Jim Kelly gets his shit together...or does he?

According to Sharon this is NOT a photo of Jim and his mother at 11 Mile ! And I believe her.

This is supposed to be  Jim Kelly but I am not sure what the mans name is. 

Mark Perry told us that in the end, Jim Kelly got  “his shit together” and by all accounts, because of his devotion to his mother and some of her grandchildren,  gained a measure of respect for the way he conducted himself.  However it would be wrong to think that once the “Outbreak” ended he became a model citizen, and repudiated the  lifestyle and the whole Kelly saga. In fact, only a year after Ned was hanged Jim was convicted yet again of horse stealing in NSW in 1881 and sentenced to 5 years hard labour. Much later, in August  1912, aged 53,  he was charged yet again with cattle stealing – I am not sure what the outcome of that was but I suspect he was discharged, so perhaps I oughtn’t cast aspersions! Can anyone tell us?

However in 1930, now 71, Jim Kelly wrote a letter to J.J.Kenneally congratulating him on his recently published work, ‘The Complete Inner History of the Kelly Gang’ defiantly declaring that J.J.Kenneallys book completely vindicated the Kelly family. Jim expresses not a single word of remorse or of apology or regret for the actions of the Kelly Gang or his brothers, saying instead that they had been “hounded’ by the Police.  For Jim to still maintain after all those years of opportunity to reflect on all that happened, that being on the “Wanted” list after killing three Police is being ‘hounded,’ is absolutely ridiculous.  This is a staggering lack of insight! Heres something else that’s ridiculous that he wrote : “My brother Ned holds a very unique position among the great men of the world’ and ‘you have proved that my brother Ned Kelly was proclaimed the greatest man in the word by his bitterest enemy’. Or in other words it wasn’t our fault , there was nothing wrong with Ned, it was the Police – and that of course is also the theme of Kenneallys book, and the central myth of the Outbreak that persists to this day. Jim was in denial it would seem till the day he died  (and I am afraid so are many members of the greater Kelly community even today! )

Never-the-less the question of possible Police persecution is the focus of this Post, the previous one and  a few more to come. I have already shown how Jim's first charge, at age 12 for illegally using a horse is misrepresented in the Kelly literature, and doesn’t really look like an example of Police persecution, but what about the second?

On this occasion, in 1873 when Jim was  14, he was convicted of  stealing cattle. He did this in the company of  17 year old Tom Williams who was said to have led Jim into it. Ian Jones called this theft ‘inept’ . The Jury recommended leniency,  but Jim was sentenced to five years hard labour by a Judge who is reported to have said he regretted he couldn’t also have ordered they be flogged!

Peter Fitzsimons made note of the fact that Jim was ‘undefended’ and  claimed that the sentence was  ‘one of the most severe sentences for one of that age in Victoria ever recorded’ and asked “If that is not persecution of his family, what is?”

Well this is the actual Press report from The North Eastern Ensign dated April 22^nd 1873:

BEECHWORTH CIRCUIT COURT.

Thursday, April 17. 

(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)

Mr. C. A. Smyth conducted the prosecutions on behalf of the Crown.

Thomas Williams, 17, and James Kelly, 14, were in-

dicted for stealing two heifers, the property of George

Chandler, of Winton. The prisoners were undefended

by counsel. The evidence of the prosecutor and several

witnesses was conclusive of their guilt, and a verdict to

that effect was returned, with a recommendation to

mercy on account of their youth. The same prisoners

were also found guilty of stealing two steers, the pro-

perty of James Cook, of Winton, and were sentenced to

five years imprisonment each.

So was this sentence  proof that the family was being persecuted?

Well, being arrested and charged couldn’t be called ‘persecution’ if a genuine crime had been committed – and theres no doubt Jim and Tom Williams stole several head of cattle and sold them.  And though five years does seem harsh to modern ears,  in those days people were transported for less  - Jims own father got seven years and was transported for stealing two Pigs! – so even the sentence may not have been that harsh for the time.  On the other hand, perhaps the Magistrate was aware of his older brothers convictions for  indecency, assault, and horse stealing, his uncles various  convictions, and the convictions of various other Kelly associates, and decided that a sharp and severe shock might achieve what the lenient treatment he received after he was charged for illegal using two years before didn't. We have no insight into the reasons for the Magistrates  decision but there are plenty of good reasons why it couldn’t have been mere persecution of an innocent family, because for one thing, that family was not innocent. There were any number of good reasons why he would have easily been able to justify a penalty at the harsher end of the spectrum of options that he had, not withstanding his young age and the suggestion of the Jury.  I also note that there is no mention of the Judge wishing he could have ordered Jim get a flogging, and neither Jones nor Fitzsimons provide a reference that supports that claim so I wonder  where it comes from?  I also wonder if Jim was unrepresented because, as the news report states “the evidence of the prosecutor and several witnesses was conclusive of their guilt’. Why would they waste money on legal costs if the outcome was a forgone conclusion?

Frankly if that’s the best example Peter Fitzsimons can provide as evidence that the family was persecuted, he hasn’t got a case. And if there was any question about it, here’s a final fact that settles it : Jim was released at the beginning of 1877, more than a year early. How can that be persecution?

Maybe  we will find evidence of Police persecution in Jims next experience with the Law? It happened only a few months after the last one.

Neds brother Jim

A central part of the Kelly story is that Ned was unfairly  hounded, harassed and persecuted by the Police,  something which he eventually reacted against, becoming what is often termed a ‘Police-made criminal’. On this Blog a year ago I reviewed the criminal record of Ned Kelly in detail, looking for the evidence of this persecution. I listed and looked at all the incidents that he was involved in that resulted in criminal charges being brought against him, to see if they had the appearance of  being trumped up charges and harassment by the Police , but they didn’t. What I found was evidence for the Police and the Judiciary acting more or less appropriately, even leniently on occasion, giving him the benefit of the doubt on several occasions and discharging him without a conviction, allowing remission of sentences, and even making offers to try to assist him in the earliest episodes. There were also moments where Police behaved deplorably, for example brutally bashing him and even trying to shoot him, events that were inexcusable even in those harsh times, but these events occurred well along the path of Neds anti-social lifestyle and were not entirely without provocation, which of course is the Kelly claim.

The only ‘evidence’ – if you could call it ‘evidence’ – that Ned Kelly was persecuted and hounded by the Police are his own claims in the Jerilderie letter – but isn’t that what ALL criminals claim, that the reason they’re in trouble is because the Police were picking on them? The  truth seems to be that the idea that Ned Kelly became what he did because of Police persecution, this most central plank of Kelly mythology, is actually yet another of Ned Kellys lies – that’s what the ‘real’ evidence shows. Nobody challenged this assertion when I made it a year ago.

Now I am going to make a series of Posts in which the rest of the Kelly clan and their associates have THEIR criminal records examined. Again what I want to explore is the Kelly story claim that the criminality of the Kellys and their extended family and associates was the RESULT rather than the CAUSE of Police interest in them. The Kelly story teaches that when it came to the Kellys, instead of  doing their legitmate tasks of  maintaining Law and Order and trying to solve crime and maintain the peace, Police went out of their way to victimize them. 

I will begin with Neds  brothers, James – known as Jim . In 1871 when aged 12 Jim and his  younger brother Dan were arrested by Constable Flood and charged with ‘illegally using a horse’ owned by Mr Mark Krafft, a local Hawker.

This is how J.J. Kenneally tells the story  :

“In his anxiety to carry out Supt Nicolsons instructions  to root the Kellys out of the district Constable Flood in 1871 arrested Jim Kelly and his little brother Dan. Jim was about 13 years old and Dan was only ten. Jim was employed by a local farmer with whose consent  he rode one of the farmers horses for the purpose of going home to see his mother.  He met Dan on the way and took him on the horse behind the saddle. Before going much further they were intercepted by Constable Earnest Flood who arrested the two children on the charge of illegally using a horse.”

It was Saturday 9^th September 1881. Flood took the boys to Wangaratta, and they remained in custody till the Monday morning when they appeared in Court and were discharged.

Kenneally goes on to paint a portrait of Flood as a serial persecutor of the Kellys, this case being an early example. He then quotes Floods answer  at the Royal Commission in 1881 saying that “They ( the Kelly brothers)  were discharged on account of their youth and their intimacy with the owner of the horses, one of the brothers having been a servant of the person who owned the horses’

Max Brown mentions this episode in passing, accepting Kenneallys  portrayal of it as unwarranted harassment:  “Constable Flood set out to pot the women and children starting with the 12 year old Jim who was working for  hawker, and his brother Dan still going to school in Greta. The boys were caught ‘illegally using’ the hawkers horse and locked up for two days’

Unusually, this incident isn’t mentioned in Ian Jones “A Short Life” but  it gets a brief mention in Fitzsimons work, in an anti-police context, and also in McMenomys, where he characterizes the episode as a ‘joke’ and Flood as ‘embarrassed’ when the boys are discharged. 

Now read the Court Report from the Ovens and Murray Advertiser of September 14^th 1871, the following Thursday : 

Illegally Using. — James and Daniel Kelly two boys, the one 12 years and the other 10 years, brothers of Young Kelly, were charged with illegally using a horse.—

Mark Kraft, a hawker, and travelling with a wagon and three horses, stated; on the 8th. of this month I camped at about 6. o'clock" at night at the Eleven Mile Creek, between Benalla and Greta. On the morning of the 9^th (Saturday morning) I had the whole of the three horses. I put the horses in Mrs Kelly's paddock on the evening of the 8th— a fenced paddock ; it is small, about 300 yards wide and about 20 yards from Mrs Kelly's house! I camped near the place, about 20 yards from the paddock where I put the three horses. One horse was a bay, one a grey,- and one a chesnut; the grey is a mare. I have seen the horses in the police yard. On last Saturday morning l told my boy to go for a bag of chaff and for an axe that I had lost. I told him to do this the night before. I saw the horses in the paddock- at night. I next saw two of the horses in the possession of the police (the bay horse and the grey mare). I saw the chestnut horse with mv own boy. In consequence of what my boy told me, I gave information to the police. I did not give the two boys in custody permission to ride the two horses now in the police yard. . I have lent the oldest boy a horse to look for his own horses. He was formerly in my employ for five months ;.he left me about 10 weeks ago I am in the  habit of camping at Kelly's.

In reply to the mother of the accused the plaintiff stated he did not think the boys intended stealing the horses.

In reply to the police, the plaintiff stated that he gave the boys in charge for illegally using the horses.

Charles King, sworn, deposed that he was in the employ, of Mr Krafft, and travelled with him. We camped lit the Eleven Mile Creek on Friday night. We put the three horses in Mrs Kelly's paddock.  The fence is not a good one, but the horses' could not get out. The two horses in the police yard were put into the paddock. I took the chestnut horse and left the other two in the paddock. I went to look for an axe and a bag of chaff. I was away for an hour and a half. When I returned the two horses were gone from the paddock. I went to look for them, and saw the boys riding the two horses near' the brush fence. I called to them, but they galloped away. I was about 10 yards from them. I  said, Jamie, fetch the horses back. They took no heed, and rode over the ranges. I told Mr Krafft what I had seen, and went to the police station at Greta, and Constable Flood returned with me. The constable and I went to look for the hoys. We discovered them about three-quarters of a mile from Mrs Kelly's. When we saw them they galloped away, and the constable after, them.

Constable Flood deposed : I am in charge of Greta police station. I saw the last witness on Saturday morning, and he reported an offence. I went to Kelly's place, and after wards went into the bush. When about a mile from Kelly's, I saw the two boys on horseback at fall gallop. ... The eldest boy made three attempts to get over a brush fence. They were galloping away, from Mrs Kelly's. The youngest boy was riding a bay horse. . I followed the eldest boy, who was riding the grey mare I was in search of. I asked him his name. He first refused to tell me; he  afterwards told me his name. I asked him whose horse was that he was riding. He said he did not know. -I asked him if he did not

know it belonged to a hawker who had camped there the night before, and he said he did not. He said "You can have the horse; I was only taking a ride." I then took them to Mr Krafft, who gave them into custody.

Discharged. 

When you read this account, you realize how very wrong the Kenneally version is : Jim NO LONGER worked for the farmer, Jim was NOT given permission to ride the horse, they took TWO horses, and they were NOT going to visit their Mother as the horses were taken from the paddock beside her cottage.  Floods involvement came by way of a specific complaint lodged by Krafft  who was clearly not amused by this prank. He is later listed as being a Kelly sympathsier ( Corfield) so his actions must have sprung from intense frustration, rather than from some sort of anti-Kelly agenda. Neither is there evidence in any of this of an act of ant-kelly Police persecution but rather of Flood responding to a valid complaint from a member of the Public, and taking the appropriate steps. The Magistrate exercised good judgement in the way he dealt with these two boys, but it must have concerned him that at such a young age they were so defiant and  already accomplished horse thieves and liars.

Kenneallys claim Flood was responding to Nicholsons famous order to root out the Kellys is also completely wrong, as this statement wasn’t made until 1877, six years later, by which time there had been many more incidents and contacts of various kinds between various members of the wider Kelly clan and the Police.

In my opinion this story provides a  fascinating window onto the creation of Kelly myth. In 1929 when Kenneally wrote his version of events the newspaper  report would have been virtually inaccessible to the general public, and clearly was NOT the place from where he obtained his information.  The story Kenneally told was what had been handed down to him, in other words the oral tradition. This has then been accepted as the truth by later writers and incorporated as fact into the story.

Now, with  easy access to the news report made only a few days after the event, and exposure of the truth of what actually happened we can see how the  telling and retelling of the story over the intervening 50 years has changed it from a silly mischievous prank that inconvenienced several people and wasted Police time and resources, into an act of absurd Police persecution of two innocent boys. The Kelly myth is a comprehensive misrepresentation of the truth. 

The reality in relation to Jim Kellys first brush with the Law is that it has none of the appearance of being an example of unwarranted Police persecution of two innocent Kelly family members, which is how the Kelly legends portray it. In fact when you read the original source material, this incident appears to be a perfectly legitimate and sensibly handled response to some foolish behavior by a couple of wayward kids. Jims first interaction with the Law was NOT an example of intrusive Police harassment. Another Kelly myth is debunked.

And as this news report details, kids like that and incidents like that are still happening today:

A 12 year old girl has been detected driving at 122kmh on Illawarra Main Road in the State’s north.(Tasmania, 2015) On Saturday night at 10.37pm, police allegedly detected a speeding vehicle travelling at 122km/h on Illawarra Road. The vehicle was intercepted on Youl Road, Perth, and police were shocked to discover the driver was a 12 year old girl. A 21 year old man and a 16 year old girl were passengers in the vehicle. The girl was charged and bailed for false name and driving offences. Sgt Phil Summers, of Westbury Police station, said police were stunned.

The Sleeping Giant !

A couple of months ago a moribund Kelly related forum stirred, as if it was coming back to life, made a few unpleasant comments about me and some of the others who contribute to this Blog, called for this blog to be boycotted and then sank back into its death-bed and hasn’t moved a muscle since. I was rather rudely referred to as ‘BO’ ( Blog Owner ) – but Ive been called much worse, so that’s not an issue - and much of what was posted isn’t worth reading, but some of the commentary requires a response to set the record straight.

1. “The BO legitimately created the said Blog page as a personal vendetta against the owner of the NKF and other individuals.” Well no, that’s not why I created the Blog. I created it to break the monopoly that the opinions of Kelly sympathisers had in the on-line world. I joined a forum to make my views heard but was bullied and then expelled; I then created my own Forum but it was sabotaged and deleted by a Ned Kelly Forum member who repeated this act of virtual vandalism when I made a second attempt on the same platform ( ProBoards , you suck! ) Finally with Blogger I have a more secure site that’s been growing for nearly two years. The reasons for its existence are stated at the top of the Page.

2. The mastermind and sole blame must go to all but one, whom has close ties with the owner of the NKF. I lay blame onto him, for it was he that woke the sleeping giant. The said persons acted on what they believed was a cause worth pursuing. It is clear they have failed and the consequence is now where it stands.On behalf of those of us that refuse to be a part of any malicious and vile attacks on the Blog page and to it’s followers; we have since distanced ourselves from such persons.” I have long asked why no Sympathiser ever attempted to stop this bully, because even blind freddy could see that his ignorant blundering and bullying was damaging the sympathizer  ‘brand’.  Its now apparent that though some in the sympathiser ranks disapproved of his behaviour, nobody was game to take him on, or was it perhaps they deliberately looked the other way while he went about doing the dirty work for them,  hoping his ‘malicious and vile attacks’ would result in me going away.  Whatever their motivation was for doing nothing  - either lack of a moral backbone or hypocrisy - or both -  when he failed they turned on him! However as this writer says, he did worse than fail because he instead woke ‘the sleeping giant’  and ‘the consequence is now where it stands’. They’ve finally distanced themselves from him, but they left it much too late. Yes, the sleeping giant is awake and its name is Dee!

3. "I call all contributors to cease making any future contributions. Your intentions as a contributor or shall we say going in to bat for Ned will be in vain. Continue to do so will prove more disastrous than what we are currently experiencing." Here we have a remarkably frank admission from the Sympathiser camp that the effect of the Death of the Legend Blog on their mythology has been ‘disastrous’ and so he is sounding the Bugle to announce a retreat, a withdrawal from engagement. This is good news because it reveals they have lost confidence in their ability to defend their mythology – though it has to be said that hardly any of them even tried.

4. Was I supposed to let half-truths or lies or incorrect things stay unfixed for others out there to be misled by? Yes, You helped grow Dee’s blogpages to where it is today. It was only a matter of time before Dee’s blog would have been a thing of the past. This is perhaps the only reprintable extract from a long  and disgraceful personal attack on Sharon. Here we see perhaps the most sickening thing of all : these sympathizers  reserve their most hateful vitriol for one of their own, a self declared “fully fledged Kelly sympathizer” who as she explained, contributed to the Blog to correct ‘half truths or lies or incorrect things’  How ON EARTH could any reasonable person object to that? Many more unkind and slanderous things were written about her, which reveal their jealousy, their disrespect, their misogyny and their total lack of concern about historical truth. I’ve  previously alluded to the similarities between some Kelly sympathisers and Religious fanatics and its perfectly demonstrated here – their Dogma is more important than the facts.  Its really disgusting. These personal attacks are an outrageous and sickening disgrace, and that writer owes her an apology.

I am sorry that Sharon seems to have disappeared from all Kelly discussions over recent weeks and I would be even sorrier to think it’s a result of this horrendous bullying. Her knowledge of Kelly history is second to none, her contributions were always on the mark, helpful informative relevant and free of any interpersonal animus, and she ought to be respected and honoured for her longstanding commitment to the Sympathiser cause, not threatened and bullied in Cyberspace by fanatics.

Another leading intellect in the Sympathiser camp that has been silenced by bullying from within is Brian McDonald.  Honourable NKF members, if there are any should not just distance themselves from the  bully that tipped McDonald out of the NKF, and silenced Sharon, they should expel him in disgrace.

5. Takes no Einstein to figure out the relics in Sutton’s possession is the real McCoy.Dee, I’ll put my money where my mouth is, prove Sutton wrong and I will deposit $5,000 in an account (Charity) of your choice. Thats a great offer, but its a trick because even if I could comprehensively disprove every argument Darren made for believing he had a piece of Joes original armour, that would still not prove that he didnt!  This is simply a truth about the way in which logic and argument work, something I have said before on this Blog - scientific claims can never be disproved, they can only be proved, and its up to the proponent to make his case and convince us.So if this person intends to only pay up if I can prove that Darrens metal is NOT from Joes suit, then his money is safe.

On the other hand if all I have to prove is that SUTTON is wrong - which is what he actually wrote but I suspect is not what he really meant - then that might be possible, because what I will simply have to show is that his arguments and reasoning are wrong. We will have to wait and see what they are when he launches his book in four months, but the thing he has to explain is the presence of lead in Joes suit, and the complete absence of lead in the metal he found.  This important difference is the reason ANSTO concluded his finding had not come from the same metal that Joes armour was made from. His argument will have to be a valid scientific demonstration of how lead completely disappeared from his piece or else how it got into the suit. The lead related to a bullet fired at the suit is a red herring because there is lead throughout Joes armour, not only at the place where the bullet struck.

Sutton has repeatedly alleged that the ANSTO testing was ‘flawed’  - 6 years later he has had more than enough time to prove the truth of that allegation so I will be looking for a scientific expose of these flaws.

6. Thus far Dee has masterfully and shamelessly exposed major inaccuracies on a number of topics. I congratulate you. Well, he got one thing right! Nothing needing correction there! Thanks for the complement.