There are several reasons, past and present, why certain people had a
vested interest in declaring Dan Kelly as the completely unrecognisable
person dragged out of the ashes at Glenrowan.The relatives wanted Dan
to get away and knew that if he was thought dead, he'd have every
chance.The police wanted to share the reward money - also the publicity
would have been shocking if it had been known that two innocent people
had been killed while the two outlaws escaped. Also, they wanted to
dampen down the whole affair as Kelly sympathisers were angry.
Today? Well, so many books have been written and films have been made
that altering the end of the story creates a major upset.
There are several instances where people who knew Dan Kelly both
before the gang became outlaws. Click on THE BOOK
Website Bailup has 'reviewed' the book "Burnt to a Cinder, was I?",
and, because they would not post the author's reply on their web site,
their statements will be answered here. The book is not reviewed by
them as a story but instead they choose to argue with recorded history
and mix up the authors with Dan Kelly, whose story was told in the book.
Here's a web site which really wants to crush any possibility that Dan
Kelly may have escaped.
(1). The story was told to the author by Dan Kelly - the book reviewer
keeps referring to the story as the author's, for example Bailup says,
"are we to presume Mr Allen expects his account to be accepted..."
Author's reply - It's Dan's account, not Mr Allen's.
(2). Bailup says "It also claims the author Vince Allen to be the only
person alive who..." Author's reply - Mr Allen says "As far as I know,
I may be the only person alive who..." There's a big difference in
meaning here!
(3). Although this has nothing to do with the story, Bailup refers to
Ellen Hollow, a Kate Kelly descendant, saying that she refutes Kelly
descendants may have known Dan survived the fire. Author's reply -
Vince Allen states his father knew the descendants of Kate Kelly (and
there were two Kate Kelly's with descendants) and got a lot of the story
from them. In fact it was they who informed Oscar when Dan was killed by
the train in 1948.A link takes you to a statement by Ellen Hollow that
Vince Allen has "sort (the authors believes she meant 'sought')to add
credibility to his book by using her relatives". Vince Allen's reply
- Ellen Hollow attributed motives he did not have. He was simply
stating how he had come to meet Dan Kelly.
(4) Bailup states that no mention is made of Steve Hart, as though
there should be. Authors' reply - Why should Steve be mentioned? Dan
Kelly did not talk about him.
(5). Bailup: "Apparently Father Gibney lied under oath at the 1881
Royal Commission to protect Dan who he had seen alive at the burning
inn.' Authors' reply - the book does not state that Father Gibney saw
the two men, so he did not lie at the Royal Commission.
(6). Using red colour to highlight their comment, Bailup's next
statement seems to expect the author to reconcile the different
account of what Dan said happened at Glenrowan. Authors' reply - it
is Dan's story and should be kept separate and different if that was
the way Dan told it. Why should the author meddle in Dan's story to
reconcile it? It is not the author's story. An example of the
difficulties one can run into when attempting to reconcile different
accounts of an event occurs in Ian Jones' book, Ned Kelly: a Short Life,
where attempts have been made to reconcile accounts (p 271). In this
reconciliation Father Gibney reported he saw two dead men on the floor,
with their armour lying beside them. Later, Constable Dwyer ("twelve
months later his memories of the feverish moment would be confused"),
saw two dead men with their armour on, and one on the bed. How could
two dead men dress themselves and one climb onto the bed? Father Gibney
stated (see Father Gibney) that the police could not see the two men
from where he stood, so the account is not able to be reconciled. The
authors concluded that only Father Gibney's testimony was reliable as
only HE went into the hotel before it was completely burned.
(7). George King? Well, if Dan maintained he was visited by George
after Glenrowan, then that was his story. Perhaps George may have been
hiding out.
(8) Bailup makes personal comments, considering it "highly improbable"
that Dan might reveal his true identity to horse thieves. Authors'
reply - Bailup reviewers should try and put themselves into the
situation which Dan had found himself in. Horse thieves would never
have dobbed him in - they respected and admired Dan for being the superb
stockman he was, as well as a Kelly who'd escaped the law. This is,
again, is what Dan said - he needed a good fast horse and some money
to keep ahead of the law. He said that running into the Dalley gang
was just the break he needed and they'd never have accepted just anyone
into their successful gang. He decided he had to tell them who he was
in order to get accepted. He just never banked on having to prove it
by staying on their worst buck jumper.
(9). The Fitzpatrick incident? Bailup's review sounds sarcastic;
"The Fitzpatrick mystery now explained." Authors' reply - this was Dan's
account of what happened, and maybe the answer to Dan's differing
account would be to look more deeply at the incident. To speculate,
the police would have looked weak and laughed at (which would make
more people take sides with the Kellys) if Fitzpatrick really had
been shot in the middle of the street in broad daylight. More
research might reveal answers.
(10). This one gets serious. Bailup stated, in 'quoting' the book,
"the gang rode brazenly into the police camp in broad daylight." This
is just NOT in the book. What is written is, "it was the purist chance
we rode into them." This was spoken by Ned, as he chatted to Jack Allen,
and changes the way the shooting of Kennedy happened. Dan was adamant
that this was what actually happened.
(11). The reviewer says, again sounding sarcastic, "but wait, there's
more! Apparently there's a chance Ned escaped..." - Author's reply
- what was actually written was "as to the rumour that Ned Kelly
was not hanged in 1880, I did not ask Dan about that..." The authors
have used the word 'rumour' in the sense that it is probably NOT true;
in any case this was not discussed, and IN NO WAY was the suggestion
that Ned escaped made in the book.
(12).(Surely we must be nearly finished!
Bailup again suggested that the author should know whether Steve Hart
escaped or not. They say, "Unfortunately Mr Allen does not know if
Steve Hart escaped." They even underline it. These types of comment
may be intended to belittle the author but they confuse and cheapen
a book review. Why should the author put things in the book not told
by Dan Kelly? Or does Bailup want to know for other reasons?
(13). As for the last two points, Bailup's Mr Ryan at Ipswitch
(wherever that is - the authors only know of an Ipswich) is a
different man. The reviewer also comments about that the date of
Dan's birth given by Dan as 1854 is "notably the same time Ellen Kelly
was pregnant with Ned." Really? In the gaol record of Ned on 14.3.1873
(held at the Public Records Office, Victoria), Ned's date of birth
is given as 1856. The reviewer, having criticised the authors, don't
give any sources where they get the date of Ned's birth.
(14). One more. (and this one is also serious)Bailup states; "sadly
Mr Allen has been duped and
by someone with only a bare knowledge of the Kelly story." Mr Allen's
reply - that can only mean that my Grandfather duped the
family - never - and I resent that implication.
Jack Allen identified Dan Kelly as the member of the Ned Kelly gang.
He had known the Kelly's before and after they became outlaws. What
about the photo showing the two men talking together at the Redbank
Hotel in 1935? Why do Bailup ignore this newspaper article held at
the John Oxley Library, Brisbane - as well as the news interview made
with Dan Kelly by Cinesound in 1933?
Why are Bailup so consistently sure that Dan Kelly was the man 'burnt
to a cinder' at Glenrowan when so many people met him, particularly
after 1933 when he came forward and declared his real identity, and
wanting to tell his side of the story?
Why was Ironoutlaw mentioned at the head of this page? Because they
refer people to Bailup to read a full book review.
While there are still questions, it behoves us to find the answers
while there are still people alive with memories, oral histories and
artifacts. 'Australian Outlaws' is going to keep filling out this
extraordinary, enduring and brave man's life story.
|