Forest_Wood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 1,425
- Reaction score
- 9,420
I can understand what you're explaining here.I don't know if you have experience in LE, but this is not the usual sequence of events when something is turned over to LE. An example would be someone finds money buried in a backyard and years ago and a convicted bank robber was arrested out of that house. When that call is dispatched or someone shows up at LE's location, a case number is generated, a basic report of found property (or some other title) is issued and it's documented and put into evidence.
Someone would never send it out for forensics without these first steps.
The report/opinion of the witness in this case, does not allow for the ammo being placed into evidence under the death investigation case number. Whoever initially received it and put it into evidence would not have been able to instantly determine if it was relevant and would not have even had the ability to computer access/add information to an ongoing homicide investigation. Police reports can be cross referenced to other case numbers.
I'm not commenting on the misconduct in the trial, just want to clarify that the separate case number use for the surrendered ammo, in my experience, is correct and not suspicious. I'm sure the defense is also aware and knows how to see the date of the issuance of the case number. MOO
It makes sense that a new case # was derived for these bullets because they were handed in separately from LE's own direct investigation, after the fact, and after the trial was either in progress or finished.
What I find disturbing is that LE didn't have these bullets tested, dismissed them as being irrelevant, and/or failed to disclose them to the defense at some point.