HOME PAGE        ANTIMONY AND BARIUM       BALLISTICS    BLOOD SPATTER        CHRISTIE DOWNS       DEPUTY ROY POND   DEVIANT SOCIOPATH     DIANE'S EARLY YEARS       DOCTOR CARL PETERSON        GUN SEARCH    LETTERS TO JAMES HAYNES    MURDER WEAPON

DIANE DOWNS: MURDERER OR VICTIM

YOU BE THE JURY

BALLISTICS

Isaiah Chapter 41 Verses 10-13

BALLISTICS EVIDENCE, according to the State was conclusive proof of Diane Down's guilt.  The State was wrong.  If you look at the comparisons, you will see that what the State had, proved nothing.  The State claimed it found two lead cartridges in Diane's rifle, the morning after the shooting, which were later microscopically compared to casings found at the shooting site and in Diane's car.  If you look at those two lead bullets carefully you will notice these discrepancies:

1.  The tool marks from the apartment didn't match those from the shooting site.  It's interesting to note that the  State claimed they found two lead cartridges in Diane's rifle at her home.  All the other cartridges in her rifle were copper (copper wash).  The State was looking for lead cartridges, because that is what was surgically removed from the victims, so that's what they found.  Look at the comparisons:

On June 27, 1983, a month after the shootings, John Murdock, Director of the Contra Costa County Laboratory in the Sheriff's Department in Martinez, California began his comparison of the ballistic evidence. He started by evaluating each piece of evidence, bullet, casing, or cartridge.  (The bullet is the projectile, the casing is the empty cartridge, and the cartridge is the bullet and casing totally intact with the gunpowder inside.)   Mr. Murdock would then establish the validity of each piece.  This, according to his notes, involved noting the degree or depths of each tool mark in regard to actually being able to make literal comparisons with other such evidence.  He lists each identifying number, such as E3, E4A, etc., with the corresponding tool marks as, one extractor mark at 3 o'clock and the ejector mark at  7-8 o'clock.     Murdock's notes page 953.pdf    E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A and E6B, the casings from the shooting site, all were listed to have distinct marks at 3 o'clock and 7-8 o'clock on each casing, for example:

All casings from the shooting site, (the road and the car) were exactly the same, extractor mark 3 o'clock, ejector mark 7-8 o'clock.  The cartridges allegedly taken from Diane's rifle are listed in a glaringly different manner.  E14A is noted to have one extractor mark and no clear ejector mark and E14B is listed as well defined extractor mark and one fairly well defined ejector mark, "close to the extractor mark," The description changes. .  It's not 3 o'clock and 7-8 o'clock, but now it's "close to extractor."   They don't match!!!   Murdock's notes page 954.pdf

 

What happened to the definitive comparisons?  The answer is, the bullets from the apartment didn't compare to those from the shooting site.  This would mean the comparison between E14B which has extractor marks close to the ejector marks does not match with E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A and E6B because their markings, which are at 3 o'clock and 8 o'clock are not close together.

2. The next thing we find about E14A is that it has been taken apart, and the bullet removed from the casing, for gun powder comparison.  See: Murdock's notes page 933.pdf

No lab reports are available and no one testified on these extremely important gun powder tests.  If the gun powder from Diane Downs' rifle had matched that of the gun powder residue from that night, you would have heard about it, but you didn't.  The bullets taken from Diane's apartment did not match the bullets from the shooting site, because the gun powder didn't match.

Now look what happens, the bullet that was taken apart is no longer E14A.  Look at the diagram below. It shows E14A intact and E14B disassembled.  What were they drinking anyway?

  

 See: Murdock's notes page 948.pdf

 In John Murdock's notes he also makes a comment about a problem with E14B and it's comparison to E3.  He says: "A reason has caused me to reconsider the id - it seems to fall apart at 4x the object...:  He also said Jim Pex "made some tests wherein he caused marks to be made on base of test cartridge"  Could someone tell me why they were making marks  on other cartridges?

See: Murdock's notes page 955.pdf You can also see he's out of time.  "No photo. No time."

On June 28, 1983, photos were taken of the comparisons between the casings involved in the shooting and cartridges "found in Diane's rifle".  The casings (empty cartridges) from the shooting site, and the two lead cartridges, (bullets are intact) allegedly taken from Diane's rifle at her apartment are listed below.  Each label , E3, E4A, etc. is the label used by Mr. Murdock and is identified where it is found.  You've probably already figured out that all the casings from the car and the road must match.  Comparatively speaking, the two cartridges allegedly taken from the rifle in Diane's apartment must also match.  Now watch what happens.  The headers help to direct your attention. Note: Four casings were found in the car and two were found on the road.  The casings from the car and the road have to match because they came from the same weapon.  The two from the rifle must also match.  They are from the same weapon.

Casings:                                                                          Cartridges:

Car     Car     Car       Car     Road     Road                  Rifle     Rifle
 E3      E4A    E4B      E5       E6A        E6B                    E14A    E14B

Now, look at the comparisons of these empty casings to the cartridges from Mr. Murdock's notes:  Remember E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A and E6B all came from the shooting site. They have to match.

E3      E4A     E4B     E5       E6A         E6B                    E14A   E14B
E5      E14B   E14B   E14B   E14B       E14B                   E3        E3
No     Yes     Yes      Yes     Yes          Yes                     Yes      No

E3 and E5 don't match, but  they're both out of the car.  They have to match!   In Mr. Murdock's notes he labels each casing taken from the car and the road with identical markings: "One ejector mark at 7-8 o'clock one extractor mark at 3 o'clock."  In those same notes, the two bullets allegedly taken from Diane's apartment are labeled: "E-14A one extractor mark (no location) E-14B  one well defined extractor mark - - one fairly well defined ejector mark - close to extractor mark (no location)."

E3, E4A, E4B, E5, E6A, and E6B all have to match because they are empty casings that were found on the road or inside the car and all came from the same weapon.

If you look at Mr. Murdock's comparisons above, you will see that E3 and E5 don't match.  They have to match.  They were both found in the car.  E14A and E14B must also match because they were from the rifle.  Now let's switch E14B with E3 and see what happens:

E14B     E4A     E4B     E5     E6A     E6B                        E14A     E3
E5         E3         E3       E3      E3       E3                           E14B     E14B
No        Yes       Yes     Yes    Yes     Yes                         Yes        No
 

Makes a little more sense doesn't it? There is definitely a problem with Mr. Murdock's comparisons.  However if you look further, you will find that Mr. Murdock didn't work alone.  If these were blunders, there were at least two people making the mistakes or one person making deliberate mistakes and not telling the other.  NO comparisons were made between the lead cartridges, E14A and E14B and distinctive markings made by the rifle itself. Making the comparison in this way, the ballistics from the car and the road do not match the ballistics of Diane's rifle.

E3 and E5 must match, they are from the same weapon, and the marks they carry are deep enough to compare. They don't. E 14A and E14B must match, they are from the same weapon. They don't. E3 and E14A (E14B) carry marks the rest don't have, "Unique marks"! This comes directly from Murdock's report, "A reason has caused me to reconsider the ID, (between E3 and E14B) it seems to fall apart at 4 times the object. I told Jim Pex that this possible association could be studied further...". (June 28, 1983)  "No photo. No time." A day earlier, "On E14B, no extractor mark deep in the rim and not able to identify extractor mark present with E3." Yet a day later, every single comparison was made with E14B. What happened in the Lab overnight that caused this man to change his mind? Was there a double switch? E14A becomes E14B and vice-versa, then  E14B becomes E3.

In court, Mr. Murdock testified: "I made a rather detailed series of notes." (Transcript page 1348, lines 16-17).  For this reason I find it easier and more dependable referring to the notes he took at the time of the examination of the casings and cartridges, rather than to his memory of two months or even a year later.

Mr. Murdock swore under oath, "Exhibit No. 14 does contain two cartridges with plain lead bullets, and I did examine those, Yes, these appear to be items 14-A and B." (Transcript pages 1347-1348). The problem with that memory is that on page 933 of Mr. Murdock s detailed written report, he noted that one of the lead cartridges was taken apart to retrieve the gun powder inside for tests. There is no possible way E14B could be in cartridge form one year later for Mr. Murdock to identify. One of those cartridges should be a casing.

Again, Mr. Murdock swore, "And I found extractor marks on these two unfired cartridges which were found to agree with the extractor marks on the six cartridge cases that I've just described, and the agreement was sufficient to allow me to conclude that the same extractor made the mark on all six cartridge cases and the two unfired cartridges from the tubular magazine of the rifle." (Transcript Page 1350, lines 11-17) There are two VERY serious problems with that statement. First, as you just read, E14B did not match E3, E3 did not match E6B and E3 did not match E5 with respect to extractor marks. (Mr. Murdock's notes, page 948) How could Mr. Murdock swear before the jury that every extractor mark on every cartridge and casing matched all the others?  They didn't.  "Tell me what you want and I'll get it for you."
 

Go to:  Murdock Testimony page 1347.PDF 

Notice on line 11 and 12 that he said: "I did examine those, if indeed they are 14-A and B".    Now what is his answer???     Murdock Testimony page 1348.PDF 

   

John Murdock says: 

His answer to the earlier question was: "Exhibit No. 14 does contain two cartridges with plain lead bullets because one had been taken apart."  That creates a problem.

And the problem is: There could not have been two cartridges in that box because the bullet and powder had been taken out of one of the cartridges.  Read a little further, you will find that (14 A) had been taken apart to get gun powder.  Guess what!  The gun powder didn't match and the bullet was no longer intact.  They wouldn't let something as vital as that get by them, but they might try a little snow job because no one will ever expect it.

Take a look:

 

 

On June 27, 1983, a month after the shootings, John Murdock, Director of the Contra Costa County Laboratory in the Sheriff's Department in Martinez, California began his comparison of the ballistic evidence. He started by evaluating each piece of evidence, bullet, casing, or cartridge.  (The bullet is the projectile, the casing is the empty cartridge, and the cartridge is the bullet and casing totally intact with the gunpowder inside.)   Mr. Murdock would then establish the validity of each piece.  This, according to his notes, involved noting the degree or depths of each tool mark in regard to actually being able to make literal comparisons with other such evidence.  He lists each identifying number, such as E3, E4A, etc., with the corresponding tool marks as, one extractor mark at 3 o'clock and the ejector mark at  7-8 o'clock.  All casings from the shooting site (the road and the car) were exactly the same, extractor mark 3 o'clock, ejector mark 7-8 o'clock. 

The cartridges allegedly taken from Diane's rifle are listed in a glaringly different manner.  E14A is noted to have one extractor mark and no clear ejector mark and E14B is listed as well defined extractor mark and one fairly well defined ejector mark, "close to the extractor mark," The description changes. .  It's not 3 o'clock and 7-8 o'clock, but now it's "close to extractor."   It's double talk.  They don't match!!!

 I called John Murdock at his home in California to point out the above discrepancies.  The first question he asked me, was how did I find.  When I mentioned the discrepancies, he told me he would no longer talk to me without his attorney present.  That sent a red flag up, waving wildlyWe have a big problem hereWhy would John Murdock need an attorney present if he had told the truth?  To get an education in ballistics,  go to: BALLISTICS

 

 Go to:  MURDER WEAPON

Return to:  HOME PAGE