The rotten truth about the Kelly Clan

Everything widow Ellen Kelly and her family owned  was destroyed
in 1868 by Neds uncle James

One of the most popular Kelly ‘quotes’ is “Such is life” – which are supposed to be but are not Ned Kellys last words. Nobody is really sure if he ever said ‘such is life’ but experts agree they weren’t his last words.

Another favourite Ned Kelly quote is this one:

“If my lips teach the public that men are made mad by bad treatment, and if the police are taught that they may exasperate to madness men they persecute and ill-treat, my life will not have been thrown away. People who live in large towns have no idea of the tyrannical conduct of police far removed from court. They have no idea of the harsh over bearing manner in which they execute their duties, of how they neglect their duties and abuse their powers”

Hard to believe but Ned Kelly didn’t say these words either! They appeared in a pretend “Interview” written by Ned Kellys solicitor David Gaunson and published in the Age in August 1880. As soon as the interview was published it was spotted as fake, the language supposed to be the words of Ned Kelly being obviously very different from his usual vocab, and the mood much more reasonable than his usual tone of extreme hate and anger. It was really a kind of PR job by Gaunson, cleverly trying to manipulate public opinion and gain some much-needed sympathy for his murderous client. So even though the trick was seen through at the time you would have to say Gaunson succeeded because from that day till now, that quote for many people sums up the whole basis of the outbreak and justifies for many the outrages that Kelly had committed. Ian Jones wrote that they may not be Neds exact words but never-the-less he reckoned this ‘Interview’ was a ‘genuine expression of his views’. And I think he is right: Ned Kelly blamed the police for the outbreak. However, saying it was all the  fault of the police doesn’t make it so – all crims blame the police for their misfortune, and gaols are full of innocent people, if you believe what the inmates all claim. Ned Kelly was just another criminal and liar who blamed the police.

This week I am just going to point out a few more of the legion of facts that don’t fit with the Kelly apologists story.  This week I am focussing on the idea that the selectors were the innocent decent honest folk you saw in Ian Jones TV miniseries, and portrayed in all the children’s books about the Kelly story, that this great clan, the Kellys Lloyds and Quinns were poor but decent upstanding law abiding selectors. They weren’t. They were feral violent drunks who fought one another, took each other to court, associated with criminals and by their behaviour drew police attention to themselves.

So what follows is the report from the local newspaper, the Ovens and Murray Advertiser of the court case involving Ned Kellys uncle James. This man, James Kelly was Red Kellys brother. The report shows he was a vengeful drunk, said to be ‘seldom sober’ who didn’t take kindly to having his sexual advances on widow Ellen Kelly rejected.  They assaulted him by smashing a bottle of gin over his head. As you will read, in response he very nearly incinerated 13 children : “If it were not for the water they would never have got the children out alive.”

Its also interesting to read Ellen Kelly saying she and her sisters ( whose husbands were both in Gaol at this time for cattle stealing) “sometimes went and drank at O'Brien's house.”  This illustrates the sad drinking culture of these people – you might have thought after seeing what happened to her husband Red, so recently dead at a mere 46 years old from alcoholism she might have sworn off the drink….

Also, make note of Judge Redmond Barrys sentencing remarks. Kelly apologists always screw up when discussing James’ sentence of death, claiming it shows how the Judge had it in for the Kellys. It shows nothing of the sort, as the Judge himself points out in these remarks. ‘Death’ was a mandatory sentence – he had no choice in the matter, and well knew that on appeal it would be commuted to a lengthy gaol term. Which is what happened.

Reports like this are never discussed by the Kelly fanciers on their Facebook pages, or even in their books except perhaps in passing. Reports like this destroy the idea that the Clan was a fun family of upright but poor irish farmers who were harassed by police. What this shows with nauseating clarity is the clans drinking culture, their criminal lifestyles, their loose morals and their fondness for violence. There was no police harassment here. Its all just a great big pathetic and sad mess.

What this also shows is there’s no need to blame police persecution or squatter oppression for the Kellys poverty. It was all due to their alcohol fuelled lifestyle : it destroyed Red and his farms collapsed as a result, and not much more than a year after Reds death it resulted in Uncle James burning down the house and destroying everything the Kellys owned except the shirts on their back.

The Kelly fanciers who follow Ned Kellys lead and  blame everything on the police and the squatters are kidding themselves.

O&M 21st April 1868

ARSON.

James Kelly was charged with setting fire to a dwelling house at Greta, near Wangaratta. Mr F. Brown defended the prisoner.

Catherine Lloyd said she was the wife of William Lloyd. She lived at Greta ; knew prisoner. Their house was a wooden house, formerly an hotel. The plan produced was correct ; recollected 27th April. There were on that night in the house her sister, Mrs Kelly, and

thirteen children. The latter were in bed at the time of the fire. Saw prisoner that night ; he came to the house about 6 o'clock in the evening. He went away about 8, but again returned in a quarter of an hour with a bottle of gin, and went to her sister's room. He

was talking to her and asking her to take a glass ; she refused to take any. Ordered him out ; he did not say much. Shoved him out ; he said nothing. Her sister told witness that night something that prisoner said. They, all but the children, stayed up in consequence of that. They went out to look for prisoner about 12 o'clock, and found him lying asleep close by in the bush. They went back and remained up, as they were afraid of prisoner. Just after going to bed, between 1 and 2 o'clock, heard something like the crack of a paling pulled off a window ; went there and saw some person ; it was the prisoner. The window was on fire, and prisoner only a few yards from it ; could see him plainly by the light of the fire. Went back to save the children ; got a bucket of water but could not put out the fire. Succeeded in keeping the fire down among wheat in the room till they got all the children out. The whole place was burned down in an hour. Had lived there for years. Gave information to police about prisoner.

By Mr Brown : Lived there seven years. Mrs Kelly had seven children. Witness's husband was not living with her ; he was in jail. Knew prisoner two years, but he was not in the habit often of coming there. Did not see prisoner after the fire till with the police. Prisoner had no quarrel with any of them as far as she knew. She had been stopping at a public-house. but not with anyone. Her sister was in her own room, and Mrs Kelly with witness at the time of the fire. Called up Mr O' Brien, a neighbour, to help to save the children. If it were not for the water they would never have got the children out alive. Told O'Brien who set fire to the house. When Harrington brought prisoner next day, witness said " that is the man”.

Jane Lloyd, sister of last witness : Lived with her in the house burned down. Knew prisoner about two years. On the 27th January last he came to their house. About a week before that prisoner said he had three minds to burn the place. That was because they had shut him out before. This witness' evidence was otherwise corroborative of last witness' testimony.

By Mr Brown : Prisoner had been drinking. He was seldom sober. Ellen Kelly, sister of last two witnesses, and sister-in-law of prisoner, gave similar evidence to last witness.

By Mr Brown : Knew prisoner ten years ; he had done witness acts of kindness. He had sometimes stopped a few days. The day of the fire prisoner had given her boy a pair of trousers. The sisters sometimes went and drank at O'Brien's house.

Laurence O'Brien, a publican at Greta : He lived near where the house was burned down. Saw prisoner the night of the fire, he took a bottle of gin in the direction of Mrs Lloyd's. Prisoner was tipsy and seemed excited when he came back. He said he had a quarrel with the women at Mrs Lloyd's, and that one of them struck him with the bottle of gin, breaking it on him, and then turned him out. Advised him to go up the creek. He said he would not go till he had revenge for them striking him with the bottle. Gave him some gin, on condition he would not go back to the Lloyds. Did not see any more of him. About half-past one heard the scream of women and children, and saw the fire. Went down as quick as he could, but the whole place was quickly burned down.

By Mr Brown : There sometimes was a noise in the Lloyd's house. Richard O'Meara described himself as a musician.

His Honor asked him what instrument he played.

Witness : The violin, your Honor.

His Honor : Then perhaps you will allow me to write you down a fiddler.

Witness : Saw prisoner on the night of the fire. Saw prisoner chased by Mrs Kelly with a stick. Heard prisoner say he had a row with the Lloyds, and would have revenge. Prisoner was not sober, and he was not drunk. Detective Harrington had received information about the fire on the 28th of January : arrested prisoner in a shoemaker's house, Greta, before witness spoke, prisoner said, "I suppose you have come after me ; this is a most unfortunate affair." Mrs Lloyd immediately said, " That is the man that burnt the house." On the road to Wangaratta, prisoner said. " Can you keep a secret ?" Asked him " why." Well, he said. I'll say nothing till I see what they'll do, and if they put me in for it, I'll not go in alone. Searched him, found a quantity of loose matches in one of his pockets, and a box of wax matches in another. Prisoner appeared to have been drinking, but was quite sober.The place was completely burned down ,and the children all lying out in the bush.

Brown then addressed the jury for the defence, and His Honor very shortly. The jury, after about quarter of an hour's consultation, found the prisoner Guilty.

SENTENCES.

James Kelly, for arson, was then brought up for sentence. His Honor addressed prisoner in a very impressive manner, pointing out the enormity of the crime which, had it not been for the vigilance of the women they and their thirteen helpless children would have been hurried into eternity by a most dreadful death. The law, His Honor said, had not in such cases been made to correspond with that of England, where arson was no longer a capital offence, the colonial Legislature thinking he supposed, and no doubt wisely, that the heaviest penalty, might still be directed against a crime which, in a climate like this and with buildings of such combustible materials, might be attended with such appalling consequences. Had a single human life been sacrificed the prisoner would have been sentenced to death without hope of mercy, and even as it was the enormity of the crime compelled His Honor to mark it by recording a sentence of death against the prisoner, which would brand the prisoner for life as a felon. It would remain for the Executive, afterwards to deal with him,. Sentence of death was then recorded.”

Sentencing remarks

The great Judge Sir Redmond Barry

I wrote last week that one of the things I dislike more than anything about Kelly idolatry is that it encourages and supports disrespect and contempt for the police, both then and now.  Another specific thing that I find contemptible in the pro-Kelly community is the disrespect and contempt it directs towards Sir Redmond Barry. The lies that they repeat about this great man, and the contempt with which they lace any mentions of his name is quite sickening. Brad Webb finds it amusing, and can’t help himself mentioning as frequently as he can the entirely trivial fact that the statue of Barry outside the SLV, in common with every other statue in the entire world has bird shit on the top of it.  Small things amuse small minds.

But as always, Kelly apologists pronouncements about Sir Redmond display their hopeless ignorance of the historical truths, not just about Barry but about their own sad story. For example, no serious Kelly scholar – say, for example Ian Jones – believes that Barry announced at Ellen Kellys trial that if Ned Kelly was there he would have got 15 – or was it 20, or 25? – years for his involvement. But does that stop Kelly ignoramuses from saying it?

And they love to wring their hands at how the terrible Sir Redmond sentenced one of the many criminals that were Uncles of Ned Kelly, the drunken arsonist James Kelly, to death, ignorantly insisting this proves what a nasty hanging judge he was and how he had it in for the Kellys. The refutation of that claim has been in print for nearly 40 years but it hasn’t filtered through to any of them yet so they continue to repeat the lie. So dumb. (Hint : Read Graham Jones book The Larrikin Years – or if that’s too big an ask, read my Review of the book, posted on this blog in January, and bring yourself up to date )

Now you might be asking what’s prompted this outburst? Well, I just happened to come across a reference to a report from the Age, 20^th November 1854, page 6 which records Barrys sentencing remarks in a murder trial, and they are reprinted here in full. (But you can use the link and read  the article itself if you like) Barrys remarks reveal him to be an amazingly humane and wise man, not just for his time. The reporters observation at the very end blew me away.

SUPREME COURT,

CRIMINAL SESSIONS,

Saturday 18th November, 1854.

(Before His Honor the Acting Chief Justice, Redmond Barry, sitting in the New Court.)

The Attorney-General prosecuted for the Crown.

The Court was very densely crowded, it being understood the case of the Bentleys would be taken on this morning, charged, with others, with the murder of James Scobie, at Ballarat.

SENTENCE OF DEATH.

Luke Lucas, who was convicted on Friday of the capital offence of the murder of his wife, was brought up for sentence. The crier proclaimed strict silence, under pain of imprisonment.

The learned Judge then addressed the prisoner nearly as follows:

Luke Lucas you have been convicted by a jury of your countrymen of the wilful murder of your wife, Mary Lucas, and the short, consistent, and uncontradictory testimony upon which that verdict was founded leaves no doubt whatever of your guilt.

You yielded to an outburst of passion and cruelty, and in the very midst of this populous city, at nearly midday, with a bar of iron, you murdered your wife. Had but your hand been raised against your equal in strength it might have shown, at any rate, some degree of courage,—an act like that would have thrilled us with less horror; but you have raised it to slay your partner in life, and her whom you were bound by all ties to love and cherish and protect.

What can be said in extenuation of your crime? A crime committed by a man upon a woman, a husband upon a wife, a father on the mother of his children?

The learned counsel (Mr. Dawson) who volunteered your defence, has ably advocated you. He has tried all in his power to see if the witnesses for the Crown were speaking the language of truth, but the few and simple details showed there was no contradiction. He tried to reduce the crime to manslaughter, but failed.

That little child of yours, eight years of age, brought forward by your counsel to give evidence in your favour, might have benefited you much, but, by your own culpable negli-

gence, he has been deprived of giving that evidence that might possibly have saved his father. Let this hold up in strong light to all, especially to men in your class of life, the necessity of religious instruction; if not from the high and holy motives of religion, let it be for the welfare of the children themselves, lest when their own life and welfare and liberty should be at stake, instead of their young children being the artless advocates of truth, possibly to save them in that hour, they find them the speedy avengers of evil.

Let this case be set before and terrify all that are given to the habits in intemperance. The last crime of murder has sprung from the first crime of intemperance. To this vice a wife now owes her murder, a husband a speedy and retributive death, and these young children, left in ignorance and vice, possibly to want and suffering. If no other mode of reasoning will avail with the intemperate, let this terrify the drunkard: that the fate of Luke Lucas may one day be his; that the thirst for drink is the demon that urges them to inevitable ruin.

The recommendation of the Jury for mercy shall be duly forwarded to the Executive Council, but I can hold out to you no hope. I cannot interfere in your case, neither do I feel called on to do so. I would not pass upon you the sentence of death hastily, therefore I have submitted the whole of your case to a most painful retrospect. I feel and respect the opinion of the jury, because it yields to mercy. My opinion also is entitled to respect, and I believe yours is a case that demands a public example. How dare you arrogate to yourself the office of an avenger, to deal out such unproportionate retribution to a wife; prepare then for a death, not so sudden—not so severe—not so terrible as you have inflicted—prepare, I say, to stand at that bar where all of us shall meet our doom.

The sentence of the Court is; that you, Luke Lucas, be taken from the place from whence you came, and from thence to the place of execution, at such time as His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor may appoint, and there be hanged by the neck until you be dead, and may the Lord God in his infinite compassion have mercy on your guilty soul.

The learned Judge was deeply affected towards the conclusion of his address, so much so as to become inaudible, and large tears were coursing down his cheeks. The prisoner, who looked very pale, was then removed to the gaol.”

Another Anti-Police Kelly Myth exposed.

The Benalla Bootmakers Shop : still standing.
What idiot put the power pole in front of it?

Probably the thing I object to most about Kelly idolatry is that it encourages and supports disrespect and contempt for the police, because police hate was what motivated Ned Kellys entire lifestyle. The troll on his slag heap who promotes racist anti-British sentiment, islamophobia , misogyny and sickening right wing views of history also, of course, encourages police hate. However his latest move in that regard has met some opposition, which is good to see. 

They're arguing about the footage of that poor fellow being mobbed on his front lawn by half a dozen police. There were clearly faults on both sides - the man could have simply opened his door at the very beginning instead of yelling abuse at the Police and keeping them waiting outside. However, its clear he was mentally disturbed. I have no doubt the police had plenty of other work to get on with, and they probably know stuff about the guy that we don’t, but they clearly and very badly over-reacted once he came out, and the behaviour of some of them was a disgrace. But  do we know how many of those police have previously been injured trying to arrest a violent drugged out thug, or been spat on and scratched and bitten? There are definitely some cops who should be severely reprimanded, and I expect they will be. There are some people who just should NOT be cops - they're violent and they're bullies. Get rid of them. But most are not like that.

On the news, a police spokesman said there were thousands of interactions between police and the public every day, and he admitted there were also complaints every day about their behaviour but the number was a handful. I keep saying it but it’s worth repeating, that any institution with people in it will have problems, whether its political parties and Governments, Churches, schools, armies, multinational corporations or the local shops. Where is the one with an unblemished history?

So let’s not use these rare incidents of a few police acting badly, even very badly as an excuse to tar and feather the whole force, and lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of the difficult work they do for all of us is really good. The parallels with the Kelly story are too obvious : the Kelly apologists regard all police as corrupt and nasty because of a few bad eggs in the force in the 1860's and 70's. Not so much Fitzpatrick, who has been vilified and hated by the Kelly mob for doing his job, but Hall, also trying to do his job but with excessive violence. 

That arrest scene reminded me of the Kelly story where Ned Kelly was resisting arrest in Benalla, and fought violently with four police and the bootmaker trying to handcuff him. I looked it up : it happened in September 1877.  Unlike the guy in the CCTV footage who didn’t put up much of a fight, Ned Kelly fought wildly, and boasted in the Jerilderie Letter how “with one well directed blow I sent him (Fitzpatrick) sprawling” They didn’t have pepper spray but they had the Squirrel Grip.

To my great surprise I  noticed an important error in this narrative which hasn’t been identified before as far as I am aware. All the Kelly books up through to Ian Jones and Fitzsimons say that the trouble started when police decided to handcuff Ned Kelly as they walked him from the lock-up where had been kept overnight, to the Courthouse to face the Judge on a charge of being drunk and disorderly. They say that Ned Kelly objected to this, saying he would go quietly “but you won’t put the darbies on me without a fight” (Clune The Kelly Hunters p123)

In fact what Ned Kelly himself said was that ‘he escaped’ and THEN they tried to put the handcuffs on him:

On the following day, when I was taken out of the lock-up, and still dazed, I escaped, and was pursued by the police. I took refuge in a shoemaker’s shop, and four constables soon came in after me. They, assisted by the owner of the shop, tried to put the handcuffs on me, but failed. In the struggle that ensued my trousers were almost torn off me. Finding me a more difficult man to manage than they expected, Lonigan seized me in such a manner — a cruel, cowardly and disgusting manner — that he inflicted terrible pain on me ; but still I would not surrender. The act of Lonigan, which cannot be described, might have ruined me for life, if it did not actually kill me. While the struggle was still going on a miller came in, and, seeing how I was being ill-treated, said the police should be ashamed of themselves, and he endeavoured to pacify them and induce me to be handcuffed. I allowed this man to put the handcuffs on me, though I refused to submit to the police. It may seem strange, but it is as true as I am here that from that time up to the time of Lonigan’s death I suffered excruciating pain and inconvenience from his treatment; but from the day of his death until now I have been free from that pain and the ill-effects I before experienced.”(Interview with Ned Kelly)

So it appears the Kelly mythologists have once again created a version of history that’s not accurate, but serves its dual purpose of demonising the police and making a victim out of their hero Ned Kelly. The Kelly apologists narrative, invented I think by Max Brown, is that the police “through petty vindictiveness or actual fear” (Alex McDermott The Jerilderie Letter) tried to handcuff Ned before leaving the lockup. In fact, if we are to believe what Ned Kelly himself said, there was no 'petty vindictiveness' - Ned was given the opportunity to behave responsibly and just walk across the road with an escort but instead he decided to make a run for it. He was chased into the bootmakers shop where, quite reasonably, they decided he would have to be handcuffed, yet still, like a moron he continued to fight and struggle. To save face in the struggle he was never going to win he decided to allow the cuffs to be placed by the JP who walked in on the mayhem.

So, what are you going to believe? The narrative provided by Ned Kelly that he probably imagined showed him to be ‘flash’, trying to escape, fighting off police and kicking them around the room while they tried to handcuff him? Or are you going to stick with the made-up fairy story designed to fit the nonsense that Ned Kelly was a poor persecuted innocent victim of the mean police?

The truth of this episode is now out for the first time. It looks bad for Kelly.

It shows that on this occasion Ned Kelly behaved like a complete idiot, an immature show-off, though in 1877 he was 22 years old, and according to Ian Jones was soon planning a republic of north east Victoria- yeah right! Instead of being fined just one shilling for being drunk, his foolish behaviour cost him an extra 85 shillings (£4/5/0d) which no doubt he was easily able to afford because at that time he was a self confessed full time 'wholesale and retail' stock thief. As for the claim that his balls ached until he killed Lonigan : that’s got to be some weird psychological shit going on inside his head!