Ned Kelly wrote in the Jerilderie Letter that after being ordered to Bail Up, Lonigan “ran some six or seven yards to a battery of logs instead of dropping behind the one he was sitting on. He had just got to the logs and put his head up to take aim when I shot him that instant”
The word ‘battery’ refers to a collection of similar things, such as a battery of tests, so what Kelly is claiming is that Lonigan ran for cover behind a pile of logs, and once behind them he armed himself, lifted his head up above this pile of logs and took aim at Kelly, but Kelly was too fast for him: Kelly fired once, hit him in the head and killed him almost immediately.
A very plausible account….one that Kelly sympathisers have always believed to be the true story.
However, the other policeman on the scene, Thomas McIntyre gave a very different account of Lonigans murder, and Kelly sympathisers, following the lead of Ian Jones, have always claimed it was false, and that McIntyre was a liar:
“Suddenly and without us being aware of their approach four men with rifles presented at us called upon us to ‘bail up hold up your hands’. I being disarmed at the time did so. Constable Lonigan made a motion to draw his revolver which he was carrying, immediately he did do he was shot by Edward Kelly and I believe died immediately.”
The differences between the two accounts are stark, both cannot be true – one says Lonigan was behind a battery of logs when shot, the other says he was out in the open. One says he armed himself and was about to shoot, the other says he only ‘made a motion’ to arm himself. One says he ran several yards, the other says he was shot almost exactly where he stood. McIntyre later drew two diagrams of the scene, one more elaborate than the other but both showed Lonigan’s body lying close to where he had been standing at the order to ‘bail up’. “Kelly incurred no more danger in shooting Lonigan or Scanlan than he would have shooting two kangaroos. He simply gave the men no chance to injure him and might have shot them down without challenging them, as they scarcely had time to realise their danger until they were shot”
So who was the liar, McIntyre or Kelly?
Believe it or not, we can answer that question with more or less absolute certainty! The key lies in the evidence carefully recorded by the Mansfield Doctor Samuel Reynolds., and specifically his findings in relation to a wound in Lonigans left thigh. Reynolds went with the search parties to recover the slain police from SBC, and then performed an autopsy on them back at Mansfield.
On Lonigan’s corpse, Reynolds didn’t just find the lethal head injury, the bullet having entered through Lonigan’s right eye at an angle, but he also found three other wounds, one of which was just a graze to the temple on the right side. The other two were made by a bullet that went right through and out the other side of the ‘fleshy part’ of Lonigan’s left arm, but the most surprising of all his findings, was that injury to the left thigh: a bullet had entered from the side and passed to the inner side of the thigh from where it was extracted by Reynolds; later, in Court he said it was like a revolver bullet.
Reynolds report surprised everyone and created a puzzle that remained unsolved for over 130 years because for one thing, Kelly shot Lonigan with a rifle not a revolver, and for another, both Kelly and McIntyre’s statements agreed on one thing : he had only been shot once.
Nobody was sure where the other wounds had come from, but there were two popular theories : one was that later in the evening, the other three Gang members fired into Lonigan’s body in a kind of bonding ritual. The other theory, promoted by Ian Jones was that in the gun battle that happened later on, Lonigan’s body, lying in the open, was hit by stray bullets.
The solution to this conundrum is found in a vital clue in Reynolds testimony that everyone including me for quite a while, had missed : he revealed that all the wounds in Lonigan’s body were inflicted while he was still alive. What he actually said in Court was that they were all inflicted before circulation had ceased…in other words, while his heart was still pumping…and that was only for a minute or two after he was shot. The injury created shooting into a living animal is very different from the injury created shooting into a corpse. This observation of Reynolds put an end to those two theories about the wounds being inflicted well after he had died, but more importantly, because only one shot was ever fired at Lonigan, it meant that what was fired at him wasn’t one large rifle bullet from Kellys rifle, but multiple small projectiles that hit him in several places all at once: his head, his left arm and his left leg.
Despite the realisation that Kelly fired multiple projectiles rather than a single bullet, a belief persisted among some that there still had to have been a second shooter because everyone believed that Reynolds said he had extracted a revolver bullet from Lonigans thigh. That shooter could only have been Dan Kelly, if you believe Ned Kellys claim in the JL that only he and Dan Kelly made the initial approach to the camp, armed only with a revolver and rifle.
Advocates of the ‘second shooter’ theory have to first of all explain how it is that if there were two shots, only one shot was ever heard? The suggestion from certain quarters that the two shots were fired at exactly the same time is so exceedingly unlikely as to be virtually impossible.
However, there is a fatal flaw in the belief on which the second shooter theory is based, the belief that Reynolds said that what he had extracted from Lonigan’s thigh hard come from a revolver. Its recorded in the Capital Case file, the record of Kellys trial, that actually, Reynolds wasn’t exactly sure what it was – he said what he took from Lonigan’s thigh was “as of a revolver” – and everyone took from that the view that it had to have been an actual revolver bullet, but that was a mistake. Reynolds thought it was ‘like’ a revolver bullet but in saying it was ‘as of a revolver bullet’ he left open the possibility that it could have been something else – such as one of many small ‘revolver like’ projectiles fired at once from Kellys gun. There is therefore no need to postulate a second shooter with a revolver, quite apart from the fact that nobody ever reported two shots – because Reynolds description and findings in regard to the left thigh was entirely consistent with it being a wound made by one of the several small projectiles fired in that single deadly volley from Kelly.
Others have said the ‘second shooter’ was Lonigan himself, shooting himself in the thigh in his panic and haste to get his revolver out. That would require Lonigan to be left handed of course: studies of handedness back then report only 3% of people were left handed, so if he was left handed that would make him unusual. It would also require for the gun to be fired sideways into the leg – an unlikely trajectory – and for the gun to have misfired, as the bullet only travelled a few inches. A normal discharge would have passed right through the leg if it didn’t hit bone – and if it had, the leg would have sustained enormous damage. The other implication of a self-inflicted wound is that it would mean Kelly lied when he said he shot Lonigan because he had lifted his head up above the battery and took aim at him. It’s hardly likely that would have happened after he had just shot himself in the thigh.
So now, having shown that the likelihood is extremely high that all the wounds in Lonigans body were inflicted at exactly the same moment, and all because of what was fired from Kellys gun, the wound in the left thigh yet again becomes problematic for anyone who wishes to insist Ned Kellys account of Lonigans murder was correct. Thats because if it were true, Lonigan’s left leg would have been protected behind the battery of logs, and couldn’t have been hit, let alone from the side. On the other hand, if as McIntyre said, Lonigan had barely moved and was out in the open when shot, the left thigh wound would not only be very easy to explain, but the explanation makes perfect sense and is very simple.
In summary, it’s very clear that Lonigan was only shot once, because all his bullet wounds were created while he was alive. The suggestion he was shot by two different people at EXACTLY the same time is implausible in the extreme. The wound in Lonigan’s thigh happened at the same time as all the others, and it was made by a small projectile that resembled, but was not a revolver bullet. The suggestions that other shooters caused it, or Lonigan caused it himself cannot be sustained by careful examination of the facts. For all those wounds to have occurred simultaneously to various parts of his body, Lonigan very clearly could not have been sheltered behind a battery of logs, and lifting his head up above them to take aim, as Ned Kelly claimed. He had to have been out in the open, as McIntyre always maintained.
Thus we can be very confident that the person who spoke the truth about Lonigan’s murder was Constable Thomas McIntyre. It almost doesn’t matter what he actually said about the murder : the forensic evidence on its own tells the true story, and exposes the liar, once again, to be Ned Kelly.
G.W. Hall in ‘Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges’ (1879) wrote that when challenged by Kelly McIntyre immediately raised his arms, but Lonigan “attempted to gain the shelter of a tree, at the same time trying to draw his revolver, when Ned Kelly fired a charge of small bullets at him, one of which, entering his brain, through the orbit of his right eye, brought him to the ground a corpse; and as he was struck, he cried out, ‘Oh, Christ! I’m shot!’. Instinct and force of habit, not reason, must have prompted to put his hand to his revolver, for the bravest man need not have blushed to surrender in the face of such odds.”
The wording “a charge of small bullets” supports McIntyre’s testimony and is supported in turn by Reynold’s post-mortem autopsy findings.
Very interesting David, you have been doing your homework.
You point out very plausible outcomes from the most likely evidence provided but you do put in your own opinions. The one I do disagree with is that it is unlikely that 2 shots could be fired at the same time.
In my experience with weapons and firearms this 2 shots and 1 sound or report has accursed many many times around me.
I am able to fire a firearm on hearing the person next to me fire and others have only heard 1 shot. In fact it happened with 2 other shooters in my presence today.
I am not saying that 2 of the gang fired or Ned and Lonigan fired but I am saying it could happen. If 2 firearm fired at the same time or even one after the other the loader firearm could drown out the other and of course depending on where McIntyre is standing an what he heard. If others heard 2 shots then we will never know because we only have McIntyres word. I do believe he only heard 1 shot.
Thanks Adrian. You are right of course it’s not IMPOSSIBLE that two shots were fired at exactly the same time. The question is how likely?This wasn’t a rifle range with several people lined up to shoot targets but a criminal confrontation in an age when murder made you a dead man walking. What scenario would you propose to account for two shooters that would be more likely than what I’ve proposed? I can’t think of one maybe you or someone else can.
I certainly concur that two guns can be fired so close to simultaneously as to sound like just one (I have a broken clock, but it still tells the correct time, with unerring atomic clock accuracy, twice a day!), but the fact that black powder puts out a big cloud of white smoke is simply inescapable. McIntyre should’ve seen there were two shooters, if there were.
McIntyre claims he was facing 4 men approaching and draws them equally distanced apart and equal distance from him. He would have been looking in their direct when Lonigan was shot. If two guns had fired at the same time, he would have seen this, a flash and smoke from both weapons.
Even if two guns were identical and loaded with identical charges, the odds of them both firing at the same time are astronomical, so more than highly unlikely. The shooters were not in a direct line from McIntyre (one behind the other) or out of his line of sight, they were out in front of him, roughly at equal distances apart and from him. Even if both fired at the same time, both guns would have given a different sound and would be distinct from each other. In this scenario, he not only would have seen two shots fired, he would have heard them.
Lonigan’s thigh wound is far lower than his body that would have been the target, so that indicates either a very poor marksman, or the wound came from Ned Kelly’s rifle. Dr. Reynolds misidentified the piece of lead in Lonigan’s thigh.
Yes you’re correct, the odds of two people shooting Lonigan at exactly the same time and McIntyre not noticing both are astronomical. I hadn’t thought of the point you made about the flas and the smoke….good point.
Well done David. I enjoy the forensic analysis. Your explanation of the plausibility of McIntyre’s recall is compelling. In a way both Kelly and McIntyre are highlighting their own responses to the awful event; McIntyre’s is that Lonigan didn’t have a chance, and Kelly’s that Lonigan intended to fight. And Stuart’s quote from G.W. Hall sums it up nicely; Lonigan reaches for his gun, takes a couple of steps towards cover and is shot – by one discharge.
I’ve always thought, though, that there must have been another Hall who was “present” at Stringybark. Snr. Const. Hall of Greta. Morrissey says the police called him “Mad Dog”, I think. Hall’s report of his encounter with the fifteen year old Kelly in Greta is chilling. Hall writes it in the third person: “ Hall then presented the revolver straight at his face and snapped it three times and each time the hammer striking the cartridge but it would not go off Though seemingly it was in good order for before he left the Barracks he examined it.” (Report of Senior Constable Hall to Supt. Barclay, Greta April 22 1871.)
Hall is reporting an attempt by him to kill a fifteen year old kid. The issue was a suspected stolen horse. Hall is more concerned about his gun not working than he is about the fact he was intending to shoot Kelly in the face at a range of a few yards. And he tried three times! I reckon the impact of that incident on a juvenile Kelly must have been very significant. It certainly upped the stakes for him in his dealings with the police and set in his mind what some were prepared to do. It doesn’t justify anything, of course, but it must have been in Kelly’s mind when he saw Lonigan reach for his gun, you’d think.
David Dyfty has a theory about Hall shooting at Ned, which is that they were caps only, nd even Kelly one it which is why he stood there allowing it to happen…
As for that being on his mind at SBC….I’m not sure Kelly was a deep thinker, more of a shallow, emotionally labile and impulsive man who lived in the moment….which is why on seeing police tracks he formulated on the spur of the moment an absolutely reckless and insane plan to go and confront them… …and I dont think murder was the intention but any sane person would predict it wouldnt go well…
I don’t think David Dufty’s theory really works if you look at what Hall was saying, David. Firstly, Hall was proving that he had followed up on his promise to McBean and, was it Nicolson?, that he wouldn’t let Kelly “run long”. Secondly, he explains that he can’t understand why the gun didn’t fire because he had checked it before he left the station. In other words he’s implying that he would have killed Kelly if the gun hadn’t inexplicably misfired., and he is expecting credit for his attempt. I don’t think David D has read the original Hall report. It’s well documented in McQuilton.
The other thing that strikes me about this incident is the “wild savages’ who surround the police camp after word gets out that the kid has been beaten up by Hall. You wonder who the “savages” were. The Greta Mob are all about 10 or 11 at this point. Presumably members of the community, those maybe who have been around Greta for six or eight years, were distressed that a kid was shot at and bludgeoned in their town. You’d think that would be something that would stick in people’s minds – down the years even.
I don’t know whether Kelly was a deep thinker or not, but I would have thought any kid who had a policeman aim a gun at his face and pull the trigger three times at a few yards distance (this is Hall’s explanation, not Kelly’s) would have shit himself. And if he was, as you say, “shallow, emotionally labile and impulsive” and that Stringybark was unplanned and spur of the moment, which I agree it probably was, then when things started Kelly’s instinct was to get in first. And I’d suggest Hall’s behaviour probably contributed significantly to that instinct.
As I said, this excuses nothing, but I’m surprised that Hall’s behaviour gets so little attention.
I think that incident could warrant closer inspection but I dont have the time for it right now. However, in the one reference I checked, Hall says he attempted to fire once, and that was after Kelly lunged at him and hit him…I am wondering if the version everyone accepts of Kelly standing his ground while Hall fired at him three times – which would be an extraordinary thing if true – is actually another example of what all Kellys versions of events are, that is to say exaggerated self-serving and inaccurate ? Why wouldnt it be? He was always about vilifying police and enhancing his image of himself as a brawler and a hero.
I have long said that the incident with Hall (abortively) shooting at Ned was – IF it happened the way Ned claimed – just about the one and only legitimate claim Ned EVER had to having been victimised by the system. So it’s interesting indeed to read that Hall said he was clearly attacked…. That would make a lot more sense !
This is the reference : from the Argus 1871
Attachment
Hi David, I think you have just debunked another Kelly myth with that Argus article. What date was it published by the way? It seems that the Kelly nuts including Peter FitzSimons have ignored that and only use Kelly’s story. Hall’s statement that he warned Kelly three times has been lyingly twisted by Kelly into pulling the trigger three times.
FitzSimons presentation is on pp. 78-82 of his Kelly book. The couple of O&M articles he references do not provide the details in the Argus article and he bases the rest of his presentation almost entirely on Kelly’s tale.
Hall’s statement in the Argus is consistent with his note right after the incident to Montfort requesting help, quoted by FitzSimons, who then disparages Hall another few times. It had not occurred to FitzSimons’ researchers to question Kelly’s tale simply because they are Kelly nuts,
I think we can bury Kelly’s lying narrative about Hall misfiring three times along with the rest of him down Greta way. And along with that we can bury Ned’s nonsense about him throwing Hall to the ground and straddling him and spurring him, something that none of the witnesses saw! If his head ever turns up we can bury that there as well.
Wow, thanks Stuart. I wonder if there are other accounts ? Sometimes different papers have slightly different versions? The Full reference to the screenshot I posted above is The Argus May 2nd 1871.page 7.
Interesting, in light of TFs comment above that when asked to provide an example of the oppression and persecution he suffered from Ned Kelly DIDNT cite this – instead he talked about having his balls squeezed in the Benalla Bookmakers shop….interesting?
I’m not sure why you’d go first to the Argus report, David, when Hall’s original report is available. McQuilton has it, I think.
Here are my notes:
Hall had met Kelly on the Greta Bridge and asked him to come to the station to sign some non- existent papers. Kelly followed him, but stopped when he reached the station verandah.
The following, then, is the direct quote from Hall’s report of the incident which he forwarded to Barclay in Benalla asking it to be forwarded in turn to Melbourne. ie. Hall wrote it himself, in his own hand.
“Kelly at once said bring out them papers until I see them No I will not said Hall you cannot sign them on horseback so get off and come in I will see you damned said Kelly at the same time turning his horse to bolt In a moment Hall said you are my prisoner for horsestealing and made a jump and caught him by the neck but the coat waistcoat and shirt all gave way so he gave another spring and caught him by the shoulder and pulled him right off the horse but could not hold him by the flesh his clothes as he said before having given way.”
Kelly then, according to Hall, made a run for the scrub opposite the police barracks
“Hall then pulled out his revolver called on Kelly to stand when he immediately turned around to show fright and in reply to Hall said Shoot and be damned Hall then presented the revolver straight at his face and snapped it three times and each time the hammer striking the cartridge but it would not go off Though seemingly it was in good order for before he left the Barracks he examined it Kelly then rushed at him to try and take the revolver from him and in the struggle succeeded in catching it by the muzzle and barrell The Senior constable wrenched it out of his hands (Hall had it by the stock all the time) and struck Klly with all his might 4 or 5 times with it on the head but could not stun him and the only effect the blows had although they were given as he had said before with all his might was simply to leave that part of his head a mess of bleeding and raw flesh At last while Hall was holding him by the neck by the left hand Kelly made a spring and again caught the barrell of the revolver with both hands to try and wrench it out of the hand of Hall So both then paid all their attention to this little matter Kelly trying to turn the muzzle of the revolver against Hall and the latter trying to do the sam on Kelly However they both kicked boxed and bit [[Hall crosses out ‘bit’ and writes…] Kelly bit for some time and then came against an old fence which gave way and fell head over heels neither letting go the revolver after another tussel on the ground Hall got a chance of giving Kelly a powerful box at the putt of the ear which some what made him stupid for a moment and was just in the act of turning him over when the Black Smith next to the camp came up and Hall called on him to assist in putting the offender in the lock in a minute after some others came up and ultimately the Senior Constable got Kelly in the Lock up and the stolen horse in the police stable everything was quiet for a little time until Kellys friends through a Bush Telegraph found out that he was in the lock up and that Hall had sent a message for Police assistance to Wangaratta Some of these people then cam shouting about the place like wild savaged saying they would take him out of the camp.
Hall requested of Supt Barclay in Benalla that his report be forwarded to Melbourne to bear witness that he was abiding by the promise he said he had made both Hare and Nicolson when he had ridden with them to Squatter McBean’s place sometime previously.
This was sighted sometime in 1971 among the Kelly papers. I believe John McQuilton has some or all of it reproduced in his book. I think it’s more substantial as a document than a second hand account in the Argus. Although it might be interesting to compare the two accounts, but given that these are Halls own words, I’m not sure what clarification would be gained. I reiterate that this is Halls own hand. He chose to write in the third person about himself. I think it discounts David Dufty’s idea too, that the revolver was not fully loaded. What is interesting is to compare Kelly’s and Hall’s accounts – they are quite similar, allowing for the fact that each is bragging about themselves. at the other’s expense
It seems like people aren’t familiar with this document. I think it’s really important. And like I say’ Was Hall sitting on Kelly’s shoulder at Stringybark when the plans started going awry.
Hi Michael
an interesting record you have there, but someone is going to have to find where you got it from dont you think? It sounds very much like a Kelly apologists writing to me, and is it usual for police to write thier reports in the Third Person? Until we know what that source is I will stick to the Argus from May 1871, but I am not closing my mind to the possiblity of the Argus being wrong.
The portrait of Hall in that incident makes him out to be a really disreputable person but I seem to recall that his departure he was rewarded and celebrated as having been a good policeman…or have I got my wires crossed?
Hi David,
The provenance of the report is fine. I don’t have a copy of McQuilton handy, but he has it documented. Have you not see it there? It was a report to Barclay in Benalla, from Hall dated Greta, 22 April 1871. It was held, in 1971 when I saw it, in the Kelly Papers which were then stored in random fashion in the basement of the State Library. I presume they’ve been sorted since, and it should be readily available. Morrissey must have seen it, but his documentation isn’t the best.
As to why Hall wrote in the third person I have no idea. As I said, Morrissey says the police called him Mad Dog. Perhaps he thought it gave the document gravitas; he was clearly trying to impress Nicolson. I can’t remember whether other reports of his were also in the third person, although maybe others of his weren’t in the Kelly Papers. Still they should be somewhere in the present day Archives.
It does sound like a Kelly apologist’s confected piece, doesn’t it? And strange that it comes from Hall.
Anyway, I’ve sighted the report, John McQuilton has documented it. It’s certainly not fabricated.
Hall did get an honorarium when he left Greta. It was pretty standard for Teachers/Police to be sent off in that way. Kelly said that Laurence O’Brien at the pub raised it for him because Hall owed him money. Hall was an exRIC man, not loved by the Irish, O’Brien was Irish. Kelly might have been right.
The easiest way to find documents from the Kelly Papers as they were called back in the day is to find the matching story and references in FitzSimons’ Ned Kelly ( this is not a book recommendation) or Kiera’s Mrs Kelly (this is a book recommendation) as both of these give VPRS reference numbers, and then go online to the VPRO to download the scanned document.
Hi David and Michael, here is the bit from McQuilton plus the references so we can all see what we’re dealing with
Attachment McQ-Hall.pdf
The correspondence Hall to Barclay, 22 April 1871, is given in FitzSimons book to be VRRS 937 Unit 413, pp 2-3.
This is a physical record box available to view at the VPRO by ordering in advance. It has not been digitised, and I will not be able to get to thh VPRO for some months and maybe not this year. I think we can say from the section quoted in McQuilton that what he gives there cannot be Hall’s own report of the incident. It is written in the third person. I have read a number of police reports in the VPRO and none are ever written b y an actor in the third person. I will have to suspend comment until me or someone has been able to go to VPRO and photograph the document and put it up for discussion.
It’s genuine. Hall wrote in the third person. A known fact. The whole document was on display at a Kelly exhibition years ago.
So given Hall’s report to Barclay just uploaded it looks like Hall did snap his revolver trigger at Kelly three times with the cartridge not firing, and he says that he did pull Kelly off his horse, which of course contradicts what he said in the police court on 29 April when he said he did not attempt to pull Kelly off the horse. I guess that ends that investigation. Still, it has been good to show that all evidence needs to be checked out.
Given the range of comments and a couple of questions both to me and David as to whether we might have missed some evidence in exploring this issue I think it’s worth pointing out that this is a blog to explore and discuss things, not a forum for experts. I have never pretended to know all about the Kelly story. I only know about a few little parts of it that I have explored in depth. Everything else is up for grabs. The blog is a great place to ask questions, explore ideas, get them shot down (as when I thought the Argus article might have debunked Kelly’s version of the Hall arrest), find out what other evidence might bear on a topic if people contribute, put things up for others to read to help with the discussion, and be happy to make U-turns if that’s where the shifting evidence leads.
All in all I think these few days of discussing a topic I’d never looked at before have been highly productive, at least for me, and I hope they have been for the others. It’s not about being right, it’s about drilling into a topic and seeing what comes up. That’s why it’s fun. If we already knew everything there’d be nothing to discuss. That’s my approach anyway.
Barclay correspondence Vprs 937 unit 413
K. Gill page 43,44 ,45 &46
Amigo
Many thanks Amigo; for anyone else that’s Kelvin Gill’s Edward Kelly The Definitive Record 2nd edn (brown cover, not the green first edn). Should I scan it?
Here it is
Attachment Hall-and-Kelly-.pdf
Here is the other article FitzSimons referenced about teh Kelly, Hall and postmaster’s mare story. It is clear from the Sentencing section what was found: “Edward Kelly found guilty of feloniously receiving a horse, was sentenced to three years with hard labor in the Melbourne gaol.”
Attachment OM-1871-08-05-Sat-5-August-1871-p3-Kelly-mare.doc
You must have missed this, Stuart. McQuilton has most of Hall’s report of the incident, written straight after. I think.
Here are my notes from the original:
(Hall had met Kelly on the Greta Bridge and asked him to come to the station to sign some non- existent papers. Kelly followed him, but stopped when he reached the station verandah.
The following, then, is the direct quote from Hall’s report of the incident which he forwarded to Barclay in Benalla asking it to be forwarded in turn to Melbourne. ie. Hall wrote it himself, in his own hand, in the third person.)
“Kelly at once said bring out them papers until I see them No I will not said Hall you cannot sign them on horseback so get off and come in I will see you damned said Kelly at the same time turning his horse to bolt In a moment Hall said you are my prisoner for horsestealing and made a jump and caught him by the neck but the coat waistcoat and shirt all gave way so he gave another spring and caught him by the shoulder and pulled him right off the horse but could not hold him by the flesh his clothes as he said before having given way.”
(Kelly then, according to Hall, made a run for the scrub opposite the police barracks)
“Hall then pulled out his revolver called on Kelly to stand when he immediately turned around to show fright and in reply to Hall said Shoot and be damned Hall then presented the revolver straight at his face and snapped it three times and each time the hammer striking the cartridge but it would not go off Though seemingly it was in good order for before he left the Barracks he examined it Kelly then rushed at him to try and take the revolver from him and in the struggle succeeded in catching it by the muzzle and barrell The Senior constable wrenched it out of his hands (Hall had it by the stock all the time) and struck Klly with all his might 4 or 5 times with it on the head but could not stun him and the only effect the blows had although they were given as he had said before with all his might was simply to leave that part of his head a mess of bleeding and raw flesh At last while Hall was holding him by the neck by the left hand Kelly made a spring and again caught the barrell of the revolver with both hands to try and wrench it out of the hand of Hall So both then paid all their attention to this little matter Kelly trying to turn the muzzle of the revolver against Hall and the latter trying to do the sam on Kelly However they both kicked boxed and bit [[Hall crosses out ‘bit’ and writes…] Kelly bit for some time and then came against an old fence which gave way and fell head over heels neither letting go the revolver after another tussel on the ground Hall got a chance of giving Kelly a powerful box at the putt of the ear which some what made him stupid for a moment and was just in the act of turning him over when the Black Smith next to the camp came up and Hall called on him to assist in putting the offender in the lock in a minute after some others came up and ultimately the Senior Constable got Kelly in the Lock up and the stolen horse in the police stable everything was quiet for a little time until Kellys friends through a Bush Telegraph found out that he was in the lock up and that Hall had sent a message for Police assistance to Wangaratta Some of these people then cam shouting about the place like wild savaged saying they would take him out of the camp.
Hall requested of Supt Barclay in Benalla that his report be forwarded to Melbourne to bear witness that he was abiding by the promise he said he had made both Hare and Nicolson when he had ridden with them to Squatter McBean’s place sometime previously.
This was sighted sometime in 1971 among the Kelly papers. I believe John McQuilton has some or all of it reproduced in his book. I think it’s more substantial as a document than a second hand account in the Argus, although it might be interesting to compare the two accounts, but given that these are Halls own words, I’m not sure what clarification would be gained. I reiterate that this is Halls own hand. He chose to write in the third person about himself. I think it discounts David Dufty’s idea too, that the revolver was not fully loaded. What is interesting is to compare Kelly’s and Hall’s accounts – they are quite similar, allowing for the fact that each is bragging about themselves. at the other’s expense.
It’s also interesting that here Hall says he fired, or attempted to, before Kelly made a rush at him.
Apologies for putting that up twice, Stuart. It hadn’ t seemed to go up the first time. Still, I think it’s a really important document, don’t you think, and it’s a puzzle that people seem unfamiliar with it. People obviously don’t read McQuilton any more. It’s important in a few ways, isn’t it? It corroborates Kelly’s version of what happened – the two accounts make an interesting comparison – and it indicates that Hall changed his story later to soften the hard edge of his report to Barclay. We won’t say lie, but he obviously knew he’d overstepped a responsible mark, and perhaps had done a dumb thing in his enthusiasm to ingratiate himself with his seniors. He was reduced to the foot police soon after this , I think? I remember Jones writing that Nicolson, after he got to read it, was clearly relieved that Hall hadn’t succeeded in killing Kelly.
It’s also interesting isn’t it that local people come out in support of Kelly. In 1871 Greta township only had 27 people, yet Hall was too afraid to take Kelly to Wangaratta without support. You get the impression most of the town might have turned up. Or maybe people came in from the surrounding selections – quite a hike. You’d think the impact of an incident like this would stay in people’s minds for a long time. I mean a face “of bleeding and raw flesh”, Hall and the Blacksmith holding the kid down.
Kelly at this time was a smart-arse young kid. But you could argue that it was Hall who pushed him onto a much more serious path. Maybe he would have gone there anyway, but maybe not.
Thanks Michael, I will go read McQuilton but also try and locate his source references as that seems to be a combo of source ref and McQuilton narrative.
I’m remembering that McQuilton’s detailed and source referenced presentation about Kelly’s sympathiser army at Glenrowan proved to be entirely fictional once the sources were all obtained and read by yours truly, as detailed in my Republic Myth book.
I will have to suspend comment until I have checked it out, which will likely not be till next weekend as I have a full week elsewhere..
David Dufty (not Dyfty), made a lot of wild claims, who could forget his train engine sparks that I, along with Stuart Rowsell, soundly debunked. Dufty, had he researched properly would have not made this statement about caps. The caps on a cap and ball revolver are the last thing that goes on after loading. Hall clearly debunked this theory in his own words.
You never debunked a thing – and neither did Rowsell. What you did was – as usual- obstinately refuse to accept that another person can have an entirely plausible explanation for something other than the one you prefer. As for caps, you appear not to know that police kept stores of blanks and used them to train horses not to panic at the sound of gunfire, and using them was referred to as ‘snapping caps’…which oddly enough was the term Kelly used to describe what he heard when Hall first fired at him. As a result Kelly said he just stood there….
And BTW why are you still pretending to be CT Fitzy?
Oh dear, so I’m Fitzy am I? Is that why you blocked me from your page or was that because you don’t like being challenged and feared me commenting there? I can allay your fears, as I had seen your page and had no wish to expose myself to what goes on there. At least here it is a bit more cordial.
Now let us get down to business.
Michael has already provided Hall’s statement that he checked his revolver before leaving the police station and it was fully loaded. Hall also stated that he fired three times at young Kelly. Some statements he just states he ‘fired’ not mention how many times.
Caps alone for conditioning horses to gunfire is also not correct, as a cap on its own, does not emit the same load noise that the compressed black powder, behind a lead ball would produce. In doing so with a cap only would be futile and a waste of time and effort. The purpose of the cap is to ignite the black powder in the chamber and expel the ball from the weapon. This is just another pie in the sky from Dufty, one of many.
I recall someone elsewhere quite some time ago, claiming a cap alone could propel a ball with enough velocity to kill. Was that Ian MacFarlane? Such an act would not propel a ball, only leaving it lodged in the barrel, requiring dismantling of the revolver to push the ball out with an implement that would fit inside the barrel.
Tomas Fumes, what you describe is a blank shot. Predating ‘blanks’, a manufactured cartage without a lead projectile at the end. These only have a power charge and commonly used in movies. Snapping caps was firing of a weapon with only the cap attached and nothing in the chamber.
Young lads would use caps in pretend gunfights with each other, predating the toy cap guns of the more moder era.
Heres where you outed yourself : “I see the self-proclaimed Kelly expert (MacFarlane), and his loyal sidekick Neil (Never) Wright, have both accepted my explanation of why there were not 2 shots fires at Lonigan. Apart from McIntyre only hearing one shot being fired, he would have seen 2 flashes and smoke from both firearms if 2 shots were fired. I’m surprised Tiny Timmee hasn’t also tried to claim it as well. No need to thanks me Muppets, go on pretending you thought it up all by yourselves”
And for future reference I love a challenge : what I dont like is vile abuse and lies being posted about me by you in an unbroken stream for over 12 years.
You have lost me completely. Is this your way to avoid addressing the points I raised?
Hi Critical Thinker, everything you said about blank firing is correct, BUTT you can vastly increase the noise factor by stuffing some paper in the barrel, “wadding” (hence Ned’s hilarious own-goal claiming that police with more modern revolvers, with cartridge ammo, threatened to blow his sisters into tiny pieces like the paper wadding in our guns… All that would do is ruin the bluff and sound like we’re packing blanks!”) although doing this for each shot subsequent to the first in a revolver, would be a comical public exercise indeed ! All these are technical side points, my main interest here is : did Hall start out to shoot Ned in an incidence of excessive force…? Reading Hall’s report, it is striking that he seems – to an underinformed modern reader like me – to be , well, confessing straight up to use of excessive force and laying it in front of Nicolson to lay in front of a court of law, to wreck his own career with…! Can anything be THIS “too good to be true,” because it sure reads like a line (i.e. of justification for taking this option) has gotten omitted over time…? So , does anyone here know whether firing a live round at Ned for resisting arrest and doing the bolt, was considered fair or excessive in Victoria in the early 1870s…?
When he says “just a cap,” he would be thinking of the normal way of firing a blank shot with a percussion cap revolver, which is to shake the raw powder into the cylinders, then place the cap over the nipple, cock, fire. So long as there’s no objects in the weapon, the discharge of powder won’t hurt anyone further than several metres in front of it.
Interesting comments there from Michael Dalton. As for Ned knowing they were caps and therefore standing still and allowing it to happen… I really don’t think so. If someone levelled a revolver at me at the age of 15 and fired what I presumed to be caps but couldn’t be entirely certain about, I think that would certainly have a lasting impact on me.
Absolutely, Peter. But I think Hall’s behaviour had a significant impact in many ways. His report has been given little attention by commentators . It’s important for these reasons:
It shows that Kelly was telling the truth about Hall’s assault on him.
It shows that Hall initiated the confrontation. He aimed his revolver at Kelly and pulled the trigger. He didn’t just pull the trigger once and think better of it, he pressed twice more. He was clearly detirmined to kill the kid. He aimed at Kelly’s face.
It shows that Hall intended to kill the fifteen year old over a suspicion that he was riding a stolen horse. (The cost to the police of having a doctor attend Kelly’s head wounds, by the way, well exceeded the value of the horse. So we’re not talking a top-of-the range horse.)
It shows that Hall was acting on a promise he made personally to Nicholson and squatter McBean. It isn’t clear whether the promise was asked of him, or volunteered by him, but either way he obviously felt encouraged to act in an extreme way.
It shows that Hall requested specifically that his report be forwarded to Melbourne which suggests that he felt confident of approval for his attempt to kill Kelly. He expected praise for making Kelly’s face “a mess of bleeding and raw flesh”.
Nicholson did countenance Hall’s behaviour. So did Barclay, his immediate superior. No action was taken..
What Hall told Barclay and Nicholson and what he later told the court differed. Hall lied under oath to cover himself. Nicholson and Barclay knew he’d lied.
A likely consequence of Hall’s behaviour is that it fed the local community’s sympathy for Kelly and fostered its reservations about the police, both factors would impact heavily down the track. Hall also taught Kelly, at a young age, that shooting first was vital.
Hall has a lot to answer for.
Hi Michael,
Now last time this matter was brought up here, I posed a question which no one answered – perhaps YOU would kindly answer it ?
It is : where did Hall’s actions stand legally IN THOSE DAYS ?
Let’s face it, there’s something decidedly “too good to be true” about a cop totally incriminating himself in his report to his superior, and his superior (Nicolson) then totally incriminating the police force by passing that on to a court case…
…UNLESS of course…
It was only an excessive use of force TO US NOWADAYS, rather than to them back then…?
So, does anyone here know enough Victorian law in the 1870s to say why it clearly was not a detail embarrassing to the police case…?
Let’s judge it by the laws and standards of the day before we rush to the sloganeering about it….
A very interesting question Tomas. The only thing I can contribute is an observation that violence and punishment were very closely linked in the Justice system at the time. A year or two ago I read Hanging Ned Kelly and it was horrifying to read about not just the hanging of people and the incompetent and inhumane way it was sometimes carried out, but floggings were common and they were barbaric and horrifically cruel…so in light of that I would say its very possible that bashing Kelly over the head may well have been seen as summary justice, something he needed to put him in his place, and nothing like the outrage it would be seen as today. That would certainly explain why nobody thought it warranted Hall being censured for it.
Thanks David, but it is not so much the pistol-whipping, as the [dud] shooting that I refer to, since the former could be easily ignored due to resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer, but the latter was crossing the rubicon in the first place. I find the fact that Hall was willing to include it in the report in detail, as was Nicolson after him, instead of the usual tricks of “I then dealt with the matter and issued some instructions,” strongly suggests that Hall wasn’t breaking the law by opening fire in the circumstances that he did.
By the way, I totally oppose capital punishment, although not for any moral reasons, but because it is irreversible when you discover that you have the wrong guy, as has most definitely happened many times around the world.
Hi Tomas,
Hall obviously believed that his actions were legal. The law was that you weren’t allowed to kill, or attempt to kill, unless you had a good reason. Hall said that Kelly “turned to show fight” which was obviously his justification for firing at him. His justification for smashing his face was that Kelly had rushed at him. If Hall had killed Kelly, either by shooting or bashing him, he would have argued that he was defending himself. That is clearly what he expected Barclay and Nicholson to think.
Both Barclay and Nicholson expressed reservations about what Hall had done, but neither took action. I haven’t seen the note, but according to Jones Nicholson expressed relief that Hall hadn’t in fact killed Kelly. This would suggest that the police did feel some embarrassment about Hall’s behaviour and perhaps understood the implications of it for their standing in the community.
Hall changed his evidence in Kelly’s trial to imply that Kelly was the instigator of the incident. Hall obviously did that because he knew his behaviour, as he had explained it in his report, was questionable.
But whether Hall’s behaviour was legally justified or not isn’t really the point. The significance of his report is firstly that it concurs with Kelly’s account which is often dismissed as nonsense. But more importantly it confirms the belief held by locals, before, during and after the Outbreak, that Kelly had been harassed by the police. Whether or not that was true, Hall’s behaviour is a standout example of police brutality.
By any judgement, then or now, Hall’s behaviour, whether legal or not at the time, borders on the deranged. His delight in itemising the shooting at Kelly’s face, then pounding the face into a pulp should be unsettling to anyone, then or now.
And then you’re left to consider the impact on Kelly. Who knows if it taught him anything. And who knows what the locals of Greta and the wider community thought of it. But it’s unlikely, I’d suggest, that it went unnoticed by all.
Hi Michael
the only words in all those replies that actually addressed the issue of where they stood legally at that time, were :
“Hall obviously believed that his actions were legal. The law was that you weren’t allowed to kill, or attempt to kill, unless you had a good reason.”
Very nebulous!
It does not deflect from the fact that the police superintendent was quite OK with putting this – to our eyes – self-incriminating report before a Court and not expecting to be ROUTED.
So does anyone here know whether Hall’s firing the pistol at Ned at that moment was an excessive use of force at that time?
Please note, Michael. this is an entirely separate issue from whether Ned’s and Hall’s accounts agreed, or whether it was “deranged,” etc.
I certainly DON’T know, and appeal to anyone to contribute.
I don’t think Hall’s report went from the police to the court, Tomas? It was tucked away in the files for years until John McQuilton came upon it. Hall sent the report to his superiors. In the court he changed his story to imply that he’d reacted to Kelly’s aggression presumably because he realised his report had been incriminating.
Wouldn’t it just be up to a court to decide if the force was excessive, after a charge was laid against Hall. The police wouldn’t ever have wanted to charge Hall, but if they had you’d guess he’d probably have got off by claiming self defence.
None of that makes Hall’s behaviour acceptable, then or now, in my view. And the locals who barricaded Hall in the station afterwards made it very clear what they thought – Hall had used excessive force.
Hi Michael,
“I don’t think Hall’s report went from the police to the court, Tomas? It was tucked away in the files for years”
I really thought you had said higher up in this page, that it did, via his superiors. Reading back over the page now, I see that was my mistake.
From all we read in the contributions on this page, it does look like levelling a gun at an arrested suspect as he’s violently resisting and engaged in fleeing, and issuing a challenge, was not enough to earn a reprimand either from senior police or from courts or from the general public.
Consider this : “And the locals who barricaded Hall in the station afterwards made it very clear what they thought – Hall had used excessive force.”
Hold on a sec – should we not consider, rather, the seven citizens who intervened in the incident to pull Kelly off Hall…? These guys were well and truly putting their bodies on the line, and would have “known the score” about what provocation and force had brought the incident on. They might also have been just a tad sick of all the horse theft in the area. Their feedback is surely worth no less than that of the furtive characters who barricaded Hall in the station afterwards (themselves already breaking several laws)…?
Agreed Tomas, some in the community supported the police, and some supported Kelly. Both positions had their reasons. Those who supported Kelly, down the track, based that in part on a belief that police had ill-treated Kelly over the years. Some of that treatment, objectively, was reasonable, appropriate and ethical, but some of it, such as Hall’s (stated) attempt to kill Kelly wasn’t. It obviously angered them. (Hall didn’t just level the gun, he pulled the trigger.)
I’m not so interested in whether Hall’s behaviour was legal or not, I’m more concerned that it seems likely to have confirmed Kelly on a course of action which led to all the tragedy of the Outbreak.
I’m also suggesting that some Greta locals had had their suspicion of the police, and their sympathy for Kelly aroused – which later would also contribute to the course of the Outbreak.
This entire event is very odd for two things in particular: firstly, Hall shooting at the face of a youth three times, and the gun ‘misfiring’ every time, and secondly, the youth standing there and allowing that to happen – both events very difficult to understand. I think we may have already discussed David Duftys theory about this, that the gun was only loaded with ‘caps’ and Kelly knew it : I think thats plausible, but have we also thought about the possibility that Hall deliberately missed Kelly, that he was NOT trying to shoot him in the face or kill him but simply trying to frighten him into surrendering? That also makes sense.
Hi David,
I’d disagree with most of what you raise here.
If you take Hall’s report at face value, he explains that before leaving the station he specifically checked his revolver, knowing that he was going to intercept Kelly at the Greta bridge, as prearranged with his decoy Murdoch. Caps were loaded for practice, not for going on patrol. Hall is emphasising that he was well prepared for a confrontation, and his superiors would have understood him to mean he had checked is cartridges, not caps.
Nor does either Hall or Kelly indicate that Kelly stood there and took it while Hall fired at him. I’m not sure where that idea comes from. Hall pulled the trigger three times – in how long? a second or two? – and Kelly immediately made a rush at him fearing that the gun might fire next time – which well it might have.
The suggestion that maybe Kelly knew that Hall’s gun was loaded with caps isn’t convincing. If he did why didn’t he just run away? The overweight Hall would never have caught him. Why would Kelly rush to grab the revolver andattempt to tear it from Hall’s hand, risking a fight with a much larger adult – one which he eventually lost. Kelly highlights his desperation in rushing Hall. I think David Dufty’s idea of caps doesn’t really make sense, and was probably made without him having read Hall’s report.
Why ever would Hall try firing his revolver intending to miss Kelly but then go to lengths to explain that he had specifically aimed at Kelly’s face, emphasising that his intention was to kill? Wouldn’t he have just said “I fired a couple of warning shots but the patents didn’t catch – can’t understand that because I checked them carefully, but then Kelly rushed at me and grabbed the gun.” Hall was going out of his way to brag that he had tried to kill the boy. He was highlighting how well he was following his orders as he understood them. If he didn’t intend to kill Kelly but made up this whole story then he’s weirder than might already be thought.
But then both Hall’s and Kelly’s accounts agree in most details.
I agree, David, it is an extremely odd event. Most oddity, in my opinion, rests with Hall who comes across as a very unsettling character – aiming at faces, smashing faces to pulp, writing about himself in the third person to magnify his deeds. You’d think his behaviour must have reflected badly on his colleagues, and from a broader perspective on his superiors who seem to have tolerated it – he’d been similarly intemperate when stationed at Tarrawingee, by the way. Was an RIC man too, hated by the Irish.
Thanks Michael : Its pretty obvious Hall wasnt an ideal policeman ….but lets not forget that this entire event was precipitated by Kelly violently resisting arrest, and in the end he was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for feloniously receiving a horse. So theres that..he brought it on himself : he was a violent impulsive youth with no self control whom loved to show off…and probably reckoned he could easily beat the obese Hall in a fight…and proceeded to do so..at age 16 was it? Kelly was out of control…
Also Hall was NOT censured in regard to this incident though I read that Standish said he was ‘hasty and injudicious’ which takes me back to Tomas question about what seems appalling these days doesnt seem to have been regarded in the same way back then…and Michael, I presume for dramatic effect you keep saying it was Neds FACE that was beaten : no,it was his scalp. Your question about who said Kelly just stood there : it was kelly himself in the JL “…when I heard caps snapping I stood until Hall came close…” he was also reported to have said “Shoot and be damned”.
But the idea that Hall was genuinely trying to kill Ned Kelly : I find it really hard to believe any policeman would try to kill a teenage delinquent for being in posession of a stolen horse and resisting arrest? But maybe Hall just saw red…
Lastly I dont think in those times, Kelly would have gained much sympathy for provoking a violent confrontation and coming off second best.
OK David, only one face aimed at, and one head bleeding and raw, and he did wait till Hall approached him, with the gun levelled presumably. And I agree Kelly may have been all that you are so certain he was. But defending Hall on the basis of his behaviour being perhaps less objectionable then than now leaves you open to having to share the equally dubious position of someone claiming that the killings at Stringybark were less objectionable because those times were far harsher than today, or that it was unfortunate but Kelly had simply seen red.
Why the need to defend Hall? He pretty clearly said he intended to shoot Kelly in the face. Morally wrong in my book, in any age. Same as the killing of Kennedy, or the killing of Sherritt.
Taking the view that the police were always good and the Kellys always bad, leads to very brittle one dimensional history, I reckon – which is a pity.
No I am not defending Hall. His actions were excessive and extreme provocation is not an excuse. And neither have I taken the view “that the police were always good and the Kellys always bad,” – in fact I wrote a Blog Post about this way back in 2015 when I was still finding my way in the Kelly story.
But theres a very real qualitative difference between, lets call it ‘aggressive policing’ – you now that old school idea nostalgic idiots hark back to, when the local Copper would give a larrikin a clip around the ear – and killing Police in order to escape lawful arrest.
I suppose what you and I disagree about the most is the effect this incident had on Kelly and his family, and the local population generally : my feeling is “not much” and thats because I am guessing most people would say the idiot asked for it, and the subsequent conviction proved it.
https://www.nedkellyunmasked.com/2015/04/hall-arrests-ned-kelly/
Dumb & dumber brigade. The dumbest bunch of idiots since the three stoogers. The inaccuracies is beyond logic.
Attachment
I love how he bothers pointing out that it was an “old black powder ” weapon, presumably unaware that black powder was absolutely ubiquitous until the alternative (“le poudre B,” AKA “smokeless powder”) was not invented until 1881….
He was demonstrating his genius at doing Kelly research…
The thought just occurred to me that this incident with Hall (if true) was something more worthy of mention by Ned in the Jerilderie letter than some of the other grievances mentioned.
Hi Peter, In the JL Kelly boasts, “I used to trip him & let him take a mouthful of dust now and again as he was as helpless as a big guano after leaving a dead bullock or a horse. I kept throwing him in the dust until I got him across the street …. I threw big cowardly Hall on his belly. I straddled him & rooted both spurs into his thighs he roared like a big calf attacked by dogs & shifted several yards of the fence I put his hands at the back of his neck & tried to make him let the revolver go but he stuck to it like grim death to a dead volunteer he called for assistance to a man named Cohen and Barnett, Lewis, Thompson, Jewitt two blacksmiths who was looking on I dare not strike any of them.”
All lies. None of these man were called as witnesses to attest to Kelly’s arrest either for or against Hall and no newspaper has any mention of such a ridiculous struggle and victory over Hall by our hero Ned. Why any of the so-called Kelly researchers haven’t called this obvious nonsense out in the last 100 years or so is a good question, since we have the newspaper accounts and PROV files proving Kelly’s account was utter nonsense.
Well, it is an exaggeration maybe, Stuart, and Kelly is making light of it, but it’s not lies. It’s remarkable for how close it is to what Hall wrote immediately after the incident. And Kelly was writing years later. It had clearly stuck in his mind, not surprisingly.
You should get out more, Stuart. Have a look at McQuilton. Page 80. He doesn’t use the whole of the Report, it is a rambling piece, and McQuilton seems most concerned to emphasise how it validates Kelly’s version of the incident. His citation is: Hall to Barclay, 22 April 1871, Police Correspondence. P.R.O.
McQuilton’s comment on p.79 seems pretty reasonable to me: “The arrest shaped Ned Kelly’s attitude to the police from that time on” . I think you’d have to say it probably was a pivotal moment for Kelly, one which changed his trajectory perhaps? And I still reckon Hall was sitting on his shoulder when he shot Lonigan, and the whole tragedy unfolded.
I can’t get out, I’m trapped in the Old Melbourne Gaol with Kelly photos on the wall, help!
Newspapers can only print what they are told. The reporter did not interview any of the men that came to hall’s aid, to verify Hall’s version of the arrest. If this did happen, Ned throwing Hall around and straddling him, can you think of a reason why Hall did not mention it? Embarrassment maybe. Some of Hall’s retelling of the altercation left out how he tried to shoot young Kelly three time. Ned was correct there, so why not with the rest of the story? What would have been the point in Ned calling those men mentioned, that helped Hall subdue him? They were assisting Hall, so of no use as witnesses to him. Why didn’t Hall call them as witnesses? I believe that is more than obvious! Hall would not want anything relating to his embarrassing defeat at the hands of young Kelly and had to call on bystanders to help subdue him. Your comments indicate you have a preconceived and biased opinion of Ned Kelly.
Ned Kelly was a lying moron.
Hi David, here is one of FitzSimons’ source references. Hall testified that he “did not attempt to pull prisoner off the horse”, directly contradicting FitzSimons’ pastiche that “just as Ned is alighting … suddenly Hall grips him by the collar and attenpts to throw him to the ground”. It also contains the testimony by James Murdoch that Kelly wanted to sell the horse thus proving feloniously receiving stolen propertyy, a different and much more serious offence than just receiving stolen property. This point is totally lost on Kelly nuts who keep repeating that Wild got a year and a half for stealing the horse while Kelly got three years for receiving. They omit the “feloniously receiving” bit either because some papers just called it receiving and they haven’t looked any further, or because they are too thick to understand the difference, or both.
Attachment OM-1871-5-2-Tuesday-2-May-1871-p4-Kelly-in-court-for-Mansfield-mare.doc
It looks like Wild Wright might have been banging Ned’s sister. But which one?
Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 – 1957), Monday 8 May 1871, page 6
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/5847382
The Wangaratta Despatch mentions that information was given to the police at Wangaratta a short time back that the horse which young Kelly was charged with feloniously receiving was actually stolen by a man named Isaiah Wright, living near Greta. A warrant was accordingly taken out against him, but it was only on Tuesday last that Senior-constable Hall and Constable McInerney managed to get sight of the alleged felon. He was splendidly mounted at the time, and when challenged to stand and surrender refused to do so, but spurred his horse and made away as hard as he could go, clearing a wire fence four feet and a half high at the time. Finding their summons unheeded, both Hall and McInerney fired, the former once, and the latter three times. None of the shots told, however, and Wright managed for the time to escape. Subsequently the news reached Wangaratta that Wright was captured in a shanty kept by Kelly’s mother between Winton and Greta. Senior-constable Hall and Constable McInerney entered the house, and Wright attempted to conceal himself behind the bed of Kelly’s sister, a girl of 18 years of age. Wright had apparently been sleeping in the room. He has been brought before the Wangaratta Police Court, when the case was adjourned for a week.
Wow…! Although the attribution is just “the Wangaratta Despatch mentions that…”, still it’s an intriguing thought : did Ned / Ellen regard their daughters / sisters as … well, I’m trying NOT to say “chattels for making money, in quite the reverse of the usual country attitude to people making free with their womenfolk,” but I’ll think of something yet….
Oh shame on you Tomas…these were fine upstanding God fearing Irish Catholic folk . didnt you know….oh wait wasnt Ellen herself in the family way when she married Red…oh and then there was the affair with Bill Frost…and George King…
…oh dear….
The things some peoples’ minds turn to at 3.58 and 4.05 in the morning!
The ‘notorious Mrs Kelly’?
So Critical Thinker, who is the liar? You or Fitzsimons ? – you both claim to have been the person who first mentioned the visibility of a flash and smoke.
Attachment
Neither actually! Fitzy first mentioned it to me as we privately discussed what was being said here. Although I used his words, it was something that I had also thought of, so I make no apology for saying it. BTW, I’m not Fred or The Toad, so what has this baby with a Redneck dummy got to do with this? Are you going to comment on what I posted or is this just another smokescreen to cover your lack of understanding and integrity? I had heard you are bully before seeing it for myself and cannot help but wonder why? You must be sadly lacking something significant in your life to act the way you do, especially if it is true you are a doctor.
The EXACT response I was expecting. Youre busted Fitzy (yet again ). Take your bile and your bullshit somewhere else.
Attachment
David, I’ll take a break from preparing the seaside house for an onrushing cyclone,
and ask “is this FAIR DINKS the same Fitzsimons who wears that red thing
around his head ??!!!!!!!!!!111one one one
No no no! This is an unrelated individual,a deluded nutjob I refer to as the “toad” on Fakebook.I know I shouldn’t be so disrespectful to a Kelly fan who SO FAR has been 100% correct about everything he has ever expressed an opinion on…as he will be pleased to tell you I am sure. He’s no longer welcome here…
Aha, got it !! But I wonder if anyone spotted my reply to a reply to a reply higher up, where i asked just where was Hall standing legally when he fired on Kelly for running off …? I wonder if anyone knows that much Victorian 1870s law, because it seems so “too good to be true” that his report so freely , well, incriminates himself, at least to modern Untutored Savage eyes…?