Murder Trial: Final Arguments To Begin
Yesterday afternoon [Mar. 24] the jury in Antonio Myers murder trial was sent home, scheduled to come back this morning to hear Crown and Defence final arguments, and the Judge’s Summing Up. After that the jury will settle to its task of determining innocence or guilt.
Before being sent home, the jury heard from a Gunshot Residue [GSR] expert from the UK who gave evidence for the defence. After being led through his evidence by defence lawyer QC Jerome Lynch, Mr Dominic Miller the GSR expert, offered this conclusion: “The finding of three particles does not assist in the finding that Antonio Myers is connected to the shooting of Kumi Harford.”
Crown Counsel Carrington Mahoney led off a cross-examination by first questioning the depth of experience of Mr Miller. Mr Mahoney elicited that between 2003 when Mr Miller commenced working as a scientist in the field of GSR analysis, and November 2010 when he became involved with the Antonio Myers defence team, that he had been involved in ‘more than 200′ investigative cases in the UK.
Crown Counsel challenged Mr Miller on his comparing of his (Miller’s) findings with Mr Schwoeble’s. Crown Counsel was told by Mr Miller that a study in the UK had shown that the incidence of GSR in a random check of the UK population had shown a significant and continual presence of GSR, but a presence that did not necessarily have a connection with the firing of a gun.
Crown Counsel pointed out that in the UK, there were about 400,000 licenced gun owners, about 100,000 policemen some of whom were routinely armed, and about 150,000 people in the Army and that all these people were in the general UK population and exposed to guns being fired. As well, there were probably hundreds if not thousands of illegal guns.
Crown Counsel pointed out that in Bermuda legal gun ownership was virtually nil and that only some Bermuda police were armed. Mr Miller agreed that this disparity was so but still held to his point that a sample of the general UK population showed an incidence of GSR on many people. Asked by Crown Counsel if he expected GSR incidence to be as high or higher in Bermuda, Mr Miller indicated that he could not offer a professional opinion.
Asked if GSR could be transferred from Police weapons and uniforms, Mr Miller said that he had been impressed by Sgt Raoul Ming’s answers about BPS weapon handling. Mr Miller said that in his view, the BPS took greater care than was usual in the UK about the cleanliness of their weapons, and the separation of their training clothes from their police patrol duty clothes.
Mr Miller indicated that it was not uncommon for duty personnel in the UK to fire their weapons in training and then go out on patrol wearing the same clothes as had been worn whilst firing.
Still under cross-examination, Mr Miller agreed that someone riding a bike from St Monica’s Road to Parson’s Road, divesting themselves of their clothing, and then setting those clothes on fire could seriously diminish the number of particles that might later be found on that clothing. He agreed that the same would apply if the journey had been made by car.
At the end, when challenged by Crown Counsel as to whether or not he would, in the light of facts drawn out in cross-examination, change his conclusion, Mr Miller said that he would not.
Justice Greaves then ordered an adjourment for lunch. On returning from lunch, QC Lynch said that the defence offered no further witnesses. Following that, Justice Greaves warned the jury and released them until this morning.
Read More About
Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News
This may give an idea of who is Mr Schwoeble.
Current Methods in Forensic Gunshot Residue Analysis [Hardcover]
A. J. Schwoeble (Author) David L. Exline (Author)
This review is from: Current Methods in Forensic Gunshot Residue Analysis (Hardcover)
The authors’s knowledge of internal ballistics is very poor and so they do not give a correct description of the phenomena related to the forming of GSR. They believe, for instance, that the particles solidification happens on the open, when the vapours escapes “through any available opening in the weapon” (page 11). This is not so, as it has been clearly explained (for example) by S. Basu in “Formation of gunshot residues” (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 27 – 1 – 1982). What is comical is that said article is reported in the book bibliography: one wonders if the authors took the trouble to read the material they list.
But what it is much worse is that they seems to ignore that particles containing lead, antimony and barium are not any more considered as unique as it has been proved, since 1998, that such particles can be produced by disk braking systems of some type of cars.
Almost useless for forensic purposes is the long chapter dedicated to the study of Plume Concentration.
Indeed a inadequate and potentially dangerous book.
Mr. Miller seems much better as a GSR expert.
Indeed the Schwoeble approach is designed to rescue the science from being branded useless. However, large amounts can be probative of firing a gun….its the prsenece of small traces that are useless and dangerous if misunderstood.