NML thanks for taking the time to gather all those quotations, but I fail to see why they show that my version “does not fit” as you claim. You need to be a bit more specific about exactly what you think the problem is, but there is nothing in the quotes that you’ve supplied that doesn’t fit my view that Lonigan was killed in the open, and pretty much in cold blood. Additionally you LEFT OUT a CRUCIAL part of McIntyres statement so I will supply a more complete extract of the relevant statement:
“I immediately held out my arms horizontally. As soon as I did so I saw the same man remove the gun a little towards his right hand and fire it, at Lonigan, who had started to run. Lonigan was standing on the opposite side of the fire to me, at a distance of ten or twelve feet. He was running towards a tree, and was about forty yards distant from the man who fired at him. I heard him falling immediately after the gun was fired. He had taken about four or five steps before he fell. Did not see him fall, but heard him breathing heavily and stertorously. ‘(From O&M ,07 August 1880. Report of the Committal hearing)
The crucial words here are “AS SOON AS I DID SO…..” which mean, straight away after McIntyre put his hands out, Lonigan was shot, no doubt because he didnt put his hands up like McIntyre did, but made a move for his gun. He was certainly still out in the open, and I called that ‘pretty much in cold blood’. If Kelly wanted to he could have fired a warning shot…
One issue that I haven’t addressed so far, which might be something you are referring to NML is the claim from McIntyre that Lonigan made a run for it, but only took a few steps before he was killed. Certainly this still equates to being killed out in the open, but did he make a run for it? McIntyre admits he DID NOT SEE what actually happened, and so it is perfectly legitimate to question his explanation of what he thinks he would have seen if he had been able to. His honest admission that he DIDNT see what happened is his way of saying this is what I THINK happened, and that view has become the accepted view, but I think he got it wrong. This is why : the position of the wounds on Lonigans body makes it impossible that he TURNED and made a run for it – so in fact if he moved, and McIntyre says he did HEAR Lonigan moving, then what he MUST have been doing was backing up. McIntyre turned and saw Lonigan on the ground and assumed Lonigan had turned and ran, but the forensics PROVE he didnt TURN. If he HAD turned the bullet/slug/quarter/swandrop/whatever it was that entered his left thigh would have done so from the opposite side. This is utterly incontrovertible. Lonigan didnt TURN, he backed up.Its also reported that after he was shot he staggered about briefly, and that was how when he looked to see what had happened, McIntyre saw Lonigan on the ground a few steps away from where he had been when he was shot.
Alternatively of course, you would have to resurrect the post mortem origin of that wound in the left thigh, but that is CONTRADICTED by Dr Reynolds autopsy finding. Mike Jones thinks the Dr. wasn’t thorough enough for us to be able to believe his claim that the wounds were all inflicted before death or within a few minutes of it, but doesn’t give any reason for this statement. I have done a little reading on this topic, and it wasn’t fun seeing post mortem pictures of murder victims and autopsies, but Mike I think this quote should suffice :
“One major difference between an antemortem and a postmortem injury is the presence of signs of bleeding. While the person is still alive, the blood is circulating and any injuries such as cuts or stabs will bleed. After death, the body usually does not bleed.” (Encyclopaedia .com entry on Antemortem Injury) Its a complex field of study, but I am sure Dr Reynolds would have been able to tell if there was bleeding around the thigh wound or not.
Mike its not a ‘contest’ but a search for the historical truth. Knowledge advances by picking the best explanation as the likely one and testing it until it either breaks and a better explanation is provided, or else if the prevailing explanation stands up to intense scrutiny, it becomes the accepted wisdom. I believe McIntyres version, as I have expressed it with the reservations about what he didnt see but assumed took place, makes sense of how Lonigan was killed. As I keep saying, the key to unravelling the mystery, is to realise Ned Kellys version was lies.
That Lonigan thigh wound is an eternal worry. It is so similar to the earlier Fitzpatrick wrist wound, and so different to the other SBC wounds, it has to be considered separately. McIntyre saw this conical shaped bullet that Dr Reynolds extracted from Lonigan's thigh as an exhibit in court.
If all this is so, at least two shots were fired at Const Lonigan.
In my view this sort of invalidates the quartered bullets and swandrops solution.
Phil you’re right the thigh wound is the one that throws the spanner into the works. This is my thinking on the subject :
In regard to what exactly the ‘projectile’ was, Reynolds thought it looked like an ordinary revolver bullet but McIntyre thought it looked like a quartered bullet. At the very least then, there is uncertainty about its exact nature, and as I asked in the previous Post, would a Dr be more or less likely than a trained Policeman to know? I favour the Policeman but I accept Dr Reynolds view is still a possibility.
In regard to the wound itself, others have suggested it was a low impact wound because it first passed through Lonigans arm. That seems plausible to me, whereas saying it was a separately inflicted revolver injury creates many more problems than it solves:
The problems you now have to solve if you advance the ‘second shot’ theory are firstly that McIntyre always maintained there was only ONE shot. Why would McIntyre not remember if one or more than one shots were fired? His testimony was very clear on this point. So when are you going to propose the second shot was inflicted? The idea that two shots were fired at exactly the same time so that McIntyre heard them as one is possible but how likely? I would guess very unlikely.
Next problem : WHEN did it happen? Dr Reynolds’ opinion based on his autopsy findings was that all the wounds were inflicted while Lonigan was alive, or at least while circulation continued, which rules out the theory that it was inflicted long after Lonigan was dead and after the other two had also been killed. I accept Dr Reynolds view here as this was his area of knowledge and expertise, being a Dr.
Next problem : If the thigh wound was inflicted after death, it was done while Lonigan was lying face up on the ground. To create the thigh wound one would have to fire from a very low angle across the thigh to get the track that was created – almost parallel to the ground. This also is a most unlikely scenario. Furthermore, the gun has to misfire – another unlikely possibility.
And lastly, you still have two more wounds to account for – the graze on the right forehead and the bullet through the left arm, both of which were also inflicted before death. If these were also inflicted after death as some sort of ritual aimed at spreading the burden of guilt around, wouldn’t it be more likely they would have fired into his body rather than at an arm or the side of his head?
So what is more logical – to have a view that discounts the evidence of the Dr on his area of expertise (Post mortem findings ) and discounts the evidence of the Policeman on HIS area of expertise (bullets ) or to accept the experts testimonies? (the wounds were all inflicted before death, and the ‘bullet’ was some sort of customised projectile ? What is more logical – a view based on the unwavering memory of an eyewitness that only one shot was fired, or a theory about a bizarre shooting ritual that no-one ever mentioned to account for wounds that are perfectly accounted for in the scenario of multiple projectiles fired once?
I don’t believe the quartered bullets and swan drops solution is invalidated. In fact the more we discuss the theory the stronger it becomes.
I have read all I can get on what Dr Reynolds stated following his PM on the SBC police bodies and I too have noted that he made mention of having extracted an 'ordinary revolver bullet' from Lonigan's left thigh. If this projectile was the same as the others he had extracted, why would he describe it independently? I can't find the 'conical' reference but if that was said, it sounds more like a revolver bullet (.31 cal. Pocket Colt?) than shot, ball or a quartered bullet.
Dee, you have mentioned a few times now that Dr Reynolds said that the wounds inflicted on Lonigan were done while he was still alive. While I don't dispute this, for the life of me I can't find any report of this anywhere. My primary source being 'Edward 'Ned' Kelly – The historical Record' by Kelvyn Gill.
If there is a reference to the doctor having said this can you please steer me towards your source please.
Insofar as Dr Reynolds and Const McIntyre being 'experts' in their respective fields, I wouldn't place a lot of weight in that personally. The good doctor was afterall a country GP with, apparently, no specialist experience as a forensic pathologist. And McIntyre was simply a country cop and not a ballistics expert.
Spudee, its hard to find the original reference in regard to Reynolds testimony. Justin Corfileds entry on Reynolds says “little of Reynolds evidence was published…” Maybe someone can point us to it exactly, I know I have seen it somewhere but cant put my finger on it right now. However in his book, The Trial of Ned Kelly JHPhillips says this on page 68 :
‘Bindon then sought to deal with rumours that had persisted for over two years that the bodies of the Policemen had been mutilated by the Kellys after they had been killed. Was it Dr Reynolds opinion that any of their wounds had been inflicted after death? No, said Reynolds……
Reexamined by Chomley the doctor said that if wounds had been inflicted while bodes were still warm and circulation had not actually ceased, it would be impossible to state accurately whether they had occurred before or after death”
Spudee I take from this that Reynolds was quite sure that NONE of the wounds were inflicted when Lonigan was dead – or in other words they were all inflicted when he was alive OR while the body was still warm and circulation was continuing , but we know this latter possibility definitely DIDNT occur – this would have meant shooting into him on the ground while McIntyre was still there and McIntyre certainly wouldn’t have forgotten that if it had happened. Much later, after the other two had been killed, Lonigans circulation would have been well and truly ceased, and Reynolds would have been able to tell if bullets had been fired into it at that late stage. Thus the only possibility is that all the wounds were inflicted while he was alive. Reynolds may have only been a country GP but I am sure he could tell if a wound had been bleeding or not, which is essentially the difference between wounds created in living and dead victims.
Does that help?
Thanks Dee it does help. It seems that during Ned's trial Dr Reynolds was specifically asked this question and he said 'no'. Good enough for me.
Unfortunately, none of the bullets or quartered bullets from the Kelly gang's murderous shooting has survived for inspection today. My suspicion is that they were pilfered from the court records later. Maybe they will turn up at auction someday.
But that leaves Dee's theory denuded of evidence. Early police correspondence at PROV has not been fully described. It is not impossible that what happened to these court exhibits may be found.
There are many missing documents already in the Kelly story. Maybe there are more.
Yes its a shame those bullets have disappeared. However their absence doesn’t in any way undermine the coherence or the logic of ‘my’ theory. Throw everything you like at the theory – but its not going to be replaced unless someone can supply an alternative theory that better fits the facts. Essentially what any theory has to explain is the presence of multiple wounds on particular sides of Lonigans body, all inflicted whilst he was still alive, and ONE shot.
So is there anyone who has an alternative? Frankly I dont see a need for an alternative, except from people who cant stomach the fact that the only theory that works exposes Ned Kelly yet again as a liar, and confirms that the Policeman told the truth. THIS is why Kelly sympathisers won’t accept this theory even though they have comprehensively failed to produce a cohesive theory of their own in an entire year of trying.
Yes. I think through discussion your own theory can be better clarified or alternative theory may be reached.
NML
Was Lonigan “ Out in the open” when called to Bail up?
T.N.McIntyre. A True Narrative of the Kelly Gang. Page 17
“Lonigan did not run more than 4 or 5 paces before he was shot; had he stooped down he would have been under the cover of the logs when no doubt I would have been shot as a preliminary to their shooting him."
Ned Kelly from the Jerilderie Letter
“Lonigan ran some six or seven yards to a battery of logs instead of dropping behind the one he was sitting on"
NML
Are you trying to make a distinction between when he was called to Bail Up and when he was shot? There were only a few seconds between these two events so they are virtually the same thing. However it would be absurd to suggest that Lonigan ran for cover behind a battery of logs if he was already at a place where there was cover. A person only runs for cover when they are out in the open and exposed.
So, YES Lonigan was most definitely out in the open. No doubt about it NML.. Thats what the forensics proves. Thats what McIntyres evidence supports.
The alternative proposition, made by Ned Kelly was that he ran to the cover of a battery of logs and lifted his head up to take aim at Lonigan, at which time he was shot once and killed. Notice how McInyres four or five STEPS becomes Ned Kellys six or seven YARDS. But having Lonigan behind logs, and NOT in the open creates a ballistic puzzle that cant be solved except by some sort of voodoo magic. So theres your choice : voodoo ballistics behind the logs or logic and reason out in the open.
Beechworth Committal Hearing. McIntyre giving evidence as reported in The Age. August 6th.1880. Extracts.
“When I first saw the men, Lonigan standing at the opposite side of the fire to me and about 10 or 12 feet from me, Lonigan had started to run towards a tree.” "The effect of the shot in Lonigan was that he immediately fell – he ran only 4 or 5 yards before he fell. I heard him fall. I did not see him fall.”
NML
Thanks for that. I think everyone would agree that fires are lit out in the open and if you’re standing by it you’re out in the open too. If Lonigan ran 4 or 5 steps or yards, it was to look for cover. He was shot ‘as soon as’ McIntyre put his arms out, he didnt make it to cover and he didnt have time to get his gun out.
Remember, Ned Kelly didn't say he killed Lonigan as he was running for cover but AFTER he got there, and when he exposed his head above the logs aiming his gun at Ned. These are lies, as proven by McIntyres testimony and all he forensic evidence.
So what is your point NML? Would you be able to state exactly how you explain Lonigans wounds all made before death and from one shot?
Beechworth Committal Hearing. McIntyre giving evidence as reported in The Age. August 6th.1880. Extracts.
About 4 o’clock in the afternoon Lonigan and I built a large fire. Kennedy and Scanlon had not returned. The fire was to show Kennedy and Scanlon light to guide them home in the event of their being bushed. We made the fire about 20 yards from the tent where the logs crossed each other.
It was nearly 5 o’clock when we finish building the fire – we had to carry the wood some distance for the fire, about ten minuted to five I went to the tent and got a Billy to make the tea.
I had the tea made and Lonigan was standing on the opposite side of the fire. I was standing close to the fire at that time – I suddenly heard some voice crying out, Bail up! Hold up your hands!
NML
Mounted Constable Thomas McIntyre 2384 reports to the Chief Commissioner of Police from the Mansfield Police Station. Extract:
"I being cook for the day was in the act of making some tea, Const. Lonigan standing beside me. Suddenly and without us being aware of their approach four men with rifles presented at us called upon us to “bail up hold out 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 so he was shot by Edward Kelly and believe died immediately.”
If McIntyre did turn immediately around and throw up his hands as soon as called upon. How did he see Lonigan make a motion to draw his revolver? And shot immediately he did so?
In other accounts:
He heard but did not see Lonigan shot, only after he was shot. That Lonigan ran 4 or 5 yards before he fell.
Also describes in detail the death of Lonigan. That he did not die immediately.
T.N.McIntyre. A True Narrative of the Kelly Gang. Page 17. (This document can be read unedited online courtesy of the Vic. Police Museum)
He describes how he took a hasty glance around after Lonigan was shot and saw him fall heavily and make several plunges along the ground prior to expiring.
It is interesting that his first impression was that when called upon to bail up he thought is was Kennedy and Scanlon jesting.
I suggest that McIntyre did not turn until after he realised it was no jest. He saw Lonigan make a motion for his revolver and start to run (Backwards?) just prior to himself turning around.
NML
Yes I think you could be on to something there NML, suggesting McIntyre saw Lonigans initial response just before he turned to face the Gang, at which moment Lonigan was shot, and then turning back briefly he saw him fall. Yes that fits! Nice work!
Also agree with the suggestion that Lonigan was running backwards. If he had turned and ran to his left, it could be expected that his wounds would be to the right side of his body. The only way he could have sustained the wounds to the left of his body, while moving to his left, would be by running or shuffling backwards. QED.
So was Lonigan standing by a fire out in the open when called upon to "Bail Up"? Or under the cover of the logs?
NML
NML you certainly like flogging dead horses! From what I have read it seems he was standing a little behind and to McIntyre's left.
No doubt about it, he was out in the open, because fires are lit out in the open and he was standing near it. I like NMLs suggestion that McIntyre saw Lonigan make a move for his gun as he turned round to face the Gang, arms outstretched. Then he saw Ned fire at Lonigan, whose left side was exposed to the gang as he stepped back, McIntyre briefly glimpsed back and saw Lonigan fall to the ground after taking a few steps…and thats how it all fits together.
Nice work everyone.
My next post is going up soon!
So. They lit a large fire out in the open in the angle of two large logs, where they crossed each other. Lonigan standing “out in the open” about 10 or 12 ft opposite McIntyre with one of the large logs and the fire separating them.
When bailed up McIntyre turns quickly around, (placing Lonigan on his left and to his rear) after noting Lonigan motioning for his revolver as he started to run backwards towards a tree or another log, while looking towards and presenting his left side to Ned who promptly shot him.
He was not able to run 4 or 5 yards backwards before he was shot in 4 places (including the thigh wound)
It is a pity he didn’t stoop down, as McIntyre said he would have been under the cover of a large log. No doubt about it.
The same log Ned later knelt behind, completely concealing himself from the returning police.
NML
I'm going to report you to the RSPCA for equine cruelty.
LOL. I'll give you that one Spudee. i didn't kill the horse it just died, Honest. NML
I heard on the radio yesterday that a newly constructed Emergency Resuscitation Area at Melbourne’s Epworth Hospital was to be dedicated that same day to the memory of Sergeant Michael Kennedy, Constable Thomas Lonigan and Constable Michael Scanlan. The ceremony was jointly hosted by the Blue Ribbon Foundation, Epworth Medical Foundation and Freemasons Victoria. Members of the Lonigan and Kennedy family members were going to be in attendance, and I hope they enjoyed the occasion.
A couple of years ago I met Leo Kennedy when a small group including journalist Lisa Clausen went to SBC with Bill Denheld. This resulted in a story being published in The Good Weekend supplement to The Age newspaper about the ongoing impact of Sergeant Kennedy’s death on the Kennedy family. At this time I was leaning towards the view that Ned had been wronged by society and possibly had a good reason to do what he did, as I had been influenced by books like Ian Jones ‘A short life’. I recall thinking somewhat uncharitably that the Kennedy family should perhaps put it all behind them given it had all happened so long ago. However in light of what has been unearthed through this website my views have changed and I now emphasise totally with Leo. In addition to the hardship Sergeant Kennedy’s death caused to his widow and several generations of his family (one being Leo’s grandfather), the rewriting of Kelly history such that Ned was presented as the victim and the police maligned must have really rankled with Leo and his family.
Our visit to SBC that day included some time at the true ‘two huts’ ambush site (not the incorrectly signposted site on the other side of the creek). But what really made an impression on me was the considerable distance between that site and the area where Kennedy’s body was found. It is a long way away and you have to remember that Kennedy was already wounded at this time. When you walk between these two sites you begin to realise that Kennedy was basically run down like an animal and you can only imagine the terror he must have felt.
I hope Leo and his family and the Lonigan descendants enjoyed their day yesterday.
Thanks for that Peter. I've often thought of the hardships Mrs Kennedy must have went through with all those children. And to add insult to injury was the rubbish put out that the Mansfield police party were somehow to blame for their own murders. Very sad. But very pleased to hear that the memory of the SBC police officers lives on with his dedication. I will be in the Beechworth area for a few days in September and will be visiting some of the relevant sites and in particular the SBC memorial in Mansfield to pay me respects to fellow cops. RIP.
Thanks for that Sharon. Nice to know that the 2 widows and the children were looked after financially at least.
Though no amount of money could ever replace the loss of a loved one, at least both of the widows of Kennedy and Lonigan did receive a yearly allowance from the government on top of annually receiving pensions equal to the full pay of their husbands for the rest of their lives. Also I read in the Victorian Parliament papers where for each surviving child of the two men there was to be set up a trust of 100 pounds which they would receive when they came of age. Still, there are different types of hardships other than financial ones and nothing can replace the loss of the special love, companionship, guidance and help which they would have provided for their families throughout their lives, but at least they had income and were not left completely to make it on their own, or as we in the rural American South would say – they were not left "to root, hog, or die!"
It is a shame their was no widows and orphans fund to help another widow of the era – Mrs. Kelly. Her life defines real hardship. It is difficult to read her interview in Cookson and not feel pity for her due to the dire circumstances she had been reduced to.
On another note, I can't remember if this had been mentioned on this blog before in relation to Dr. Samuel Reynolds, but I found it to be very illuminating. Capt Jack Hoyle in an excellent article he wrote for Ironoutlaw – which can be found at
http://www.ironoutlaw.com/captain-jack/the-further-trials-of-ned-kelly/
had this –
"An interesting story is told in Colonial Doctor and his Town by Joan Gillison. She writes of her grandfather Dr Samuel Reynolds of Mansfield. ‘As the medical officer who had examined the bodies of the three policemen Doctor Reynolds was summoned to the trial of Ned Kelly to give evidence. Accompanied by his son Willy he travelled to Melbourne by coach and Willy often recalled how on the long journey back his father puzzled over the life and death of Ned Kelly. While he deplored utterly the brutality of the Kelly gang and had indeed suffered personal sorrow in the death of Michael Kennedy he had been impressed, as many were, by the demeanor of Kelly in the dock. Something had gone gravely wrong, he said to his son, that a young man of native intelligence, fierce family loyalty and courage should have become a murderer and an outlaw. ‘He seemed to think’ said Willy, years later, ‘that we were all somehow involved.’"
And this is exactly my point too Sharon! "that we were all somehow involved" as in the case here in Australia with the supposed nut case, 'Man H Monis' attempt to rectify his concerns but no one would listen. This would drive anyone to insanity. I always thought Capt Jack was a terrific contributor, and as I recall he has a connection with the siege at Glenrowan- to a man named Mortimore, and if I can find the newspaper article I will post it here. ( is that OK Capt Jack? )
I had never even heard of Man H Monis until Dee's blog post so I can't really compare the two cases.
You might have Captain Jack confused with someone else. As far as I know, he is not connected to David Mortimer who was at the siege of Glenrowan. I think that another researcher/writer named Judy Douthie is the one who has the Mortimer connection.
'Man H Monis' attempt to rectify his concerns but no one would listen." What exactly were his 'concerns' Bill? From what I have read he was charged with being an accessory to murder, 40 counts o indecent assault on women clients of his 'spiritual healing' business, intimidation of a former partner and writing hate letters to the families of Aussie diggers KIA in Afghanistan. Not sure what his 'concerns' might have been but I am ready to be enlightened.
Spudee, You will have heard or read the war in Iraq that Australian military took active part in is again in the news today. It is not a question of what this crazy person Monis did as a result, but rather what our crazy Govt PM did – deciding on our behalf to become involved in a war we had no reason to be in. As a result several hundreds of troops have died and it is estimated a MILLION middle eastern people have been killed as a result of this- our WESTERN world economy getting involved with, creating a war that was all about securing vast amounts of OIL. In a way we are all guilty to have allowed that to happen.
Sorry but lets get our priorities right. We are the criminals.
At the Magisterial Inquiry into the shootings at Stringybark Creek held before H.H.Kitchen J.P. At Mansfield. 29th Oct. 1878. McIntyre had this to say:
"Cons Lonigan endeavoured to get behind a tree, three or four yards off. Before he could do so he was shot. I saw Edward Kelly fire at him. He fell as soon as he was shot.“
Lonigan ran only 4 or 5 yards (paces) before he was shot, while endeavouring to get behind a tree that was 3 or 4 yards away? McIntyre was watching Ned when he fired at Lonigan. So how could he know that Lonigan did not get behind the tree?
NML
Politics aside Bill, you still haven't told me what Monis' specific 'concerns' were?
Its all about politics Spudee.
Monis was protesting to Australian authorities for sending our troops to the middle east when we had no good reason to be there. Perhaps this drove him to madness ?
You sound as though you are sympathetic to Monis Bill.
Of course you're right Sharon,
It was about ten years ago that Captain Jack Hoyle (now retired) sent me by post this article (linked) about 'Laurie Mortimer's dad who told him all about Ned Kelly. An interesting read gives us better understanding of the dynamics of that time by someone who was there.
Judith Douthie (Mortimer) compiled the book 'I was at the Kelly Gang round up' published by NCS 2007. A must read book tells for the first time accounts by descendants of the hostages.
http://www.ironicon.com.au/dad-told-me-all-about-ned-kelly.htm
or-
http://www.ironicon.com.au/dad-told-me-all-about-ned-kelly.htm
The 'quartered spherical bullet' is ,at best, extremely unlikely, and rubbish at best. To quarter a leaden round ball it has to be sawn or cloven. Sawing is extremely difficult as a ..577 is a very small thing to hold with any success and WITHOUT deformation, and the resulting pieces are much smaller due to loss of material from the saw, while cleaving it with a blade requires a hammer, and, again the similar issues arise, deformation and extreme difficulty in cutting the ball into even quarters. Loading one? well it would have to be wrapped, otherwise you are just pouring 4 lumps of loose lead down the bore with the risk they will just fall out if the muzzle is tipped downwards. If wrapped, fired in a rifled barrel, they will either remain together until striking something, or, fly apart at the muzzle, going off in 4 separate directions as dictated by the spin imparted to them. Any kind of "shot" as opposed to "ball" in a rifle tends to produce an incredibly wide and unbalanced pattern, which is why smoothbore barrels ( shotgun) are preferred for multiple Projectiles. Given the accounts, I would suggest a rifle bullet to the brain,through the eye, if oblique, may not necessarily result in immediate death, medical records from the American Civil War do have cases like this. This would mean follow up shots may have been delivered after Macintyre was well out of earshot on a bolting horse. It would also explain 'pistol' sized bullet/s recovered from the corpse of lonigan delivered whilst still alive/dying.
Thanks for those thoughts. I am not a gun owner or ballistics expert but it is a fact is it not that 'shot' can be fired from a rifle – or, in other words multiple projectiles fired together? I am not sure where the term "quartered bullet' comes from but I have understood it to indicate a known practice. Thus, I believe there is precedent for the firing from a rifle of some sort of multiple projectile, and yes, they behaved in unpredictable ways but then the Gang had been practicing and refining their technique shooting into the trees round their camp, digging the metal out of the trunks and remaking them into usable projectiles of some sort. Its not at all improbable they had developed a technique that was workable.
However the great flaw in your scenario is your accounting for multiple wounds by saying the others were created when McIntyre was out of earshot. This was after he had fled the scene, once the others had returned which was quite a long time after Lonigan had been murdered. Reynolds who did the autopsy was asked if any of the wounds could have been made after death and he said no, because post mortem wounds are very different to wounds inflicted on a living patient – he knew the difference. He also said after looking at the head wound that death would have been almost instantaneous. So, nice try but it doesn't fit the known facts, and the critical fact is that all injuries were inflicted on Lonigan when he was alive.
Sharon, your quotes of the daughter of Dr Reynolds are all very well, but these were afterthoughts and not her father's mindset at his many earlier Kelly court proceedings. I am inclined to take his depositions, written reports and evidence literally.
After 911 and the destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, and Australians killed there, we had every reason to be in Afghanistan – and still do. Monis had many other charges against him, including some involving his wife.