Did Fitzpatrick Try to Take Liberties with Kate Kelly? [Brian Stevenson]

(Special note: This thread is my work, but much of it, authored by me and under my name, was previously posted on the Kellycountry2000 Forum some time ago.)

We will never know for sure what happened at the Eleven Mile late in the afternoon of 15 April 1878. Ian Jones gives something like eight possible scenarios, with the helpful reminders that most of them are dodgy, and just about everyone that was there was known to have lied about some aspect or another. But did Fitzpatrick place himself at fault by attempting to take liberties with Kate?

We don't know that for sure, either, but a couple of years ago I came across something that did rock my socks. An article in a police journal contained the detail that after his capture at Glenrowan, Ned himself admitted that the story of Fitzpatrick annoying his sister was 'a silly story' or something of that nature. Ned added something to the effect that had Fitzpatrick really molested or otherwise annoyed Kate, there would not have been enough police in Victoria to protect him.

This little gem staggered me at the time, so I asked my good friend Sharon Hollingsworth to check it out, and there it was - the Age of 9 August 1880.

As it happens, Ned was not being interviewed by a journalist, but by a lawyer, none other than David Gaunson, who would later defend him. Fair enough, by now Ned had pretty well run out of excuses for his behaviour and nothing would have saved him from the gallows, but surely he would have used Fitzpatrick's annoying of Kate as some slight excuse for the precipitation of the trouble. Or even just mentioned it. No police verballing involved here, but still he says that Fitzpatrick's alleged annoying of Kate was 'a silly story.' So, by Ned's own account, Fitzpatrick didn't pester Kate.
The Kate-Fitzpatrick clash has been regarded as a given for almost as long as the Kellys have been more than locally notorious. As we all know - or think we know - it was the spark that led directly to a conflagration at Glenrowan two years, two months and two weeks later. Most commentators admit that they do not know what exactly occurred between Kate and Fitzpatrick, either on 15 April or beforehand, but they assume that something occurred.

So, if it occurred ... Why was Ned quoted in the Age of 9 August 1880 saying it was 'a silly story'?

Not even in the most cryptic terms, not even in a way that would have partly shielded his sister.

If it occurred, why did the defence at the trial of Ellen, Williamson and Skillion not call Kate to give her version of events, despite an invitation to do so by the Crown Prosecutor? (Ian Jones, Ned Kelly: A Short Life, 1995, p 112) Another free kick left unexploited. What jury would have convicted a woman whose only crime was to help defend her daughter? But the advantages inherent in this line of defence seem to have escaped Mr Bowman, the defence lawyer, whose only card was the testimony of two residents that Bill Skillion was with them when Fitzpatrick said he was at the Eleven Mile. (Ned Kelly: A Short Life, page 123 - it didn't help much.)

It is very curious indeed that Mr Bowman did not use the story, and that no one suggested to him that it be used. And while it is very risky indeed to suggest the course that history would have taken had something happened otherwise, it seems likely that had Ellen Kelly's story been accepted, and had she (and Bricky Williamson and William Skillion) would have received sentences that were nowhere near as draconian.

But the story was never used, not when it counted, not when it could have made a difference.

After the evening of 26 October 1878, when Ned, Dan and their two friends had committed three murders, it was all academic anyway, and nothing could have saved them. But Ned used two other opportunities to justify himself, the Cameron and the Jerilderie letters. Both documents contain copious references to Fitzpatrick, and Ned's loathing and contempt of and disgust for the man are palpable.

But nowhere is there a reference to Fitzpatrick's interaction, major or minor, wise or unwise, appropriate or inappropriate with Kate. The letters that Ned wanted to use to state his case, which he did, in thousands of words, are silent on what should have been a trump card for his cause. Yet the trump card went unused, and Ned would later describe the story attached to it as 'silly.'

So ... three pretty good opportunities for the story to be brought out (the trial of Ellen, et al, and the two letters) - all missed. And when it's all over, Ned denies the story anyway. Folks, can you excuse me for wondering about this one??

The first mention that I could find of the story came from Kate herself, shortly before Jerilderie, when, in the Melbourne Herald of 7 February 1879 she was quoted as saying that Fitzpatrick had, at the Eleven Mile, commenced 'in a violent manner to behave improperly.'

A few days later her brother would repeat the story at Jerilderie, but at Glenrowan the next year he would recant it.

Did the pair of them, with or without others, cook up a belated 'excuse' for Ned's later actions? Or has your blogger got it wrong, and is there a plausible explanation as to why such a circumstance, weighing strongly as it did in Ned Kelly's favour - and there were not many of those - was left unused and unuttered for so long?

We can speculate forever, but we will never know.