Charlie Kirk bullet analysis finds no conclusive link to rifle found near scene

And then you go down to the bar, to watch the stripper that's somehow in a children's cartoon.

I wonder if Basil of Baker St was a drug addict like his character inspiration.

Oh my god, you unlocked a childhood memory. Now I need to watch this movie again! I REMEMBER THAT SCENE!

*”Smile everyone!”*

This is exactly the image I get in my head every time I hear anything about projectile fragment analysis, Basil lining up the marks on the bullet.

That is why it failed. There was no "AWOOOOOOOOOOOOWOW" scream, guitar riff and sunglasses being donned.

Sometimes it is more accurate than polygraph tests, although the two have a surprising amount in common.

I’m not being a jag to you, wasn’t Mark Chapman caught on scene after not leaving? Or am I reading it wrong that the bullets recovered were matched to the gun taken from him?

He shot Lennon and then sat down and waited for the police to arrive.

This is definitely about Abby from NCIS I feel but it fits for alot of other shows too

Angelatron could also solve this in less than an hour. Maybe two if it's a season ender.

DNA doesn't even prove they were there. Look up "secondary DNA transfer."

Bachelor in forensics here. Basically it’s way more complicated than it works or it doesn’t. The things you see on tv, where they find *the* clue and say jump to “you had the thing that left that clue so you’re guilty” is absolute bullshit for several reasons. Ok, so first of all, the mythical single clue that solves the case basically never happens. You don’t search for the one thing that proves stuff beyond all doubts, but for several things that, while individually can’t finger a single person, combine bring that beyond doubt side. Basically, it’s a giant game of Guess Who? Being able to say this thing could have come from that source and only that source pretty much never happens, outside of DNA and theoretically fingerprints (but in practice you never get clean enough prints on a crime scene). Let me try to cook up an example: I’m thinking of public figure. Try to guess who He’s a man… ok, well that’s a worthless clue, because while we have eliminated half the population, that’s still several billion persons. He appears in Dr Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. He appears in a Spider-Man movie His initials are B C Now I bet you’re looking at the cast list of Dr Strange and the Multiverse of Madness for male actors who also appeared in a Spider-Man movie with the initials BC. Next clue: he also played Elvis in a movie. Now none of those individual clues allow you to pinpoint the individual, but combined I think you have a good idea. Now stop searching IMBD for which movie did Benedict Cumberbatch played Elvis in, because I’m actually thinking of Bruce Campbell. Hail to the king baby. I like to mention the case of [Wayne Williams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Williams), a murderer who was caught because they found a type of fiber that’s only used in a specific brand of carpet and only that. Police were able to determine that only about a 1000 of those carpets were sold in the Atlanta area. They also found dog hair, another type of fibre that’s used in trunk lining of few specific models of a certain manufacturer (I think it was Fords, but I don’t have the time to check the details) as well a some more common fibres which ended up matching Williams’s bedsheets. Now, turns out Williams had that specific “only a 1000 in Atlanta” carpet, and that specific car with the trunk liner, and a dog and those bedsheets… so it became overwhelming likely that the only way the body could have picked up that mix of fibres was that it spent time in an area where all those fibres were present, and since some of those fibres were rare, it was much likely that William’s apartment was the source than any other Atlanta residence (the actual FBI report is free online and contains statistical analysis). So yeah, a forensic expert should just say “no this source could not leave this clue”, “yes, this source could have left this clue, but it’s not the only possible source” or, and this is phrase they drilled in our brains “It is (statistically analysis results) more likely that this source left this clue rather than any other”. Next, it’s the investigator’s, and the defense’s, job of proposing a scenario to explain the expert’s findings. Mr Body was killed in the Ballroom with the revolver. Mr Green has gunpowder residue on him. Investigators propose Mr Green shot Mr Body. The defense argues Mr Green went to target practice with a rifle before the murder and has never seen that revolver. The expert is called. The expert says the chemical composition of the residue on Mr Green and the revolver are similar. Is this enough to say Mr Green shot Mr Body? No, because Mr Green might have been using bullets that contains a similar gunpowder in his rifle. Both scenarios are likely. However, if the composition was different, then the defence’s scenario becomes more likely. Then the prosecution says they found Mr Green’s fingerprints on the gun. Mr Green admits he did handle the gun but lied because he was afraid of becoming a suspect. But he swears he only handled it when Mr Body showed it to him. The expert is called and says he found a fingerprint consistent with Mr Green on the inside of the cylinder, consistent with someone reloading the gun. But he admits the fingerprint is partial and not enough for an identification, although it does feature a whorl, which is an uncommon fingerprint design. Now, if it turns out Mr Green is the only guest with whorl fingerprints… it’s starting to look bad for him. Hope that helps clear stuff up. I’m a tad busy, but if you have any questions I’ll try to find the time to answer. Bottom line is that it can be reliable, but you have to do the job right and especially know the limits of your conclusions.

add bite mark and tire track evidence to that list

The rest of their comment history isn’t making them sound much better 😬

Same age, and it did kinda come up for me but the first thought was this scene from CSI that showed them like rotating a bullet casing on a computer and this groove matching up, then Dale Gribble, and then that scene. It must have had all us kids in a chokehold when it first came out.

Does it rock?

Did 2 people try and stop a hack while both using the same keyboard?

I shut that episode off and never watched another after she said that line. The show was already a slippery slope of stupidity, but it was entertaining. But I just could not continue after that.

We need to track the bullets trajectory with laser pointers.

If you are accused of a crime, and you want to do a polygraph, you do it privately through your lawyer, who will hire someone and have it done discreetly. And you only turn it over to the prosecutor if it supports you. Otherwise its attorney-client privileged. In my career I've dealt with some prosecutors who would frequently consider dismissal of certain charges if you'd provide a favorable polygraph report. No comment on whether polygraphs actually work or not. But this is a tactic I used with occasional success doing criminal defense.

Polygraphs are inadmissible federally and in most US states and the ones that do admit them, both the prosecution and defense have to agree to it, which makes them practically inadmissible because neither side is going to agree if it doesn't support their case. They're purely an interrogation tool and should be banned from that as well because of how ineffective they are.

Was pulled over the other day and harassed by state police. Their claim for pulling me over was I didn’t use my turn signal earlier enough before I merged back into the right lane after passing someone. They then told me they saw me throwing things out my window and tried to use that to get me to let them search my car and then kept pushing me to take a field sobriety test because I said no to both. After 10 min I’m asked why I won’t give them one and I tell them cause it can only hurt me. They have no evidence of impairment and therefore no reason to suspect it so the field sobriety test is just a ploy at that point to put me in cuffs take a blood test and get a warrant for the search of my car. I fell for it once and I wasn’t about to do it again. The police will lie.

Texas executed that guy

Cameron Todd Willingham. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham?wprov=sfti1# [Absolutely amazing long form article about him and the trial and the bunk science. Written by David Grann](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire) One of the best journalists on earth. We have executed so many clearly innocent people in this country. Just imagine how many are in jail for extremely long sentences with no chance of getting out that are also innocent. John Grisham also released a great nonfiction book, Framed, on innocent people locked up. The book almost exclusively looks at white people sentenced to death/life, which Grisham and his co author have stated was on purpose so people can’t just say it’s racially motivated. The system is broken all by itself, and the has racism amplify it to insane levels.

Everyone involved in a prosecution like that should be looking at major prison time. Yet I've never heard of anyone facing any sort of penalty for ruining someone's life in that manner. Any number of innocent people in prison higher than zero is unacceptable to me.

Ok this is straight up fascinating though I would actually love to see more of the sort of "up and coming" forensics approaches

Yes he did. Fighting for an appeal as we speak.

The Who intensifies.

Absolutely.  Also, make sure you discharge your firearm in a public space at least three to five times a week, slap all that evidence in a plastic bag and race it back to the lab to put it through the science-o-tron

Nah that one's real

Only if you practice beforehand, which is not cool 

YEEAAAAAAAAAH it does

This entirely depends on the guitar riff and vocals playing while you do it. Also if you are David Caruso or not.

That was my point. Jurors expect matches.

A competent prosecutor will walk the ballistics expert through these questions to make it clear to the jury what the result means. Yes, the jury can still be dumb, but they aren't going into deliberation with just "the results don't match".

Well, much like mitochondrial DNA, it can rule out certain things. Like if the gun has a .308 barrel and the bullet was .40. that would be a non-match. But yes, the idea that rifles have some kind of "fingerprint" to its rifling is total bullshit. Not to mention, this is not investigative evidence, it's from the defense.

At most you would need a flathead screwdriver to separate the receiver from the stock on the majority of bolt action rifles. The rifle recovered was a sporterized Mauser. Only 2 screws would need to be taken out.