There was a first case for fingerprinting too

by Prometheus 6
April 2, 2005 - 10:01am.
on Justice

Quote of note:

"That evidence was the cornerstone of our case," said Glenn F. Ivey, the Prince George's state's attorney. "It was powerful evidence. I hope this verdict helps our efforts to have the [ballistics identification database] continued and expanded."

Ballistics Database Yields 1st Conviction
Oxon Hill Man Tied To Murder Weapon

By Ruben Castaneda and David Snyder
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 2, 2005; Page B01

Evidence linking an Oxon Hill man to a murder weapon -- the equivalent of a handgun's fingerprint -- yesterday helped Prince George's County prosecutors win a first-degree murder case.

The verdict against Robert Garner, 21, marked the first time that prosecutors in Maryland have used information from a statewide ballistics database to obtain a conviction, law enforcement officials said. The conviction comes as some Maryland lawmakers are trying to kill the Integrated Ballistics Identification System because they say it is ineffective.

After a four-day trial, the Circuit Court jury convicted Garner of killing Kelvin Braxton, 22, outside a Popeyes chicken restaurant in Oxon Hill the evening of April 23. Garner is scheduled to be sentenced May 6.

Although the weapon, a .40-caliber handgun, never was found, county police and prosecutors connected the firearm to Garner through 10 shell casings found at the scene. A handgun leaves unique markings on shell casings each time it is fired, according to firearms experts.

The casings recovered at the murder scene matched a casing that was on file with Maryland State Police, showing that the weapon was purchased by Garner's then-girlfriend (now his wife) in a Forestville store about three weeks before the killing, according to trial testimony.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Publicola on April 2, 2005 - 11:57pm.

Amazing. On many different levels.

Here's a short version of why this is troubling:

firearms must comply with certain rules of physics, mettlurgy, etc. The way a firearm works is that the hammer or firing pin strikes the primer in a case that's loaded in the chamber. This ignites the powder which burns rapidly & generates hot gasses. These gasses create pressure which overcomes the case's grip on the bullet & sends it down the barrel at a great rate of speed.

So basically you have a softer metal (the bullet) traveling down a tube made of a harder metal (the bareel). Even though the bullet is softer it's traveling at a great rate of speed & generating a lot of friction. Barrels wear out (expand to the point of being much less accurate than they were) over time because of this.

The cartridge case is made of brass, aluminum or steel. When the bullter is pushed out the barrel the case is pushed out of the chamber - or at least back against the breech face. An extractor helps this process along as the case has expanded during firing. xtractors wear down over time just like any other piece of metal that is subject to friction.

The breech face (or bolr face) ears down as well due to the case being more or less slammed against it during firing.

Now I've mentioned all this because it negates the whole concept of "ballistic fingerprinting" - that the marks that a firearm leaves on the case or projectile are permanent & non-changing. With some firearms a few rounds (or even one) will be enough to vary any allegedly distinguishable marks. Add to this the variables such as different loadings (for example Remington has 14 different 9mm loadings of various bullet weights & powder charges) which will affect the manner in which any marks occur & you have the bulk of my reasoning that "ballistic fingerprinting" is at best junk science & at worst a deliberate fraud.

That someone was convicted even though the firearm wasn't in evidence is disturbing to the Nth degree.

"ballistic fingerprinting" isn't like a human fingerprint. It changes over time, in a lot of cases that's a short amount of time. & if you have steel wool & 2 seconds you can alter any marks on the spot. There haven't been any succesful studies done showing that this system has any degree of accuracy. Cali - an anti gun state of there ever was one, passed because the tests they ran showed it to be unreliable. Maryland went through a few million over a few years for this one conviction. One. & if a respectable expert in internal ballistics would have testified I doubt the jury would have given this guy a conviction.

Human fingerprinting came under fire not too long ago because it wa snoticed that no studies or tests were ever run to show what kind of error rate it has. a full set to a full set of human fingerprints is fairly conclusive - but it's the partials that are most often encountered which create the problem. They use X number of points to match up a partial to a full print, but they have never examined how many partial prints look similar enough to match one full print.

"ballitic fingerprinting" is worse for some of the same reasons.

Damn. I said I was gonna be brief didn't I?

The jury got mislead by this junk science. The guy may be guilty & may have deserved a conviction, but if that's all the evidence they had (which from the story it seems there were eye-witnesses) then justice wasn't served. & this wil be used to extend a program that should have had the decency to wait until (if ever) it was possible to do what was claimed.

Submitted by janet on April 3, 2005 - 12:18am.

Now I know why a friend always says, "I used to think I was paranoid until I found out everyone really was out to get me."

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on April 3, 2005 - 5:58am.

Using a non-anonymous email address, I got an error that the contact email form is not allowed to post from outside domains.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll run into this study shortly if you have not already.

Another study demonstrates that a white person with a criminal record is favored in employment over a black person with a clean record.

http://www-cms-edit.princeton.edu//main/news/archive/S11/23/70K64/index.xml

Submitted by DarkStar on April 4, 2005 - 2:09am.

That was published on April 1.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 4, 2005 - 2:34am.

Only in that particular venue. The report itself is over a year old.

Since I feel lazy right now:

http://www.prometheus6.org/node/1401

Links to a working paper from the study, as well as a couple other studies that support the conclusion, are in the post.

We do not make this stuff up.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 4, 2005 - 2:43am.

Publicola, at some point we need to nail the tech. If you really want free, unrestricted gun ownership there MUST be some way to make bad actors accountable.

Submitted by Publicola on April 4, 2005 - 6:06am.

P6,
I'm all for makoing bad actors accountable - it's just that most methods end up causing more harm to non bad actors. The BF thing simply isn't possible. It may not ever be because of the nature of the devices they're trying to track. but since many (not all) violent criminals have a history of violent confrontational crime I'm thinking focusing on the person's actions - not his choice of tool - would yield a greater benefit.

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 4, 2005 - 12:10pm.

And both would make an even greater dent in the problem.

Submitted by Publicola on April 4, 2005 - 8:47pm.

P6,
no. focusing on the tool doesn't seem to make much of a dent at all except for those who don't have any harmful intent. I know it seems like it would but it just never pans out like that. What does make a difference is harsher sentences for vilent confrontationalcrimes coupled with encouraging people in an area to become active in efforts to lessen crime. Get the people in a neighborhood involved in keeping the place looking nice, in reporting crimes & let them know that if the cops catch someone they'll (assumign they're guilty) do serious time for violent crime & that will (& has in some places) reduce the crime levels. We'll never eliminate it unless human nature suddenly changes, but reduction never involves a gun control tactic. I can point out several places with almsot complete gun control where crime is a serious problem. It doesn't cause crime but it does nothing to discourage it. I doubt you could find anyplace where gun control is the biggest factor in reducing crime, or even where it has had a measurable effect.

Again, focus on the actions of the people, not the availaibility of tools, unless you believe that to control obesity we should have spoon control, or to avoid sloppy handwriting we should have pencil control. :)

Submitted by Prometheus 6 on April 4, 2005 - 10:23pm.

Focus on the seller, because we know who they are.

Make the weapons absolutely traceable...only criminals should complain about that.

What's going on now is unacceptable, and what you suggest (wait for a crime and go after the criminal) is too reactionary. Do these two things and require proper weapons training and I'll support people buying tanks.