|
Links:
|
And that's exactly what Mr. Murdoch's notes reveal, (App 24, p.p. 953-4 ). Each and every one of the six murder casings bear an extractor mark at 3 o'clock and an ejector mark at 7- 8 o'clock. Which means they were all ejected from the same weapon. But each of the cartridges, allegedly removed from Diane's apartment by police, bear extractor marks in CLOSE relation to the ejector marks. Which helps prove not only that they were expelled from a different weapon than the murder weapon, but that it was a different TYPE of weapon. The ejector which ejected the cartridges wasn't even remotely in the general area of the ejector of the murder weapon. One weapon could not have created such 'different' marks. By way of further clarification, we return to Pex's testimony, (App 103, p.266, line 24).
Q. (Walsh) "And are you also saying that extractor marks, magazine clip marks, and lands and grooves are different identifiers for purpose of an expert "?.
A. (Pex). "Yes".
Q. (Gorham). "I think on your examination, you talked about class characteristics. Could you describe that a little better for me. What does that mean?, (p.270).
A. "When we talk about class characteristics, speaking in reference to looking at all of the tool marks that are on cartridge or casing or lands and grooves that are on a bullet. It aids you in identifying a 'type' of a weapon. It doesn't exactly state it was a particular weapon to the exclusion of all others. That's what I mean by a class characteristic", (emphasis added).
This brings us to the point of examining the tests Mr. Murdoch carried out with respect to trying to match the class characteristics of the murder casings to the class characteristics of the cartridges. On page 948 of his notes, (App 24) Murdoch recorded the result of his trying to compare the nose marking of cartridge E14A with the nose markings of murder bullet E7....'no id', (no identity). On page 944, the results of his trying to compare cartridge E14A magazine lip marks to murder casing E5 magazine lip marks were..."general agreement", but "not enough for an ID". On page 955 where he tried to find characteristic agreement between marks on the base of the cartridge E14A and EJ he recorded 'a re-exam has caused me to reconsider. ID falls apart at 4 times obj' (see.diagr). To be specific, the scratches Mr. Murdoch compared on the bases of EJ and E14A were caused by a unique characteristic design of the bolt of each weapon. Knowing the bolt is hard steel and will not change form from one extraction to the next, it means that any irregularities in the surface of the bolt which contacts the base of a cartridge will remain the same. Examination of Mr. Murdock's notes, with respect to his enlarged sketches shows clearly the irregularity on the smooth surface of the bolt on the murder weapon which lay to the extreme edge of the bolt. Causing scratches along the rim of the casing base, while the scratches on the base of the cartridge are almost in the centre. Therefore, the irregularity in the smooth surface of the bolt which contacted the cartridge, was in the centre. Irregularities are born with the weapon when the steel is cast.
Mr. Murdoch wrote, "a re-exam has caused me to reconsider, id falls apart". The court need not be a ballistics expert to understand the meaning of "id falls apart." Mr. Murdoch was saying the bolt which secured the cartridge in the chamber of Diane's ex-husband's gun was NOT the bolt in the murder weapon.
It is because the ejector 'varies' that each weapon is unique in the sense that fingerprints are unique to the individual. Murdoch's notes are in mind here when we listen to Pex's testimony. Because following four different tests Murdock documents that he could 'not' make the link between ammunition in Diane's apartment and ammunition at the crime scene.
|