Craig Barton, an extreme Kelly cult propagandist, started a discussion the other day on the “Outbreak” page about the .31 calibre Colt revolver that Kelly used during the Fitzpatrick ‘incident’, and the injury it caused to Fitzpatrick’s wrist. He and Mick Fitzsimons and Rowsell, as usual, were determined to paint the policeman as a liar and were ridiculing the claim that the Colt could have caused his injury.
As these fanatics always do they quoted the words of Dr Nicholson that seemed to support their claim that it WASN’T a bullet wound: “They might have been caused by a bullet” and “ it was merely a skin wound” but of course, they left out the crucial remarks of his which indicated very clearly that Nicholson was definitely of the opinion that they WERE caused by a bullet: “Could not swear it was a bullet wound but IT HAD EVERY APPEARANCE OF ONE”. They also neglected Nicholson’s comment from the trial a few months later when he said “The wounds are consistent with Fitzpatrick’s statement”.
This kind of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation of the evidence is dishonesty, its shameful and an absolute bloody disgrace. Their blind cult mentality causes them to care about only one thing : defending their idiotic cult dogmas about Kelly being a hero and the Police being crooks, and if lying to everyone, and concealing vital information helps them do that, then they’re fine with it.
But this thread on Facebook ended up in a stunning and humiliating public illustration of their wilful ignorance, and their contempt for the views of anyone who disagrees with them, no matter how expert, informed, balanced and reasonable they might be.
The argument about Fitzpatrick’s wound blew up in their stupid faces when they were shocked by a balanced and knowledgeable contribution from someone with decades of experience with guns, a man whose knowledge of them far outstripped Fitzsimons Rowsells and Bartons obviously meagre and superficial acquaintance with them, a man who reported having been shot by similar weapons three times, a man who knew about the history of the Colt, the construction of them, the way they deteriorated with use, the type of bullets they could fire, the varieties of ‘powder’ used to arm them…it was very impressive . He was in no doubt that Fitzpatrick’s wound could have been caused by this weapon , a firearm described in a Video Barton stupidly posted but seemed not to have watched carefully as an “underpowered, woefully inadequate pocket gun”.
This is some of what this expert wrote:
“low velocity 7mm ball is fired, goes through thick wool jumper(slows) enters the skin (slows) hits wrist bone ( slows) skews across wrist muscle, missing tendons and major artery ( slows) and finally comes to rest just under the skin layer( stops)”
Yes, of course the .31 Colt could cause serious and even lethal injury in the right situation, but in this expert’s opinion, it could also, in other circumstances have created the wound Fitzpatrick sustained.
And so, why don’t you now try to guess how the Kelly cult members responded?
If you guessed they just rubbished his expertise, refused to concede a single point, ignored the powerful case he made and carried on insisting a Colt couldn’t possibly have caused Fitzpatrick’s injury….yes, that’s exactly what they did.
At the end of it all Stuart Rowsell wrote
“Nothing about Constable Fitzpatrick’s “skin wound” as described by Dr Nicholson adds up ..”
What complete and utter denialist bullshit. The fact is that the forensic evidence supported Fitzpatricks testimony, and so does modern expert ballistic opinion. It all adds up perfectly.
Kelly cultists are free to believe whatever they like about Fitzpatrick, to follow their hero Ned Kellys lead and call him a liar, but without lying themselves, they can’t base those opinions on anything Dr Nicholson said, or on a claim that his injury couldn’t have been caused by a .31 Colt.
The Kellys had their day in court : the Jury rejected their lies and believed the evidence that supported Fitzpatrick. Theres no reason to believe they got it wrong.
As Graham Fricke pointed out in his book Ned’s Nemesis, the reason Dr Nicholson couldn’t swear to it being a bullet wound “though it had every appearance of one”, was because he had not witnessed the shooting itself; so he could only swear to the wound having every appearance of being a bullet wound.
I thought that had been discussed and agreed by most folks a few years ago. There must be a time tunnel somewhere for Kelly nuts to hang out with other illiterates and grunt happily in a pool of dated nonsense.
A part of honest historical research involves obtaining information from experts about specific things, not dismissing them because it doesn’t suit a narrative.
In this case, despite what others might want to hear, the expert is quite correct. A .31 calibre Colt pocket revolver that discharges a tiny 7mm ball was small in the hand, making it a bit awkward to aim and fire, with only tiny sights, was low powered and often shot high. They were designed for very close quarters defence, rather than being an offensive weapon. Depending on the powder and charge used when loading, it’s more than feasible that it might only cause the wound suffered by Fitzpatrick.
Hi Tim, thanks for adding that as I don’t have or want Facebook. The visual comparison a .31 bullet with a .45 bullet is excellent and reburies another Kelly myth that pops up now and again. Mrs Kelly was interviewed by journalist Brian Cookson in her old age, and admitted that Ned had been present in the Fitzpatrick incident, but claimed Fitzpatrick’s own revolver had gone off accidentally such that he shot himself in the wrist; a ludicrous claim given the damage a .442 Webley bullet would do close up.
The reference is Mrs Kelly quoted in Brian W. Cookson, “The Kelly Gang from within: Articles written by Brian W. Cookson for the Sydney ‘Sun”, 27 August to 24 September 1911”, compiled and edited by Brian McDonald (Bondi, N.S.W.: Australian History Promotions, 2005, pp. 8, 10 (28 August).
It would be interesting to see a visual comparison similar to the picture at the start of this post, of the .31 ball next to a .577 bullet manufactured to fit the old sawn off musket rifle that Kelly used to shoot Lonigan at SBC, again with a BIC lighter for scale.
As Lonigan was hit with four slugs, of which one was described as a ball (I think by McIntyre in his memoir but I’d have to look it up), and Dr Teynolds stated that the one he removed from Lonigan’s thigh was “small as of a revolver”, it occurs to wonder if Kelly’s gun was loaded with four .31 balls when he shot Lonigan.
McIntyre testified that Kelly subsequently loaded his gun with one bullet. He also took the cartridges out of the double barreled fowling piece, pricked them the extract the shot, and replaced it with two bullets. But that is incidental to the question of whether four small revolver balls could readily load into a .577 musket rifle barrel. Anyone interested in doing that visual comparison?