Discussion in 'Forensic Science' started by Forensics_Guy, Apr 11, 2007.
The poacher with the compound bow killed the deer in my opinion but I am no forensics expert.
The wound is entirely inconsistant with an arrow.
Yes, but is that arrow the one which killed the deer? Individualze!!
If the wound was not caused by an arrow - see my previous post - then there is no reason to try and "individualze" the arrow.
Which means that the wound comes from a weapon similar to, though not exactly from, the arrow.
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.
OK. Therefore, the question becomes one of researching and matching the bullet to the gun.
As stated, there are no impressed toolmarks on the bullet fragments for comparison purposes.
so wouldnt that mean that there is no way to tell who shot and killed the deer if there are no toolmarks on the bullet fragments that can be used for comparison of the two rifles that two of the poachers had in their posession at the time the act was commited?
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.
Hmm, an interesting puzzle indeed. I think I need to learn more about ballistics, something I am interested in because it seems really challenging.
But what about striations?
Striations are toolmarks, as and previously noted are not present.
Exactly,usually a bullet has it's on striations that are unique to the type of gun that was used to fire that bullet but fragments dont have that striation mark do they? I would think not. I wonder how it is proved who shot the deer. I would tend to think the one with the weapon that makes that particular snowstorm effect of fragments would be arrested for the crime.
Separate names with a comma.