Search results

Solution: The bullet fragments are consistent with a standard "snowstorm" pattern, which means that it was a high velocity bullet that brokeup once it hit the deer. The recovered bullet weight of around 40 grains was a clue that the projectile was "small" in comparison to what a 30 caliber...

No, but here are the results: All three tested positive for gunshot residue (GSR). Please remember these results mean nothing because GSR testing only shows that someone has A) fired a firearm or B) handled a firearm or C) been in the vicinity of a firearm when it was discharged.

Striations are toolmarks impressed on the projectile when it travels down the barrel. When a projectile breaks up, even into fragments, the striations do not dissappear, they are still present, if they were there to begin with. There is no extra hunter/unseen hunter. If you like, all three...

Striations are toolmarks, as and previously noted are not present.

While it may be impossible to scientifically show which weapon was used to shoot the deer, two can be eliminated from the data previously given. By process of elimination, and a good prosecutor, one could get a conviction.

As stated, there are no impressed toolmarks on the bullet fragments for comparison purposes.

No, if it was entirely consistent, it means the wound comes from a weapon similar to, if not exactly the same arrow. Entirely inconsistent means there is no way the arrow could have caused the wound.

If the wound was not caused by an arrow - see my previous post - then there is no reason to try and "individualze" the arrow.

The wound is entirely inconsistant with an arrow.

Yessir.

OK. One of the given facts of the exercise is that the Game Warden didn't shoot the deer. All three people would probably be arrested for poaching because they were out poaching. The point of the exercise however, is to determine which of the three poachers shot the deer.

I used to work in a public lab. I have gone private now. And the last lab I worked in didn't buy the kits, I made them up myself - I just made an extra one for me personally.

Most likely yes. All three would probably be arrested for poaching regardless of who actually shot the deer. But who shot the deer?

The game warden heard the shot, but did not actually do the shooting, nor was it his weapon.

Your reasoning is sound. And everything you stated is correct. The only fact that you haven't taken into account is that there is no rifling marks on the copper metal fragments.

Actually a 30 caliber projectile does NOT normally produce a "snowstorm" pattern.

There were two poachers with rifles. Which one, and why?

I have a portable bullet impact testing kit, as well as a presumptive blood testing kit.

The Deer Poachers: A game warden heard a loud bang, consistent with a gunshot, and went to investigate. He came across three poachers out hunting together standing over a fallen deer carcass. The first poacher was armed with a compound bow, the second with a semi-automatic AR-15, and the...

Below is a case scenario designed to make the reader think along the lines of a forensic scientist. Feel free to ask additional questions, if you think they might help.