently at Seymour.
    I can only assume the first post was not received otherwise it would be seen here. Or, it is ok to be called a dumb oaf by Karl Coyle but not ok to prove him totally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So nobody wants to discuss the Fitzpatrick incident anymore? Its good to have made it clear that Fitzpatrick had a legitimate reason to be there and that he didn't need a warrant. Lets all hope the Iron Outlaw authors new book doesn't include those two lies, but I am betting they'll be there, such is that mans blindness when it comes to truths about Ned Kelly.

      Delete
  27. Hi Dee, I have been watching all this with some amusement, as there has not been one single comment about my "Redeeming Fitzpatrick" article which I shamelessly promoted back on 6 June above. As the discussion seems to have rambled off to Glenrowan, I can only hope that you put your promised second part of the Fitzpatrick discussion up this weekend. As to what has been said about Fitzpatrick's philanderings, what in the world has that got to do with the Kelly saga? It's like when people carry on about how Fitzpatrick did a year's gaol for passing dud cheques 14 years after the "Fitzpatrick incident". I didn't write a character reference for him, just showed that what has ben said about him in relation to that incident is a 140 year old load of rubbish. I would like to point out that Grantlee Keiza did his own independent examination of the evidence as regards the Fitzpatrick incident, and similarly concluded that the Kelly versions were complete bunkum.

    ReplyDelete

1. Moderation is back on. I haven’t got time to be constantly monitoring what comments are made and deleting the mindless rubbish that Kelly sympathisers have been posting lately. Please post polite sensible comments, avoid personal abuse and please use the same name whenever you Post, even if its a made-up name.


2. Do you want to provide an active Link in your Comment? The simplest way that I can suggest is to click HEREand follow the simple instructions. This site creates the Tag that you then copy and insert into your Comment.