The defense's fourth witness is Mike Sutton, a North Carolina engineer who creates crime scene exhibits and animations.
Sutton, a mechanical engineer, says he deals with external ballistics, tracking the flight of a bullet after it leaves the gun. He does not deal with internal ballistics, which is what happens after the bullet hits its target.
Sutton testifies he is also an acoustics expert. Says acoustics engineering is a subset of mechanical engineering. He has testified about whether things can be heard at specific times by specific people, based on the scene.
Sutton and Harpootlian are now walking through the bullet trajectories Sutton gleaned from looking at bulletholes in crime scene photos.
This trial is giving new life to protractors, which I have forgotten about for the past 15 years.
Harpootlian says the jury will soon see a 3-D model of what he and Sutton are discussing.
Sutton testifies the angle of the bullet’s trajectory helps determine where the shooter could have been. If the bullet is at an upward angle, for example, you can track it back all the way into the ground. That gives you a range of places the shooter could have fired it from.
We are now watching a 3-D reconstruction of the crime scene.
Here’s generally what the jury is seeing
Overheard shot of the crime scene. The yellow circles are where .300 Blackout cartridges were found. Maggie’s body is depicted by that grey sheet.
These green lines are Sutton’s projection of the flight path of one of the .300 Blackout bullets that hit Maggie. The two lines depict a range of angles, working backward from the bullet hole in the quail pen.
Sutton created a person holding a .300 Blackout
Photo at link
Sutton: “It would be hard for anybody” to be shooting that .300 Blackout from the shoulder because the bullethole in the quail pen is just over 4 feet off the ground, and going at an upward trajectory. So the barrel that fired the bullet had to be less than 4 feet off the ground.
Sutton: The person likely would have fired from the hip to create this trajectory. Even a short person couldn't have fired from the shoulder at this trajectory. Of note: Buster just testified his father is 6-foot-4
Sutton testifies that based on his model, the 14-degree downward shot into the doghouse and the 1.5-degree upward shot into the quail pen were shot from the same person, at the same place - right by Maggie’s body.
Like this
Photo at link
Placement of the shell casings supports this, Sutton says
Sutton says the little grey guy in his model is 5-foot-2. If you make him taller, the angle stops working, he says. It puts the person closer to the quail pen, away from Maggie's body, and nowhere near the shell casings. It doesn't make sense, he says.
Soooooo either the shooter was 5-foot-2 or there is a confounding variable here (like a person crouching or kneeling).
Sutton testifies he measured AM this morning. His kneecap is 25 inches off the ground. If AM was the shooter, his shooting hand would have had to be below his kneecap, Sutton testifies.
Sutton: “It puts them in an unrealistic shooting position. It’s not an aiming position. It’s not a shooting position. It would be something other than a shooting position where you were on your feet.”
Sutton: “You would have to be bending over and have your shooting hand down at or below your kneecap. It just makes it very unlikely that a tall person made that shot.”
Paul was also shot at a dramatic upward angle, according to the state's experts.
Harpootlian: In your engineering opinion, is it most likely that the shooter of Maggie was 5-foot-2 to 5-foot- 4? Sutton: “That is the most likely explanation, yes.”
Harpootlian: Alex Murdaugh is 6-foot-4. In your opinion, did Alex Murdaugh fire this shot? Sutton: “In my opinion, it’s very unlikely that he fired that shot.”
Harpootlian: In going through the case file, did you see any evidence that state investigators did a bullet trajectory analysis like yours? Sutton: No. We break for lunch until 2:15 p.m.
