|
Links:
|
There is no escaping the truth that Diane's ex-husband's gun could not have been the murder weapon. Mr. Murdoch did every conceivable test in an effort to tie the cartridges (in the home) to the casings (at the crime scene), and each test failed. Pex said it himself :
(Pex) "I don't know how you could have a circumstance where you could have a match on an extractor mark and have other characteristics that are different. I've never known that to happen. The literature has never reflected that happening" (p.272, line 6).
For that reason, it is impossible for the cartridges allegedly found in Diane's apartment to have ever been ejected from the murder weapon, which in turn means the extractor marks on the cartridges 'cannot' match the extractor marks on the casings. In fact, to go one step further, the 'close' extractor and ejector mark relationship on the cartridges identifies the weapon which expelled them the same way a fingerprint identifies a person. Therefore, if it is to be believed that the two cartridges were taken from Diane's apartment as the State claims, it must be accepted that the extractor/ejector relationship on these cartridges is the 'fingerprint' of her ex-husband's weapon. And since we know from Mr. Murdoch's notes that the murder weapon left a 'fingerprint' on the casings in the form of an extractor/ ejector relationship of 3 o'clock 7-8 o'clock. We can say without a doubt that Diane's ex-husband's gun was NOT the murder weapon. In fact, it wasn't even the same TYPE of weapon. This was especially telling in light of the fact that there are several different models of Ruger's, several series, and every few years they change (App 90, p.p.1221-3).
BROKEN
CARTRIDGE (App 86, p.1347, line 20 to p. 1348, line 4). Mr. Jagger knew from the notes Mr. Murdoch wrote one year earlier, that the latter had taken cartridge E14A apart so he could test the gun powder inside (App 24, p. 933). That rendered cartridge E14A an empty casing and an unspent bullet, two parts, not a complete cartridge. Either Mr. Murdoch was lying in his identification of the two undamaged cartridges in 1984 or he had forgotten about tests he ran on them in 1983. Either way, his testimony was suspect in the most elemental way. He couldn't even identify the evidence, let alone remember the tests he performed. As such, Mr. Murdoch's memory, whether contrived or absent, should have been called to answer to the notes he wrote whilst the evidence lay on the table before him a year earlier. Those notes clearly state that all the tests Mr. Murdoch carried out in an effort to tie the murder casings to the cartridges failed. The murder weapon was 'not' connected to Diane in any way, not by fingerprints; not by ballistics tests; not by gunshot residue; not by physical proximity. Yet Mr. Jagger asked not one question of Mr. Murdoch in respect of the ballistics tests he conducted the year before (App 86, p.p. 1359-1361). He allowed Prosecutor Hugi to introduce the cartridge as evidence knowing full well, along with the Prosecutor that this evidence had been compromised and therefore should have been rendered inadmissable, (see notes).
Whereas, the ballistics could have, would have, and should have, exonerated his client, Mr. Jagger made sure his silence in the matter condemned her. Not by any stretch of the imagination was Defense Counsel performing his role effectively in the adversarial process. Unless of course... he construed Diane as his adversary. That would certainly account for Prosecutor Hugi's high praise of Mr. Jagger's performance as Defense Counsel. But the Court must not permit this covert duplicity to go unchecked. Mr. Jagger suspended an effective Defense which in effect assissted Mr. Hugi's Prosecution of his client. It is a mockery of the law.
I labour on the ballistic tests evidence, not just to show that they were contrived, fabricated and perjured evidence. But that the State claimed because of them, they were able to put the gun in Diane's hands. There was no other way they could do it. All (residue) tests carried out on Diane's person were negative. The State never found the murder weapon (they claimed). And they wanted people to believe that Diane had used her ex-husband's Ruger to carry out this heinous crime. Even though it was evidentially 'in absentia' they colluded in obtaining forensic evidence to support the claim. But it is plain to see that State Criminalist John Murdock could not link the two ammunitions between Diane's apartment and the crime scene. And he recorded it in his notes. Some years back when Diane's father contacted John Murdock to advise him of discrepancies between his notes and his testimony, he became very defensive and told him he wouldn't talk to him without his attorney present. Now why doesn't that surprise me.
The State never said why Diane would remove two cartridges from a gun and plant them in her own apartment before she set out to murder her family with a partially empty weapon. Then again, most of Lane County's theories were half baked anyway.
|