(Image above: Screwdriver Leaving Behind Toolmark) http://www.lvmpd.com/Sections/ForensicLaboratory/FirearmsandToolmarks/tabid/471/Default.aspx
Example Case That Used This Evidence
In Tucson, Arizona, a man named Paul V. Hadley was tried for attempted murder and murder. Hadley accepted a ride with an elderly couple, and was alleged to have shot both, severely wounding the man and killing the wife. He was subsequently arrested and found in possession of a 32 calibre Mauser pistol and several cartridges. A. J. Eddy was requested by the prosecuting attorney to determine if the fatal bullets could be identified as having been fired by the suspect’s firearm. Eddy, a practicing attorney, had previously conducted research and experimentation into the area of bullet identification and he was certain that a bullet fired from a gun carried distinctive markings. With the assistance of a local photographer, Eddy conducted numerous tests on the suspect murder weapon as well as several other 32-calibre firearms. The Mauser pistol was test fired, using ammunition seized from Hadley, and the test and fatal bullets were photographed by reversing the lens of the camera. Over a period of three months, Eddy conducted a series of experiments. He was then called to court to testify as to the results of his research. He provided extensive testimony concerning the elaborate tests that he had conducted and attempted to prove to the jury that each pistol left its own distinctive characteristics markings on bullets. The defense attorneys argued that Eddy was not an expert but the judge overruled their request taking the position that Eddy was merely showing the results of his exhaustive research and experimentation. The judge characterized Eddy’s testimony as being that of a “semi-expert” and allowed him to testify. Hadley was convicted, in large part to Eddy’s testimony, and the case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court, after careful deliberation, rendered a historic and momentous decision. The court upheld the lower court, thus recognizing ballistics evidence as valid and admissible. This ruling appears to be the first time that a State Supreme Court in the United States had done so.
Example Case That Used This Evidence
In Tucson, Arizona, a man named Paul V. Hadley was tried for attempted murder and murder. Hadley accepted a ride with an elderly couple, and was alleged to have shot both, severely wounding the man and killing the wife. He was subsequently arrested and found in possession of a 32 calibre Mauser pistol and several cartridges. A. J. Eddy was requested by the prosecuting attorney to determine if the fatal bullets could be identified as having been fired by the suspect’s firearm. Eddy, a practicing attorney, had previously conducted research and experimentation into the area of bullet identification and he was certain that a bullet fired from a gun carried distinctive markings. With the assistance of a local photographer, Eddy conducted numerous tests on the suspect murder weapon as well as several other 32-calibre firearms. The Mauser pistol was test fired, using ammunition seized from Hadley, and the test and fatal bullets were photographed by reversing the lens of the camera. Over a period of three months, Eddy conducted a series of experiments. He was then called to court to testify as to the results of his research. He provided extensive testimony concerning the elaborate tests that he had conducted and attempted to prove to the jury that each pistol left its own distinctive characteristics markings on bullets. The defense attorneys argued that Eddy was not an expert but the judge overruled their request taking the position that Eddy was merely showing the results of his exhaustive research and experimentation. The judge characterized Eddy’s testimony as being that of a “semi-expert” and allowed him to testify. Hadley was convicted, in large part to Eddy’s testimony, and the case was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. The court, after careful deliberation, rendered a historic and momentous decision. The court upheld the lower court, thus recognizing ballistics evidence as valid and admissible. This ruling appears to be the first time that a State Supreme Court in the United States had done so.
![Picture](/uploads/2/7/6/5/27655795/9609731.jpg)
(Image of Paul V. Hadley)http://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hadley-paul.htm
BONUS CASE: A series of now famous coordinated suicide attacks by nineteen Al-Qaeda terrorists occurred on September 11, 2001 in the United States. The terrorists took control of four commercial passenger jet airliners by using tools such as knives and box cutters to kill flight attendants and at least one pilot. Two of the four airplanes were crashed intentionally into the World Trade Center in New York City. Another was crashed intentionally into the Pentagon near Washington, D.C. The fourth airplane crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania after passengers reportedly thwarted the terrorists’ plan to crash the airplane into another high profile target.