What kind of handgun did the gunman used to kill the United Healthcare CEO?

[44 AMP]

The shooter could have "fooled" the forensics ...

You can't "fool" forensics, but you can fool with forensics, and the reverse is also true.

One of my favorite "courtroom" movies is MY COUSIN VINNEY. Now, of course its a scripted comedy, but it illustrates some important principles, about evidence, and testimony.

Regarding the matter of the gun found on the suspect when arrested, the press has reported that "the police" have stated that the gun "matched" the fired cases found on the scene, and it therefore, most likely the murder weapon.

But there are matches and then there are matches, and until there is actually lab test results and expert testimony entered into evidence in court, we don't know which is which, and even then there is the possibility of doubt.

Some points to consider...
Some would consider the gun to be a match because the caliber matches the fired cases (9mm)
Some will consider it a match if marks on test fired cases match markings on the cases found at the scene. But what marks??? and how close to they have to be, in order to be considered a match?

Has the gun been test fired? CAN it even BE test fired, safely??

And even more importantly, what will the lab report and expert testimony say, exactly?? Will they state as fact that the cases found at the scene were fired from the gun found on the suspect?

OR will they say that the cases found on the scene are consistent with cases test fired from the defendant's gun??

And what will the jury "hear" and believe????

In MY COUSIN VINNEY, much is made about samples of rubber from tire marks made by the killer's car are "identical" to samples of rubber taken from the accused's car tires.

This point is stressed by the prosecutor, to convince the jury that the accused are the killers.

However, on cross eamination of the expert witness, it is brought out that the tires on the accused's car are one of the most popular brand and size sold, and made by the same company as the tires that left the marks tested.

SO, it is possible, to testify, in good faith" and still give an inaccurate impression to the jury.

This is one of the reasons why the lab experts are actually trained to say "is consistent with", and almost never say "this case was fired from this gun" unless they actually fired it themselves.

To be accurate in matching a case to a specific gun, there has to be something unique about the fired case that ties it directly to, and ONLY to the gun in evidence. ALSO, there has to be an "air tight" paper trail chain of custody, from the time the gun is seized, on.

The smart criminal will dispose of the gun. The really smart criminal will do something to alter the gun before disposing of it, so even if/when recovered it won't be a perfect match to fired cases (or bullets) from the crime scene.

Not saying anything like that is, or has happened here, just offering some potential things to consider, based on the LIMITED information we have at this time.

Just saying that while the press is saying the cops say it is the crime gun, (and it probably is) it is possible they are wrong, and that might become recognized in court. We won't know until/unless it happens.

[stagpanther]

Now that you mention it, the perp is a yute.

[44 AMP]

"a what??"


I thought he was 26....

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by 44 AMP
You can't "fool" forensics, but you can fool with forensics, and the reverse is also true.

That's why I put the word "fool" in quotation marks. What I was trying to convey is that the shooter likely thought he could avoid capture by not having a pistol that was "registered" to him or otherwise had a paper trail leading back to him so that the police would be less likely to find a gun with which they could compare the ballistics of recovered bullets and shell casings left at the scene. The point that I was trying to make is that this could have just as effectively been accomplished by simply changing parts like the barrel, extractor, ejector, and firing pin in a factory-produced pistol as it is my understanding that those parts leave marks on fired bullet and spent shell casing that can be compared to determine if a recovered bullet or shell casing has fired from a given gun. In retrospect, replacing parts on a factory-made gun might've actually been more effective as he was apparently foolish enough to hang on to the murder weapon.

Now, admittedly I am not a forensics expert nor am I in the habit of trying to "fool" or "fool with" forensics in an attempt to get away with murder, so maybe things are not as I understand them to be. That being said, I've also been told that the ability of forensics to determine if a particular bullet or particular shell casing was fired from a particular gun is vastly overstated by Hollywood. I don't know how accurate it is, but I was once told that firing as little as 50 rounds through a given firearm will change the markings left on the bullet/casings enough that a round fired beforehand will not longer be able to be forensically matched to the gun.

[44 AMP]

You are, essentially correct, however best to go ahead and also replace the slide and the ejector, as, in some guns they will leave marks, as well.

I would point out, however, that in order for an exact match, there has to be something unique about the marks to tie the case to a specific gun.

Both my Browning BDA 45s (Sig P220s) have the "teardrop" shaped firing pin strike on the primers. This is because the barrel starts tilting down before the firing pin is full retracted, and so it leaves a specific mark on the primer. But ALL my Sigs do that, so while a quick visual clears shows that the round was fired from a Sig, WHICH Sig pistol isn't obvious.

And while microscopic exam could show individual differences, it has to be something only one gun does, or you get a "false positive", and yes, you are correct, firing enough more rounds will change the marks slightly (and this also includes the rifling). This is why the experts almost always testify "is consistent with" and do not testify that the round WAS fired from the test gun.

This is rarely an issue with crime guns, since its a pretty rare happenstance that they get fired a lot between the crime and their recovery.

Over the years I've heard a lot of talk by people who think they know more than they do, about how, "if I were going to kill someone, I'd use a shotgun, they can't trace shotgun pellets"...etc...

When I hear this, I smile, and inform them that using a shotgun actually makes the prosecution's job easier.

Means, Motive, and Opportunity...

Means is the weapon used. With a rifle or pistol, the prosecution has to prove that your gun was the murder weapon, via ballistic tests (marking on the case, the bullet, etc) and your defense has the chance to prove the prosecution wrong (if they are).

When you use a shotgun, all the prosecution has to prove is that you had a shotgun, which is much easier than proving that it was YOUR shotgun that was the murder weapon.

Likewise, convictions have been obtained without the prosecution ever having recovered the weapon used. In the end, it all boils down to what the jury gets convinced of, which may not be the actual truth, sometimes.

Getting back to the CEO killer, even if he had changed out all the parts that could make marks on the cases, he would still be in jail today, facing felony counts for the false IDs and for having a pistol with no serial number, and of course an unregistered silencer...

The only defense against the charge for having a pistol with no serial number is that it is A) one of the grandfathered pre-1968 guns (obviously NOT the case here) or B) that he made the gun himself, for himself, and Fed law does not require a serial number if that is the case. PA law, might be different.

[JohnKSa]

Keeping pistol, silencer, and fake ID was really dumb.

I suspect he wasn't done yet and needed them for his next hit.

[Jim Watson]

Probably, but We Expert Spooks know to get fresh gear for our next Operation. Or at least stash the stuff until needed. Dumb.

[wild cat mccane]

I mean, there is no conspiracy here folks.

https://gun.deals/product/bt-usa-sta...omment-1240491

KYGunCo wasn't selling it before. The insurance companies are usually the forefront of stopping any advancement in making healthcare better in the US.

[JohnKSa]

The gun used was not a Station 6.