Outlawed: The Real Ned Kelly

 The documentary  “Outlawed: The real Ned Kelly” was first broadcast on ABC TV in 2003. A year ago, on December 18^th 2014.,  it became available on You Tube and since then has been viewed 14,930 times and attracted 36 comments. You can watch it here. 

Its worth watching, even if only to see what a few of the modern Kelly identities look like – Ive already mentioned David Griffiths, but there’s also Noeleen Lloyd, Judith Douthie, Michael Kennedy, Christopher Bantick and Professor John McQuilton, the author of one of the landmark Kelly books “The Kelly Outbreak”.

It’s a very slick production with highly professional but brief re-enactments of various scenes from the Kelly story, some quite romantic photography of the beautiful Kelly country bush, horses and farms interspersed with “talking heads” like McQuilton and Bantick, as well as a “CIB Trained Crime Profiler”, Steve Longford who provides an intriguing assessment of Neds personality. The rich baritone of Jack Thompson recites a compelling narrative, and overall, as entertainment, its quite brilliant. As History though…well as all Kelly buffs on all sides of the debate know, nobody ever gets it right! 

As seems to be usual with people wanting to tell the Kelly story, it starts with the inevitable largely rhetorical question “Is this man Australia’s greatest rebel Hero, or simply a murderous thug?” 

As I have stated time and time again, reducing the entire complex Kelly outbreak to this absurd dichotomy is merely a debating trick, a ploy designed to confuse the issues and maintain the view that Ned Kelly was a hero. It’s as stupid as asking if Pol Pot or Stalin was a visionary leader and revolutionary icon, or mass murderer. The reason those comparisons seem absurd is because we are all agreed on the facts about these people and there is no need to keep asking ourselves if they are heroes or villains – its been settled long ago. The same should also be true of Ned Kelly.

The trick here is to suggest a choice has to be made between a possible truth – that Ned  could have been a rebel Hero – and an impossible one – that Ned was ‘simply’ a murderous thug, when its clear to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of Ned Kelly, that there was nothing ‘simple’ about him or about the Kelly outbreak.   Who writes phrases like “a parcel of  big ugly fat necked wombat headed big bellied magpie legged narrow hipped splaw footed sons of Irish Bailiffs”? Who designs and builds crazy body armour and takes on a train-load of Police? Who announces that he fears death ‘as little as to drink a cup of tea’ and says “Such is life” before he’s hanged? A simple murderous thug? Of course not! So, as no other choice is offered he must be Australia’s greatest Rebel Hero! 

Inevitably therefore, the overall tone of the Documentary is that Ned Kelly was  indeed Australias greatest Rebel Hero, notwithstanding the attempts to provide ‘balance’ by having a Police point of view, the opinion of the Crime Profiler and the comments of Christopher Bantick. Whereas the believable McQuilton is seen out on site at Glenrowan, Griffiths is shown picking at the dry dusty soil and leaning on a rustic fence and  Noeleen Lloyd sitting under a eucalypt out on the selection, Bantick, in beige trousers pontificates from a comfortable lounge room, and the Crime Profiler is in a high rise overlooking the Melbourne CBD – what would these ivory tower arm-chair academics know?

And after the Police are murdered at Stringybark, the voice-over is a quote from the Jerilderie letter, spoken with an irish accent intended to be Ned expressing regret saying  “I cannot have felt more sorry for them – this cannot be called willful murder; those men came into the bush with the intention of scattering pieces of me and my brother all over the bush”.  This quote is typical Ned Kelly blarney from the Jerilderie Letter – crocodile tears for Police shortly before he began preparing to massacre many more of them at Glenrowan. 

Whats worse than this subtle undermining of the contrary arguments are the overt misrepresentations and falsehoods presented as fact. We have already remarked on David Griffiths solemn description of how the Police killed the Kelly cows and horses by poisoning their dam, an item of his  familys oral history based on a lie told by Ned Kelly.  It didn’t happen! Worse still is the sequence immediately after reconstructing the Police murders at Stringybark Creek in which McQuilton dramatically lifts a covering on a Police pack horse to reveal the infamous “body straps” and four guns McQuilton describes as “State of the Art”  Martini-Henri rifles.  He explains that the Police possession of these articles supports Neds later claim that the Police had come armed to the teeth and with every intention of killing him on sight, and therefore Ned was justified in killing them in self defence. However as we now know, the body straps are a modern addition to the story, and as McQuilton ought to have known the Police only had two rifles,  and only one of them was “state of the art”. It was a Spencer rifle borrowed by the Police from a Gold Escort guard the day before the Police left Mansfield. Apparently the Policemen didn’t actually know how to use it. The other rifle they had was a “fowling piece” used to kill parrots....so here, the case against the Police is created out of gross misrepresentation.

There are also huge errors of omission in this attempt to define the “real” Ned Kelly. There isn’t a single mention of the criminal background of the entire Kelly clan, of the feuds and fights between various factions within it, of Neds fathers alcoholism, of Neds earlier criminal charges for violence, obscenity, highway robbery and horse theft. Aaron Sherrit, an intimate associate of the Gang killed in cold blood by them, is described as “a local man they suspected of being a Police informant” – a deliberate concealment of the truth about the coldblooded killing Kelly authorised, using a friends murder to lure the Police into a trap, the massacre he planned for them at Glenrowan.

How can an attempt to present the ‘real’ Ned Kelly be genuine when so much of relevance to the story is ignored or misrepresented?

In fact the story is very much presented as poor and desperate selectors forced by the oppression of the Squatters and the corrupt Police into lives of crime in order to merely survive :

“The squatters, always greedy for more, were ready to pounce” says the voice-over.

“ This relentless persecution of the family undeniably primed Ned to start his own personal war against the Police” These are awful misrepresentations of the historical truth. Kelly was of interest to the Police because of his criminal activity, and when he wasn’t engaged in it, he was left alone. This lie about relentless persecution is nowhere made more obvious than in Neds so called “quiet years” when he was supposed to be earning an honest living. There is no record or complaint by anyone of Police harassment or persecution over that time. Later, when by his own admission he returned to a life of crime, inevitably Police responded not by “persecution” but by carrying out their sworn duty to uphold the Law. Criminals when they are caught almost universally complain they’ve been picked on, persecuted - Ned was no different.

“Hey we need to have a go, this is OUR country. We’ve come out of a place of oppression, we’re going to make this OUR country and if its not right, well then we can fight for it” says Noeleen Lloyd of what she believes Ned stood for. 

And later she says  “I have a vision of Ned and the boys as being ‘naughty’, you know, real larrikins”  and later “ I don’t believe Ned and the boys were monsters” I need hardly remind readers these Gangsters were not “boys” they were grown men, adults.

And she has the last word as well “  He believed in loyalty he believed in mateship, standing by your mates no matter what (channeling John Williamson here I think) and believing if I started it I will finish it. And that’s about Australia isn’t it? That’s what we hold. Neds struggle wasn’t just about his family, it was about everybody ” 

Noble sentiments Noeleen, but no, that wasn’t Ned Kelly! Theres nothing special about someone believing in loyalty, standing by your mates and believing in finishing something once started, but Naughty? Shooting Kennedy after chasing him through the forest half a mile?  And then stealing his watch? Sticking a gun down an old mans throat? Planning to slaughter 30 policemen in a train wreck? Naughty? Really? And if you think Ned was struggling for everybody,what makes you think “everybody” wanted him to be stealing, lying robbing and murdering on their behalf? Certainly not me. The idea that Ned was struggling for “everybody” is sentimental nonsense. He killed one of his own friends for Gods sake!

This film does at least make some attempt to present an alternative view of Ned Kelly but there is no doubt its sympathies lie with Ned Kelly. But it wasn’t staunch enough for Ian Jones, who I noted, wasn’t involved in the Production of this one: 

“The documentary really upset me. This is the third miss in succession. The Heath Ledger film missed showing us anything significant about Ned Kelly. Greg Miller’s documentary missed. It was a slap-dash exercise. The re-enactments were so hokey. Then this comes along. I had high hopes for it. It’ll be years before you can justify doing another major Kelly film/television project. That is the saddest thing of all.

“Anything that wasn’t convenient was left out. It was erratic. There were some pro-Kelly things included. I suppose you couldn’t make it totally anti-Kelly. But the whole thrust of the thing was to produce this image of Ned Kelly as an overrated thug.”

In fact,  here you can read Ian Jones’ long and  very angry dismissal of this film  as “a surpsingly incompetent treatment of history” . He is clearly awfully offended that an Englishmen dared to challenge some of his cherished beliefs about Ned, particularly his precious ‘Republic’ which the director Mark Lewis described as “a myth”, and he is intensely irritated by errors of minor detail.

Jones dismisses Christopher Bantick as “ a ‘Melbourne writer’ who’s only qualification to appear in the program is a very, very bad case of anti-Kelly dementia. This is the fellow who has leapt into print a couple of times raving against Ned Kelly, once with the absolutely immortal pronouncement that what Ned Kelly attempted at Glenrowan was on a par with the exploits of the Bali bombers.”  Actually, I think that’s not an entirely unfair comparison, and worthy of some debate, but Jones haughtily rejects the idea out of hand, and ridicules Bantick quite disgracefully because  long ago Ian Jones pronounced that Glenrowan was about the Republic. It couldn’t have been an act of terror!

In rejecting the crime Profilers analysis Jones repeats a trick he’s used before, deflecting criticism  or analysis of Ned based on his words in the Jerilderie Letter by saying this was a joint composition between Ned and Joe, and therefore its impossible to derive anything meaningful from it.  In fact, as Alex McDermott once pointed out, the language  of the Jerilderie Letter is the same  rhetoric used by Ned Kelly to harangue and lecture his hostages at Euroa, Jerilderie and Glenrowan – the Jerilderie Letter is pure Ned I am afraid Mr Jones! Not only that, says the indignant  Ian Jones in full flight, in the film the Kelly house was constructed of crossed logs when everyone knows it was a bark and slab hut, the Gang is shown riding up a hill when leaving  Jerilderie when everyone knows its ‘flat as a pancake’ out there, and Curnow uses a lantern instead of a candle! OMG!

And he says this, with no hint of irony :

“If you tell the story accurately, everything falls into place. People will understand what it’s all about. You don’t have to have people ranting and raving against Ned or for Ned. Just give the facts.”

This is from the author of the Republic myth, an idea elaborated by Jones which was never mentioned by Ned Kelly in the numerous speeches he made to Hostages, not mentioned in any of his many letters, never mentioned by any of his supporters, not heard about by Police spies who infiltrated the Gang, not discussed at his trial, not supported by any documentation or the fondly dreamed of but never found ‘Declaration', and an idea which is contradicted by almost every deed and act and word of Ned Kelly’s during his entire lifetime. So where exactly are the facts Ian?

I think this response of Ian Jones reveals his anger at having someone challenge his previously undisputed reign as the Chief Midwife and High Priest of the Kelly Legends, Australias go-to Kelly expert and defender of the republic of North East Victoria. Why else would he react so volcanically to a documentary which is essentially Pro Ned, but which includes a few token challenges to some of the Jones-Kelly mythology, his precious Kelly Republic and errors of minor irrelevant historical detail? How dare they?

So I suggest everyone watch the film, read Ians Review, and mine, and tell us all what your thoughts are.

The Ned Kelly Center and the Griffith Connection: Part II

Peter wanted to add this as a further Comment  to the ongoing discussion following what I have to call Part I, but it exceeded Bloggers allowable maximum size for Comments. Therefore I have added it as a separate Post, called Part II. I apologise if it disrupts the flow of the discussion from Part I.

I have also met Edna several times (once with Bill).  I agree with Bill that, despite her age, Edna is clear of mind and very much with it.  I find it interesting she has put all this to paper (since 1991), particularly given there has been no profit in it for her.  Whilst I have my doubts about the veracity of a lot of what she has written, I have no doubt Edna believes she has faithfully (re)told the stories as they had been told to her.  Edna is also at a stage in her life where she doesn’t care if people believe her or not.
  

There is some fascinating material in Edna’s book and I have made copious notes chapter by chapter.  I know many have dismissed what she has to say (I note Sharon’s “whack-a-mole” comment and Brian McDonald’s reference to her books being “delightful stories”).  I know a great deal of what she has written can’t be true, but Edna’s position is simply that she has documented what she knows and what was told to her.  So, like Bill, I believe there is truth in at least some of what she has to say, as I don’t think she could have made it up.  In any event, so much of what she has said could these days be easily proved one way or the other. 

As an example, I thought I might follow up on Edna’s reference (pp. 68-69, Vol. 1) to a badly injured young Ned Kelly being transported by Old Ned Griffiths, Ned Lloyd & Young Ned Griffiths (all these Neds, it does get confusing!) to the place she describes as "The House before Monnington - in the place that was The Griffiths' Family Home there then".  On page 185 of Vol. 1 Edna has included a photo of Monnington, but this was not built until 1886.  But according to Edna, the injured Ned Kelly was transported to the Griffiths’ family home that preceded Monnington. 

So what does an internet search of “Monnington” bring up?  Well, we find that Monnington is located at 15 Adeney Avenue, Kew (a Melbourne suburb).  It does not itself have a heritage citation, but is referenced in a heritage citation (dated 2012) for another property at 29-31 Park Hill Road, Kew.  Some key points in this citation are:

•   29-31 Park Hill Road was first purchased by someone named Walter Hart, who sold it to prominent Kew residents and tea merchants James Griffiths and John Moore Griffiths.  
• James Griffith’s built 'Monnington' as his residence at 15 Park Street (later to become 15 Adeney Avenue) in 1886.
• The property at 29-31 Park Hill Road (to which the citation relates) was constructed about 1890 by the Griffiths brothers as rental properties.  Tenants after 1891 included a Robert Miller.  

Aren’t there a lot of coincidences here?  A simple internet search brings up Information that I don’t think would have been that easy for Edna to come by.  Maybe the Griffiths (at Glenrowan) did have family connections in Melbourne at this time who might well (as suggested by Edna) have felt a bit "put out" when their country relatives dragged in a young boy/man like Ned Kelly in the hope of getting him some care, legal and medical treatment.  Could Edna have made this up?

So where do you go with this type of information?  Who was Walter Hart and can it be established if he had connections with the Harts in Wangaratta?  Did the Griffiths brothers (tea merchants) have connections with the Griffiths in Glenrowan?  Could the tenant Robert Miller have been the Robert Miller from Glenrowan?  I could look further into this, but maybe someone else knows the answers already?  Sharon?

Fact is often stranger than fiction isn’t it?  If the Griffiths family are connected with the Griffiths tea merchants in Melbourne, then maybe the Glenrowan Griffiths did seek medical attention for a badly injured Ned Kelly who had been bashed by an enforcer.  And in turn maybe Ned Kelly did seek retribution against that enforcer who Edna believes went by the name of Borrin.  And with Ned at fifteen, if the killing of Borrin unfolded in the way Edna tells it and at the location she describes, then maybe his bones could be found?  Would this enhance Kelly’s reputation as someone who was prepared to stand up to a local stand over man?  Or would it damage his reputation by adding to his list of victims?  After 135 years would it matter?

The Ned Kelly Center and the Griffith Connection : Part I

Here is another thought provoking contribution by Blog supporter Peter Newman. I urge others of you to follow Peters lead and make use of this opportunity to share your thoughts and ideas about the Kelly story. You cant do this anywhere else in the Kelly World.

“Joanne Griffiths, Ned's great-grand-niece, recently launched a campaign to establish the Ned Kelly Centre, a warts-and-all museum dedicated to telling the story of Ned Kelly and his many misdeeds…”

It is interesting to hear about this proposal and I suppose the “warts and all” presentation she is dedicated to telling must be the stories told in the book ‘Glenrowan’ by her relative Edna Griffiths.  This is a book I have been trying to read for some time, but it’s not an easy read because of the way it rambles and goes off at tangents.  But it is worth persevering because Edna’s stories are just incredible.  I imagine many would choose to disbelieve some of these stories, but the interesting thing is that she lived next door to Jim Kelly when she was young and her book is basically her recollection of stories she was told by the “old people” of the district including her own family and of course Jim Kelly.  

We need to be careful about dismissing oral history like this.  Maybe it’s not all true, but a fair bit of it probably is.  It is interesting that at the start of her book Edna says the story she tells is different to that told by those purporting to be historians on the matter.  And as we all know, historians often get it wrong as has been so glaringly the case with Ned Kelly.  That is only now becoming clear with the new information coming out on this website and in the books by the likes of Morrissey and MacFarlane.  The reality is that Edna is about as close to the source as you can get, and hopefully the proposed museum will help to get this information out there.  

What I find interesting is that, whilst Ned Kelly is an important part of Edna’s story (particularly the story about his killing of a local enforcer named Borrin), her book ‘Glenrowan’ is not all about Ned.  As Edna tells it, the Kellys and many other families in the district were part of a crime syndicate she refers to as the Conglomerate (and sometimes as the Empire), which was apparently controlled by James Quinn who was based at Glenmore in the King Valley.  Many of these families were comprised of “Lost Children” (i.e. illegitimate children who were fostered out and didn’t know their true parents).  

Of interest as far as the Kelly family is concerned is Edna’s claim that Ellen Kelly was known locally as Minnie-Ella and that only Kate and Dan were her children.  Edna says Jim Kelly, Grace Kelly and Maggie Kelly were all “arranged” into the family.  I’m not entirely sure if Edna is suggesting that Ned was also arranged into the family.  Certainly he had some kind of an overseer role according to Edna.  As Edna tells it however, Ned in some way upset the conglomerate’s plans, with the battle he fought at Glenrowan being as much against the conglomerate as it was against the authorities.  According to Edna, the conglomerate retaliated by conducting a 20 year “war” against Maggie and her family in which people were killed and wounded trying to defend her.  Interesting!

If Edna’s stories are true, then the Greta district was rife with crime (prostitution, cattle and horse rustling, you name it) and the Kelly family and a number of others were in the thick of it.  Quinn was the godfather it seems, and Ellen Kelly (Minnie-Ella) some kind of a brothel madam.  Edna expresses surprise that this is something that is not well known, and points out that there was no other way for women on these small lots to have made a living.

I don’t know quite what to think about all this, except that it would be great if Joanne Griffith could get her museum up and running so that she could tell us more about her very interesting family history as documented by Edna and so we could get an understanding of the Kelly Outbreak from their viewpoint.

Have any others readers of this website read Edna Griffiths’ books.  She has published about 7 volumes and I have only got through the first.  The information above is only a fraction of the interesting material covered by that first volume.  I’d be interested to know what others think of this.   

Prelude to Stringybark Creek

This is a Guest Post submitted by Mr Peter Newman, and I sincerely thank him for this excellent contribution to the Blog.  He has set a high standard and I look forward to more reader submissions, and a broadening of the scope of this Blog into the future. We are now setting the standard when it comes to Kelly places on the Internet. Thank you again Peter.

A letter dated 18 October 1878 was sent to Inspector Nicholson of the Police Department in Melbourne, tipping him off that "such persons as the Kellys" might be found at a cave location which, for convenience, I will simply refer to as being in the Blue Ranges (and a considerable distance from Stringybark Creek) .  The letter was therefore sent a week before the Stringybark Creek murders.  

The letter was signed by James Winter, from Tarringilo, Murchison. The letter is held by the Public Records Office Victoria and can be viewed via the following link: http://prov.vic.gov.au/whats-on/exhibitions/ned-kelly/the-kelly-story/string-bark-creek/a-cave-near-murchison

The cave is well known, but not for its links with the Kelly story.  Someone named Stephen Handbury earlier this year "found" the cave in the sense that he established it as the cave referred to in the directions contained in the letter.  

The James Winter letter is mentioned in a number of books, but to my knowledge no-one has made a concerted effort to find out more about it.

Tarringilo sounds like the name of an Estate or Property, but I can't find any record of it on the early Parish maps of Murchison.  Maybe one of your readers might know? 

I also wonder if anyone might know anything about James Winter himself. Did he really exist, or was this a false name?  For what it is worth, I suspect he likely did exist, because why would you bother to request anonymity (as the writer did) if you were signing off with a false name?  A false name would also have been quickly realised and the letter dismissed accordingly.  My gut feeling therefore is that the letter was in fact written by someone named James Winter in the knowledge that the requested anonymity would be respected.  

Assuming then that James Winter was the writer's real name,  then who was he?  I have done some preliminary research and wonder if he might have been connected with the Winter family who were prominent in the Australian Natives' Association.  Murchison is in the Goulburn Valley and the Winter family had property in the Goulburn Valley, although exactly where I don't know.  One of the Winters (Samuel) also had connections with the Baillieu family (they were joint owners of the Herald newspaper) who I understand had (maybe still have) property interests near Mansfield.

If the "tip off" letter was written by a Winter connected with the future Australian Natives' Association, then this is all very interesting and you would have to wonder about that person's motivations.  Some historians such as Bill Denheld believe the Kelly family had links with families who were prominent in the Australian Natives' (could we call them early Republicans?).  If this is the case, then you would have to wonder if the letter was a genuine tip-off by someone who had become disenchanted with the Kellys (although the way the letter is written, it would appear the Kellys are not known to the writer).  Or was it deliberate misinformation written by someone who had knowledge of the impending police search to find the Kellys and who wanted to send the police away from Stringybark Creek.  In this regard, the timing of the letter (1 week prior to the shootings) is interesting given that the Kellys had by this time been fugitives for nearly 6 months (the Fitzpatrick incident having occurred on the 15th April 1878).  

Can anyone add anything of interest to this?  

A stunning expose of Kelly Mythology

The rusting dead-in-the-water Kelly Myth takes a direct hit!

Redeeming Fitzpatrick: Ned Kelly and the Fitzpatrick Incident

Dr. Stuart E. Dawson (Monash University) 

Abstract: In April 1878 Constable Fitzpatrick was wounded by Ned Kelly while attempting to arrest his brother Dan for horse stealing. The incident triggered the ‘Kelly outbreak’ that elevated Kelly to the status of Australia’s most notorious historical figure. Ever since the event Fitzpatrick has been almost universally labelled a liar and perjurer, and the various records of his testimony in two trials and a Royal Commission have been assailed as fanciful and unlikely concoctions.

This article reconstructs and vindicates Fitzpatrick’s version of events after some 140 years of denigration. Ned and his associates’ various statements and denials about the event emerge as a series of self-serving fabrications that, together with other evidence, raise doubts about much other prevalent Kelly mythology.
                                 
                                                    (click here to read it for yourself). 

_________________________________________________________________________________

This article was so good I read it twice, and have to say that its a sensational must-read for anyone interested in the Kelly story. Its an absolutely devastating microscopic cross referenced examination of the entire “Fitzpatrick Incident”,  that most central of all Outbreak incidents, the one always blamed by Kelly sympathisers as the trigger for everything that followed, and in the middle of it, the man Kelly sympathisers love to hate more than anyone else, the endlessly despised Constable Alexander Fitzpatrick. 

Ian MacFarlane  seems to have been the first author to question the vilification of Fitzpatrick, quoting in 'The Kelly Gang Unmasked'  a petition that was presented to Chief Commissioner Standish, asking for his reinstatement. Fitzpatrick had been dismissed from the Force on the grounds of “inefficiency and insubordination” but the people of Lancefield regarded him as “zealous, diligent, obliging and universally liked, while we never saw him in company of any but the best citizens. Had he been what the 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”

In this paper Dawson reveals that a SECOND petition was drawn up a year later, asking that “a board of enquiry be held so that Alexander Fitzpatrick could answer the charges made against him” but this request was denied, as had two earlier similar requests, one made by Fitzpatrick with support of an MP and another by a Lancefield Justice of the Peace. Kelly sympathisers looking for someone denied natural justice and the opportunity to defend himself need only look at Fitzpatrick. 

Predictably, neither of these petitions is mentioned anywhere in Ian Jones book or in Peter Fitzsimons book, but both authors repeat the claims that originated with Fitzpatricks fellow Constable Mayes, who among other things alleged Fitzpatrick  had associated with the "lowest persons in Lancefield and could not be trusted out of sight”. They also contaminate the conduct of Fitzpatrick during the Outbreak with allegations and assessments made about him in regard to things that happened AFTER the outbreak. This reminded me of my own observation of Jones bolstering his claims of police persecution of the Kellys BEFORE the Police killings by mentioning  their behaviour AFTER them. This is pretty rotten scholarship.

Theres much more in this Paper, and reading Dawsons reconstruction of Fitzpatricks journey to the Kellys is almost a thing of beauty, as its simple logical clarity shreds so much of the rubbish thats been spun round this event. Equally forensic is his cataloguing of the way in which Ned Kelly and his associates and family contradicted each others versions of events and told outright lies in their campaign to vilify Fitzpatrick. Dawson is rightly critical of the way in which authors from then till now continued the character assasination  with unwarranted embellishments culminating in Fitzsimons unsupported claim that Fitzpatrick drank himself "into a stupor” on his return.

Once again we are seeing the power of real academia at work, and the enlightenment that can come from proper exhaustive research and analysis. We saw it in Ian MacFarlanes incredible book, in Doug Morrisseys work, even in Ned Kelly Under the Microscope, and now with this devastating expose, the Kelly Myth will never be the same again.

As he writes in his conclusion, referring to Kelly myth makers such as Jones and Fitzsimons, “the maltreatment of Fitzparick by so many hands suggests a  rigorous reappraisal of much  other kelly mythology is in order”  

Click on the link above, or here, print it off and prepare to be stunned by what you read.  Its brilliant.

The Kelly Gang were not “Boys"

Burning Icons and False Gods

Today, November 25th is National White Ribbon Day in Australia, a day in which we are supposed to be reflecting on the dreadful scourge of mens violence against women. So far this year in Australia, 78 women have been murdered by men, and countless thousands bashed intimidated and traumatised by their intimate partners. Last night many of us will have watched Part One of journalist Sarah Fergusons gut wrenching investigation into this horror on ABC TV, and if we can stomach it will watch Part Two tonight. This morning I was listening to a discussion on the radio on the same topic and heard that the Federal Government has released "disturbing research which finds dangerous attitudes about violence towards women are deeply entrenched.It shows women are often blamed for attacks against them, men are excused with phrases like "boys will be boys" and the severity of the violence is played down.”

Hearing the phrase “boys will be boys” made me immediately recall how common it is to read the Kelly Gang being referred to as “Boys” and just as immediately I realised that the use of this term has an exactly similar effect on perceptions of the behaviours of the Kelly Gang, who were not cuddly scallywags and larrikin “ boys" at all but were grown mature men. Calling them “boys” is a device that somehow excuses much of their violent and murderous behaviour in the same way as people sometimes excuse men who bully women with the same label, implying that as “boys” they are not fully responsible for their actions. The Kelly Gang were adults, they were grown ups, they were men not boys. They were entirely responsible for everything they did and for the consequences of those actions - ( and that includes the death of hostages )

Its interesting see that the modern Kelly myth conforms remarkably closely to the findings of the research mentioned above : victims are blamed ( Kelly blamed the SBC deaths on the victims) men are excused as boys (a popular term in the Kelly world) and the severity of the violence is played down (the planned massacre at Glenrowan is always glossed over)

This “ excuse making” is really what the entire pro-Kelly sympathy network is predominantly engaged in, in making excuses for a life of extreme violence that grew out of an environment of hatred and prejudice. We excuse Neds bullying and thieving and murder by saying he was one of the boys, he was hard done by, his father died when he was 11, the Squatters were greedy, he was poor, the Police were corrupt, he was actually a great guy who knew the Bush and was a skilled rider, he never really meant to kill anyone, it was self defence, he had a great way with words, he was charming to women, his trial was unfair, he was a revolutionary planning a Republic of North east Victoria....endless mostly fabricated excuses for a life of horrible violence that led to the death of three Policemen, his brother, three friends, two hostages and of Kelly himself, not to mention the trail of traumatised victims of his robbery and hostage taking. Wake up Australia, this was a life of horrendous violence!

And this indisputably violent man and proven serial liar, receiving the benefit of all the doubt and the endless string of excuses is promoted as an Icon in Australia! Surely, this is ridiculous and has to stop!

The truth is that if women are going to be protected from violent men, men are going to have to be made accountable, the excuses are going to have to stop, and all violence and intimidation  must be universally and unreservedly condemned. The same has to happen to Ned Kelly.  Regarding Kelly as a hero and making him an Icon is undoubtedly part of the mix that contributes to the violence in our society, and to the violence against women - how could making a violent Killer a hero and national Icon have any other effect ? - its a farce and the great Australian romance with this man needs to end : his violence needs to be called out for what it was : inexcusable, unacceptable, wrong and only worthy of condemnation. The excuses of people who want to claim him as an Aussie Icon and hero need to be challenged - their justifications are all based on fabrications and fairy stories about him, as I have discovered in the last 18 months on this Blog. Its all here for anyone to read, and for anyone to challenge - but of course, there have been very few challenges - the sympathisers make endless excuses about why they won’t challenge but the real reason is clear : mostly they know they haven’t a leg to stand on, so they resort to bulling and abuse.

What this means for me is that I am no longer going to accept the tactic that sympathisers use to keep Ned in the headlines, by saying the jury is still out on the man, that we can never know if he was really a  hero or a villain or something in-between. This is just a dishonest ploy that takes advantage of the average Australians reasonable  fair-mindedness when faced with a question about something they don’t know much about. The truth, as I have discovered and revealed on this Blog, is that we most certainly CAN answer that question : Ned Kelly WAS a villain. He was a bank robber and hostage taker who planned mass murder. He was a violent killer. He was a liar. Most of the popular beliefs about him are wrong. There was never a Republic of North east Victoria. None of the excuses offered for him are acceptable.

The other thing it means for me is that I am going to be a lot less tolerant of the rubbish heaped on me by Kelly sympathisers.  I am not going to be bullied and I am going to make their bullying and intimidation Public whenever I get the opportunity, so everyone will be able to see what these thugs are really like, and what Kelly Sympathisers are capable of. The truth is that Kelly idolatry is simply wrong, it is misplaced and based on ignorance; it promotes violence and thuggery; there is no place for it. I’m over it!

And I am starting here, right now, with this Comment from an anonymous Sympathiser that I received today, a typical example of Kelly thuggery and vulgar intimidation: 

"You are a real piece of sh*t, man the f**k up you gutless dog, you seriously have no idea about who knows who and have helped them out in the Kelly community. You are nothing but a gutless Bowral butcher. I'm coming up your way next week with a portfolio of defamation which I intend to produce at you in your office in front of your clients. YOU ARE A C**T OF A HUMAN BEING AND AS LONG AS YOU HAVE MODERATION ON YOUR SH*T BLOG EVERYONE KNOWS IT IS JUST YOU POSTING.” 

And heres vision of a man from todays paper, a man engaged in violent racist protest, another great advertisement for Ned Kelly:

I realise there are a few reasonable Kelly sympathisers out there. They are mostly harmless, but by supporting the elevation of Ned Kelly to Hero status and not questioning his status as an Icon, the ground is kept fertile for idiots like these. 

Instead for the sake of women in our community, lets no longer accept a violent killer as an Australian Hero. Instead lets dispose of this unfortunate icon and make it crystal clear that we regard his life style and behaviour as totally unacceptable, and there were no excuses for it. Getting rid of Kelly idolatry will make Australia a better place.

Your Turn

A few weeks ago, a Kelly sympathiser wrote a Comment that began like this : "I know you won't publish this because you are nothing but a gutless turd , but I will write it anyway...” 
and then the anonymous Sympathisers rant proceeded to accuse me of being sick twisted and biased, and of having an “anti Ned agenda” before finally concluding: “In short...you are nothing but an ignorant hypocritical lying  c**t”

This person was right about one thing : I wasn’t going to Publish obscene personal attacks. There have been many of a similar kind over the past year or so, so they don’t trouble me in the least, because  all that Comments of this kind achieve is to reveal the ugly and petty shallowness of Kelly sympathisers, and confirm the rightness of my decision to Moderate Blog Comments. The thing is, calling me sick and twisted and biased, a gutless turd and a liar achieves nothing, but if that person instead wrote WHY they regard me as ignorant  and hypocritical and possessed of an “anti-Ned  agenda”, refrained from vulgar abuse but instead made a case, then we might all learn something and I WOULD publish it whether or not I agreed with it.  I am not afraid of criticism or correction or the expression of alternative opinion - in fact I welcome it.

I have had another thought about the Moderation process : it actually makes it possible for any reader to communicate with me directly, like Anonymous did rather than through the Public pages of the Blog. All someone needs to do is state that their comment is not for Publication, and then they can say to me whatever they want. So feel free to do so. 

In fact what I have decided to do is to invite anyone who wants to write something more than just a comment, to submit it to me as a Guest Post. If Anonymous wants to write an Essay explaining WHY I am ignorant and where I have gone wrong, or  someone else wants to explain exactly why they believe Ned Kelly is a hero and icon, or why Ned should be remembered as a Revolutionary leader then send it to me for publication as a Post not as a Comment,  and I will turn it into a Blog Post. Then everyone else can comment on whatever it might be that the Guest has decided to write about. The Post can be anonymous if the Guest wishes, and I promise not to alter it in any way, though if it is vulgar or abusive it won’t be Published. Communication would be helped by including a return email address but thats not necessary either.

So Readers this is your chance to really get it off your chest. Ive posted 102 times, which is more than enough - though I still have more to do - but I would like to open up the Blog to other contributors and points of view, and I’m particularly interested in hearing from the people who regard Ned Kelly as an Icon and Hero.  Among the 150 plus people who read this blog every day there  must be quite a few with issues or complaints or ideas they would like to put out there - Bill, Mark, Sharon and the two Brians, Bob and everyone else on the NKF and elsewhere consider this a formal request! Send in your Reports, Declarations, Accusations, Investigations, Theories, Arguments, Guest Posts, whatever you’ve got...this is your chance to defend the Kelly Legend.  But if you don’t, what is there to stop me declaring Game Over?

So, is there ANYONE out there willing to make a defence for Ned Kelly? To say why he SHOULD be an Icon, why he WAS a Hero, why he is NOT a Villain? Anyone ??

Why Another Kelly Museum?

The Big News this week  has been the announcement by a Kelly descendant of plans to set up a Ned Kelly Museum. According to a spokesperson for "the family”  who says Ned Kelly was her great great Uncle, and another elderly relative who says Ned Kelly  “was a rascal but also a bit of a hero” the time has come "to tell the untold story”. They plan to raise $8 million , by Crowd Funding, to get this museum up and running as some sort of Charity. 

I must say I have a kind of sympathy for the Kelly descendants and can understand why they might want to do this. After all they are just everyday innocent people who, because of an accident of their birth  have been dragged into the middle of this controversy about a  famous ancestor who has been endlessly promoted and paraded as an Icon and either a Hero or a Villain, whether or not they wanted to be. The Kelly descendants  are constantly reading  about Ned in the Press and in new books, hearing commentary of all kinds in the media on TV and yes on Blogs like this one, hearing self-appointed experts like Fitzy and Trent of the Ned Kelly Forum, and Brad Webb on Iron Outlaw  claiming to speak on Neds behalf, parading their ignorant opinions and boorish behaviours and in-fighting for all to see, dragging the Kelly name deeper and deeper into the mud. Worse still, other people with no “skin” in the game are setting up their own museums, tourism trails and touring routes, “neducation"websites and junk souvenir shops, memorials and shows, plays, displays, “weekends" and exhibitions - you name it they're all there trying to cash in on the reputation of their famous relative. I get the feeling that the Kelly descendants themselves feel pushed aside by the rush and perhaps feel if anyone is going to profit from Ned, it should be them. Maybe they feel no-one should profit from Ned? In any event,  as the saying goes, 'Blood is thicker than water’ so inevitably they feel compelled to defend him.

Its clear however that within the ranks of Kelly descendants themselves all these external pressures have caused bitter divisions and disputes and controversy. Who has the right to speak for Ned, who should make decisions and give permissions, what should be done with his memory, his remains, his story? No doubt there are rivalries and jealousies and differences of opinion about who gets to be the spokesperson, who gets the Publicity, who decides what the truth is, what the “family” thinks and wants.  It must feel like a curse at times.

So, understandably, they’ve decided - or more likely one faction of the Kelly descendants has decided - that they will tell the story they want to tell, and tell it their way in  a space they have control of themselves. 

Inevitably though the story they will tell will be the fairy tales of Ned, and not the truth about him. The spokeswoman proved this in her interview where the two examples of stories that she said were “untold” were the untruths about what happened to the money Ned stole, and the blame shifting of responsibility for the deaths of human shields at Glenrowan from the Kelly gang to the Police. Her museum is going to tell the Public that Ned  gave the money he stole to the poor but that is  simply untrue and there is no evidence to support that idea - instead he used it to repay his family and the network of people who protected and supported him, and the Kellys were the ones seen in flash new clothes and new saddles after the robberies. The idea that Ned was Australias Robin Hood is a complete fantasy - but her museum won’t be saying that!  Neither is her museum going to tell the truth about Glenrowan, that if  Thomas Curnow and the Police hadn’t frustrated Ned Kelly's plans not three but dozens of innocent people would have died there, that Ned Kellys plans for Glenrowan were for it to be a horrendous bloodbath. No, instead she wants to tell the Australian public that innocent deaths were the fault of the police and nothing to do with Ned Kelly. This is another fantasy.  

As I said, I have sympathy for the Kelly descendants, and can understand where they are coming from. One would hardly expect them to willingly embrace the idea that their famous relative was a notorious liar, a thief and callous murderer, possibly a psychopath who, though charismatic, colourful and larger than life, was a not a playful “ rascal” but a dreadful villain. Instead they have swallowed the much more palatable Jones-Kelly Myth and are probably beyond ever seeing things any differently. They have the right to believe and promote whatever they like about him, but I think they will find that almost no-one is interested in Kelly mythology outside their extended family, and the crowd funding effort will prove it.  This is why the Ned Kelly Weekend has failed. This is why the Ned Kelly Forum has failed, why Iron Outlaw has failed and why even their Facebook pages are all in decline. Its also why the Ned Kelly Vault is so popular: “We are NOT a SHRINE. We are  a MUSEUM" - 

People are over the Myth.