tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post9072160301510300157..comments2024-01-19T04:32:25.260+11:00Comments on Ned Kelly : Death of the Legend: Ned Kelly murdered Sergeant Michael Kennedy Deehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-34749092760311585762018-07-02T16:29:33.010+10:002018-07-02T16:29:33.010+10:00Youre just repeating the tired old Kelly myths ab...Youre just repeating the tired old Kelly myths about them being persecuted, the whiny complaints of criminals down through the ages who always say theyre innocent and theyre being picked on. The Kellys were emphatically NOT persecuted by the police but rather attracted police attention by their lawless behaviour. Those are the FACTS! You are welcome to submit your descriptions of the actual events where the innocent Kellys were persecuted. <br /><br />He had MANY sympathiser did he? Not ONE turned up to help at Glenrowan . Not ONE gave him a single penny when he needed money for a decent Barrister. Great mates alright!<br /><br />And if your mother went to Gaol for three years you think she would be pleased if you killed three policemen in revenge do you? What a ridiculous suggestion.<br /><br />Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-11197849386795773782018-07-02T14:00:30.232+10:002018-07-02T14:00:30.232+10:00I disagree with the premise that the police were i...I disagree with the premise that the police were in a position of sympathy at all. These were different times. Nothing like today. The Kellys weren't angels, we know that. But they'd never killed anyone. It's pretty clear the cops persecuted them with impunity over a period of time (and a lot of other people too, I'll bet). And locking up Ned's mother was ridiculous. Just because the cops represent the law doesn't automatically make them, nor the law, right. The cops were hunting Kelly and his gang down and wouldn't have been too troubled bringing them back alive or dead. The gang got the better of them and they lost. Maybe the way it was done was ugly: we don't know. But at the center of it all is the fact that the Kellys were tired of how they were treated and had had enough, the cops wanted to prove a point, and they went to war. Like they say: Don't poke the bear. In addition, Kelly had MANY sympathizers. Why do you think that is? People generally take the position of police when crimes happen. But they didn't then. Either the cops were as bad as Kelly said, or the context of the time renders them too different for us to really ever get a handle on it. But it is a matter of fact that the Kellys had many supporters, and that indicates something. If my mother was treated like that, I would take things as far as I had to, wouldn't you? Whether you're a nice guy or not has little to do with it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12117551017916382435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-83180470846497500002015-11-30T15:47:33.265+11:002015-11-30T15:47:33.265+11:00It has always interested me that Kelly and subsequ...It has always interested me that Kelly and subsequently his defenders, claimed that the principal reason for confronting the police at SBC was self defence. He also suggested that the attack was to obtain police firearms. I am a retired copper and was taught during my training that self defence applied when one's life was in real and imminent danger, not distant and remote. I also had it drummed into my head that self defence ceases the moment the threat passes. There was of course the element of reasonable force but that is not what is at question here.<br /><br />If Kelly and his cohorts felt their lives were in danger from the approach of the Mansfield police party, why did they not attempt to flee the area? Surely if they put some distance between themselves and the police any threat they perceived was gone.<br /><br />Insofar as the actual assault on the police party at SBC is concerned, I believe that self defence does not enter the equation. Kelly and company made the approach and and were obviously intent on murdering as many of the police as they could. Lots of Scotch mist about the number of bullet wounds on the police bodies with some pretty bizarre suggestions as to how these came about. To me the evidence suggests that some of those wounds were inflicted post mortem; a nasty business.<br /><br />But it is the hunting down and the cold-blooded execution of Sgt Kennedy that finally sinks any self defence claim. When Kennedy fled the immediate area of the SBC police camp, any perceived threat to the Kelly gang had ceased. Instead Ned hunts Kennedy down and fatally shoots him before robbing his body of personal items, in itself a mongrel act. Not a lot of self defence here that I can see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-54885821352950354732015-06-06T21:42:37.313+10:002015-06-06T21:42:37.313+10:00Ned said that it was he who shot and Lonigan and S...Ned said that it was he who shot and Lonigan and Scanlan. Both were witnessed in part by McIntyre. He was already down for their deaths. So it may be that Ned took the blame for Kennedy death to shield another person or others.<br />Kennedy may also have fallen in with the “good man" that Ned told McIntyre was down the creek. If Ned did shoot Kennedy one would hope it was not with his misfiring “pop pistol” that he apparently shot Fitzpatrick with and was suggested that he used to finish off Lonigan.<br />Both Ned’s single barrelled guns would be empty at the time Kennedy made his run from tree to tree. One to shoot above Kennedy’s head. The other to shoot at Scanlan. Did all four members chase Kennedy? Did no one else fire shots at him? <br />Evidenced by damage to trees, the wounds on Kennedys body, the death by a shot delivered at point blank range does not prove who fired those shots. Or who fired the fatal shot. The tragic end result remains the same.<br /><br />Neds’ versions of what happened are often seen as being self-serving misrepresentations - or lies. Ned Kelly also claimed to be the one who killed Kennedy.<br />If everyone now knows, human memory and opinion is actually surprisingly unreliable, and subject to all kinds of bias and error, and one is left to wonder at what detail Ned purposely left out. One is left to wonder if Ned Kelly did indeed shoot Kennedy. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-67501187089972264032015-06-06T17:06:05.006+10:002015-06-06T17:06:05.006+10:00Alright so now you can post something that DOES ha...Alright so now you can post something that DOES have something to do with the subject at hand. I’m predicting you won’t. And prove my point yet again about the Kelly fanatics.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-73548087927185197492015-06-06T10:53:30.778+10:002015-06-06T10:53:30.778+10:00What has any of this to do with the subject at han...What has any of this to do with the subject at hand? <br /><br />Derogatory comments like : Interests in UFOs mentioned as it shows where he is coming from. Tiresome drongo. Dopey comments. Lying complaints. His rapid hope. Do these come under the “Abuse and unreasonable comments will be deleted” category?<br /><br />The dumb Posts from the fanatics that I leave for public consumption expose these idiots for what they are? <br />As for disrupting discussion - the above two posts are a prime examples. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-55156543632866104232015-06-06T05:11:18.901+10:002015-06-06T05:11:18.901+10:00I understand your frustration perfectly, as that i...I understand your frustration perfectly, as that is also the fellow who boasted about wrecking my previous Forums. He wants to provoke us into giving him an excuse to complain to Blogger that he is being vilified, as his rabid hope is that my Blog will get taken down like the Forums were after his lying complaints and whining to the Forum hosts. However, there is no mechanism for blocking people other than requiring all comments to be vetted by me before they go “live”, and I think you might find that just as frustrating. I have no way of uncovering the IP address or other ID of any particular “anonymous”. The dumb Posts from the fanatics that I leave for public consumption expose these idiots for what they are. And exposing them is one of the objectives of this Blog. Its being achieved quite successfully don’t you think? Thanks for your support Sam.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-91336423036257001392015-06-06T00:24:43.290+10:002015-06-06T00:24:43.290+10:00Dee, your sense of fairplay is doing us a disservi...Dee, your sense of fairplay is doing us a disservice. Many people have suggested you ban that infernal internet serial pest who comes here to disrupt discussion. His personal FB page proclaims his voting intentions and interest in UFOs. The latter should be mentioned because it shows where he is coming from. It is kind of nuts to mention your political persuasions these days. The guy is an extremely tiresome drongo. We shouldn't have to deal with his dopey comments here!Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-44918288508385905112015-06-05T06:03:56.702+10:002015-06-05T06:03:56.702+10:00Obviously its time to put up a new Post if you’re ...Obviously its time to put up a new Post if you’re resorting to discussions about someone being a Liberal Party Member and belief in UFO’s! So Ive deleted that line of comments : “Abuse and unreasonable comments will be deleted” Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-74267519574253069402015-06-03T23:20:00.238+10:002015-06-03T23:20:00.238+10:00Ned was a big loud-mouth who convicted himself. Vi...Ned was a big loud-mouth who convicted himself. Victoria Police and prosecutors spent endless time and effort contacting witnesses who heard Ned describe the police murders at Stringybark Creek sometimes in considerable detail.<br /><br />Who then can prove that Ned Kelly did indeed fatally shoot Kennedy? Ned did !Obviousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-15532443652517556512015-06-03T21:08:47.015+10:002015-06-03T21:08:47.015+10:00All we know is that Ned Kelly claimed very emphati...All we know is that Ned Kelly claimed very emphatically to be the one who killed Kennedy. We also know a great deal about who was there and what happened immediately prior to his death, and this detail makes it very likely indeed that in that detail Ned Kelly was telling the truth. Rather than say we will never know for sure if Ned kelly killed Kennedy, I would say we do indeed know, with near absolute certainty that he did. The room for doubt is so infinitesimally small as to be negligible.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-29685571145481666382015-06-03T17:06:03.971+10:002015-06-03T17:06:03.971+10:00Who then can prove that Ned Kelly did indeed fatal...Who then can prove that Ned Kelly did indeed fatally shoot Kennedy, or at all for that matter? <br />It could just as easily been Steve Hart, Joe Byrne, Dan Kelly or even a fifth party. A person or persons unknown. <br />Guess we will never know for sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-29881362617772186192015-06-02T23:22:48.707+10:002015-06-02T23:22:48.707+10:00Quarter of a mile, Dee. 440 yards.
Still... quite...Quarter of a mile, Dee. 440 yards.<br /><br />Still... quite a distance to chase a police sergeant just to heartlessly kill him as he lay dying.<br /><br />"The Kelly Gang Unmasked"book also says Ned was a notorious liar. Me too.<br /><br />Ned could tell any story he liked. He was the only living witness by mid-1880.Jamie Blacknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-39413042082822536762015-06-02T22:07:10.768+10:002015-06-02T22:07:10.768+10:00Interesting question! As you know, and as Ian Jone...Interesting question! As you know, and as Ian Jones stated in A Short Life, Ned Kelly certainly told lies, so I do not uncritically accept needs version of this event or any other that he describes. In fact Ive already expressed doubts about his account of Kennedys death, but actually Neds account bareley adds anything to what was already known - the chase over almost a mile through the bush, the exchange of shots evidenced by damage to trees, the wounds on Kennedys body, the death by a shot delivered at point blank range. Neds account adds nothing of significance and one is left to wonder at what detail he purposely left out. Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-64448103100669834592015-06-02T15:26:38.151+10:002015-06-02T15:26:38.151+10:00There seems to be a willingness to accept that Ned...There seems to be a willingness to accept that Neds’ versions of what happened as being self-serving misrepresentations - or lies.<br /><br />So why the willingness to accept Neds’ version of the events leading to the death of Sergent Michael Kennedy?<br /><br />Why should anyone believe Neds’ account if he is such an unreliable witness?<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-41880123313188620422015-06-01T00:53:03.370+10:002015-06-01T00:53:03.370+10:00Those absurd mock retrials of Ned Kelly by the ABC...Those absurd mock retrials of Ned Kelly by the ABC, groups of lawyers, and at the Beechworth annual Kelly festival were, and are, ludicrous travisties. There is no official shorthand record of the trial and the many newspaper versions have been endlessly misquoted and misinterpreted. Future mock retrials will be attended by noisy protesters.Nabbednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-4954212445007000902015-06-01T00:27:06.228+10:002015-06-01T00:27:06.228+10:00The robbery of the dead bodies of the three police...The robbery of the dead bodies of the three police, whose pockets were turned out, made this small massacre stand out as a truly repulsive crime. Shot and robbed.<br /><br />When given the chance, a descendant of Sgt Kennedy describes the complete disaster that his murder caused within his family reaching down to today..Piecemealnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-65202523718898488342015-05-28T23:35:54.268+10:002015-05-28T23:35:54.268+10:00It is always conveniently forgotten that, due to p...It is always conveniently forgotten that, due to petty public service economies back then, the police received almost no shooting practice. The trees at the Kelly lair nearby showed that extensive firearms practice had taken place. Kelly hit Kennedy with gunfire several times, but Kennedy never hit Kelly once, which underlines my point..The killing of Kennedy was done in the privacy of the forest. All we are left with today is Ned's account of what happened.<br /><br />He just didn't tell the truth very often.<br /><br />I agree with Dee that this was murder most foul.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-84017422900842276872015-05-28T22:55:01.327+10:002015-05-28T22:55:01.327+10:00By going to deliberately confront police camp at S...By going to deliberately confront police camp at Stringtbark Creek, the Kelly gang obviously had murder in mind.<br /><br />Judge Barry addressed the point in the previous comment by 'Anonymous' at length during his summation in Ned Kelly's trial. The police officers were going about their lawful duty. The gang had no right to be there or to confront police.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-78630040357281349762015-05-28T12:09:41.966+10:002015-05-28T12:09:41.966+10:00Mmmm I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy ...Mmmm I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy & Scanlan had surrendered when called upon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com