Ballistics? Pfft... The Eastman Inquiry

Masquara said :

Testfest said :

@Tooks

“no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer”

Apart from the obvious one you mean?

The ACT police chief had just been murdered. The pressure on the cops to make an arrest, and to make it fast would have been truly immense.

Is it really so difficult to conclude that under these circumstances the detectives would have latched onto the first viable candidate, even if he was innocent? Once they had charged Eastman with the murder, they could hardly drop the charges without looking like complete incompetents so would be forced to maintain the stance that they have got their man.

Note – I don’t actually think this is what happened, I am just playing devil’s advocate and offering a reason why they would pin it on someone else other than the real killer… and so a conspiracy is born.

The cops knew exactly who was responsible. They just weren’t going to go there. Too many fingers in the local “industry” pie.

bingo

bundah said :

Some of you with an open mind may like to peruse the following and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/sentence/view/1233/title/r-v-eastman

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/the-man-convicted-of-murdering-top-cop-colin-winchester-could-be-freed-amid-claims-the-mafia-were-behind-the-assassination/story-fni0ffnk-1226757601749

The judicial inquiry should be completed by May/June so there will be many, looking forward to the outcome with great interest.

Great.

Eastman, made even crankier by being unjustly locked up for 20 years, returns to Canberra’s streets.

Hopefully he’ll stick to persecuting lawyers.

troll-sniffer said :

Yep that’s right Tooks, you are the only person in town who truly understands the case, everyone else is either ignorant, wrong, misguided or a fool.

Tooks is in denial.

Like people who assume innocence when a member of their favourite footy team gets involved in a brawl – some people will never ever believe the evidence if it contradicts their faith.

Tooks said :

More conspiracy nonsense. Eastman threatened to kill him and on the day he found out assault charges against him weren’t getting dropped; he went through with his threat.

The mafia that considered Winchester to have ripped them off *also* promised to kill him. On the very evening Winchester was murdered two young Ndrangheta employees who had arrived in Australia a couple of weeks previously happened to pass through Canberra, driving back up to Sydney and flying out within hours.

Is that proof they did it? If we all suffered from Tooks’ absurd understanding of Justice, it would be ample proof.

But let’s see – who’s the more credible threat: disgruntled pube or organised crime gang?
Who has a history of killing people? Eastman? who threatened just about everybody he ever came in contact with, none of whom ended up dead, or an Italian mafia gang, known to have murdered hundreds of people including members of the judiciary and cops?

So, why would the guy who was running the Winchester investigation go to so much trouble to completely ignore any other investigation than the convenient nutter angle?

You’re living in a pathetic fantasy-world of denial, Tooks. Even if Eastman *did* do it, the AFP investigation was corrupt and incompetent and their fitting-up of Eastman was dishonest and utterly unprofessional.

It is now accepted fact that the ballistics “evidence” was a load of utter rubbish, produced by a serial producer of paid-for prosecutorial disinformation.

What’s left?

Are we going to talk about the person who provided a statement – 3 years after the fact – to the effect that he suddenly recalled seeing Eastman in a particular street, on a particular day, thus lending weight to the AFP’s insistence that Eastman bought the Ruger, this despite the Ruger’s seller denying that the buyer looked anything like Eastman?
Who gave this statement? Could he possibly have had a social connection with anybody connected with the police investigation? I wonder?

bundah said :

Tooks said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Tooks said :

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

So, who ran the investigation, Tooks?
Why would he want a convenient nutter pinged for it rather than a proper investigation into the AFPs’ dealings with organised crime?
Is your question answered, or do you not know much about him?

And they sure picked the right nutter – very, very angry and unstable, alienates everyone who comes within his orbit, loses all sympathy – but I absolutely don’t think he would have been capable of a killing that involved this much planning, resourcing and expertise. I believe Eastman is innocent. And soon we will all have to dig very deep to help pay his compensation. Thanks, AFP !

Another person parroting crap they heard elsewhere. Eastman – who is indisputably an extremely intelligent person – wasn’t capable of looking up an address on the electoral roll, sourcing a firearm, then running up like a coward and shooting him? Ummm, okay.

Exactly, it’s not rocket science. It’s close to 21:00 hours and dark, you know that Winchester will be arriving home soon so you wait, hidden away in the bushes. Winchester arrives and just as he’s opening the door to get out you pounce firing two shots both striking him in the head. You then run off jump in your car and make a getaway. Eastman was more than capable of committing the crime, no professionalism required,

How did the murderer know the victim “would be arriving home soon”?
The police appear not to have investigated a lot of “bad blood” between the victim and his extended family. It is more likely the victim was followed home from Queanbeyan and then shot. It is likely more than one person was involved.

Tooks said :

troll-sniffer said :

Tooks said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

Ummm I’ve got commonsense in bucketloads and I’ve studied the transcripts and I have always held the view that it was extremely unlikely that Eastman ever did the crime. So, your broad generalisation is nothing more than empty words sunshine.

I would venture further to say in the same generalising vein, that anyone who knows anything about methods, motives and behaviours of individuals would categorically think that the chances of a lone public servant like David Eastman shooting Winchester in the way it was done are next to zero, especially when you take the alternative far more credible options that relate to the murky worlds that Winchester had entered. But that’s OK sunshine, I’m sure each time DNA evidence frees another framed prisoner in the US you probably shake your head and deny the likelihood that juries and the prosecuting behemoth could ever get it wrong either.

I stopped reading as soon as you started the condescending ‘sunshine’ crap. You haven’t studied the transcripts, you have no idea about the case, and you don’t deserve any further response. Sunshine.

Yep that’s right Tooks, you are the only person in town who truly understands the case, everyone else is either ignorant, wrong, misguided or a fool. Not sure which category you’ve placed me in but I wear my newly discovered mortality with pride, while you continue to consort with the gods and look down upon we mere mortals with the disdain we deserve.

Some of you with an open mind may like to peruse the following and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/sentence/view/1233/title/r-v-eastman

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/the-man-convicted-of-murdering-top-cop-colin-winchester-could-be-freed-amid-claims-the-mafia-were-behind-the-assassination/story-fni0ffnk-1226757601749

The judicial inquiry should be completed by May/June so there will be many, looking forward to the outcome with great interest.

Tooks said :

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Tooks said :

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

So, who ran the investigation, Tooks?
Why would he want a convenient nutter pinged for it rather than a proper investigation into the AFPs’ dealings with organised crime?
Is your question answered, or do you not know much about him?

And they sure picked the right nutter – very, very angry and unstable, alienates everyone who comes within his orbit, loses all sympathy – but I absolutely don’t think he would have been capable of a killing that involved this much planning, resourcing and expertise. I believe Eastman is innocent. And soon we will all have to dig very deep to help pay his compensation. Thanks, AFP !

Another person parroting crap they heard elsewhere. Eastman – who is indisputably an extremely intelligent person – wasn’t capable of looking up an address on the electoral roll, sourcing a firearm, then running up like a coward and shooting him? Ummm, okay.

Exactly, it’s not rocket science. It’s close to 21:00 hours and dark, you know that Winchester will be arriving home soon so you wait, hidden away in the bushes. Winchester arrives and just as he’s opening the door to get out you pounce firing two shots both striking him in the head. You then run off jump in your car and make a getaway. Eastman was more than capable of committing the crime, no professionalism required,

Tooks said :

Nylex Clock:

What evidence?
There wasn’t any.

I almost stopped replying after this. If you haven’t even done the most basic research into this case, then it’s hardly worth continuing. However, being the glutton for punishment that I am, I’ll keep going. No evidence? LOL. That is moronic, to say the least. Thankfully, you weren’t on the jury.

The only direct evidence to ever appear in this case was when the seller of the supposed murder weapon stated that its buyer looked nothing like David Eastman.

Again, another nonsensical comment showing you haven’t studied this case AT ALL. I can now tell that you are just parroting conspiracy theories that you’ve read/heard.

The AFP got a bee in their bonnet about one particular individual and they failed to investigate the crime. Instead, they put their resources into manufacturing a case that turned out to not exist.

More conspiracy nonsense. Eastman threatened to kill him and on the day he found out assault charges against him weren’t getting dropped; he went through with his threat.

Eastman was never pinned at the scene or with the weapon.

Neither was Ivan Milat or pretty much every serial killer in this country. Perhaps they’re all innocent too.

This is why the AFP hired a head-doctor to advise them on how to push Eastman over the edge so he would act like a lunatic and turn off the jury.

Every murder investigation would have a ‘head doctor’ advising on how best to deal with a suspect. The rest of your comment is just conjecture. Based on absolutely nothing.

It’s also why Eastman was out on bail for so long – the case against him was so weak they couldn’t even justify locking him up.

Go and read the bail act. Many alleged murderers are on bail for long periods of time. Have a look at recent cases (Massey and Yuen come to mind immediately – both extremely strong cases, one of which resulting in a guilty plea). Got nothing to do with a weak case. Again, you’re showing your ignorance of the law.

Stating “Eastman did it” is not the issue here and smacks of ignorance and a basic disregard for the purpose of our legal system.

But saying “Eastman didn’t do it” (which is what you were clearly implying) doesn’t smack of ignorance and a basic disregard for the purpose of our legal system?

Was it proven he did it?

Yes, it was. Beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the required burden of proof in our country) by a jury instructed by a judge. At this point in time, none of the evidence has been discredited..

Who had their chance? The nutter who was incapable of providing a defence?

What, pretending he was nuts to try to get acquitted? Backfired on him, didn’t it?

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

No, of course not – the Guildford 4 never happened, the Birmingham 6 never happened, and nobody has ever been fitted up by the police out of laziness, corruption, incompetence or malice. Never ever ever.

They all happened in Canberra did they? Predictably, you ignored my comment and went on a ridiculous rant about foreign cases, as if they have any relevance whatsoever.

In conclusion, you’ve offered nothing but even more idiotic conspiracy nonsense. When this inquiry comes to nothing for this Eastman maggot, I’m sure it won’t change your mind, so it’s not even worth discussing with you – or any other like minded people on this site – further.

I will pop in once the inquiry is over to say nyah nyah, I told you so. See you then.

I don’t see the point of having a dig at British cases where the accused were framed. Isn’t the British way of doing things where our system of law and investigative procedures have evolved from!

bundah said :

astrojax said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

it’d be a little quieter..?

I’m tempted to make Winchester puns but that would be in poor taste…

No, please do!

Nylex Clock:

What evidence?
There wasn’t any.

I almost stopped replying after this. If you haven’t even done the most basic research into this case, then it’s hardly worth continuing. However, being the glutton for punishment that I am, I’ll keep going. No evidence? LOL. That is moronic, to say the least. Thankfully, you weren’t on the jury.

The only direct evidence to ever appear in this case was when the seller of the supposed murder weapon stated that its buyer looked nothing like David Eastman.

Again, another nonsensical comment showing you haven’t studied this case AT ALL. I can now tell that you are just parroting conspiracy theories that you’ve read/heard.

The AFP got a bee in their bonnet about one particular individual and they failed to investigate the crime. Instead, they put their resources into manufacturing a case that turned out to not exist.

More conspiracy nonsense. Eastman threatened to kill him and on the day he found out assault charges against him weren’t getting dropped; he went through with his threat.

Eastman was never pinned at the scene or with the weapon.

Neither was Ivan Milat or pretty much every serial killer in this country. Perhaps they’re all innocent too.

This is why the AFP hired a head-doctor to advise them on how to push Eastman over the edge so he would act like a lunatic and turn off the jury.

Every murder investigation would have a ‘head doctor’ advising on how best to deal with a suspect. The rest of your comment is just conjecture. Based on absolutely nothing.

It’s also why Eastman was out on bail for so long – the case against him was so weak they couldn’t even justify locking him up.

Go and read the bail act. Many alleged murderers are on bail for long periods of time. Have a look at recent cases (Massey and Yuen come to mind immediately – both extremely strong cases, one of which resulting in a guilty plea). Got nothing to do with a weak case. Again, you’re showing your ignorance of the law.

Stating “Eastman did it” is not the issue here and smacks of ignorance and a basic disregard for the purpose of our legal system.

But saying “Eastman didn’t do it” (which is what you were clearly implying) doesn’t smack of ignorance and a basic disregard for the purpose of our legal system?

Was it proven he did it?

Yes, it was. Beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the required burden of proof in our country) by a jury instructed by a judge. At this point in time, none of the evidence has been discredited..

Who had their chance? The nutter who was incapable of providing a defence?

What, pretending he was nuts to try to get acquitted? Backfired on him, didn’t it?

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

No, of course not – the Guildford 4 never happened, the Birmingham 6 never happened, and nobody has ever been fitted up by the police out of laziness, corruption, incompetence or malice. Never ever ever.

They all happened in Canberra did they? Predictably, you ignored my comment and went on a ridiculous rant about foreign cases, as if they have any relevance whatsoever.

In conclusion, you’ve offered nothing but even more idiotic conspiracy nonsense. When this inquiry comes to nothing for this Eastman maggot, I’m sure it won’t change your mind, so it’s not even worth discussing with you – or any other like minded people on this site – further.

I will pop in once the inquiry is over to say nyah nyah, I told you so. See you then.

Masquara said :

CraigT said :

Tooks said :

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

So, who ran the investigation, Tooks?
Why would he want a convenient nutter pinged for it rather than a proper investigation into the AFPs’ dealings with organised crime?
Is your question answered, or do you not know much about him?

And they sure picked the right nutter – very, very angry and unstable, alienates everyone who comes within his orbit, loses all sympathy – but I absolutely don’t think he would have been capable of a killing that involved this much planning, resourcing and expertise. I believe Eastman is innocent. And soon we will all have to dig very deep to help pay his compensation. Thanks, AFP !

Another person parroting crap they heard elsewhere. Eastman – who is indisputably an extremely intelligent person – wasn’t capable of looking up an address on the electoral roll, sourcing a firearm, then running up like a coward and shooting him? Ummm, okay.

troll-sniffer said :

Tooks said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

Ummm I’ve got commonsense in bucketloads and I’ve studied the transcripts and I have always held the view that it was extremely unlikely that Eastman ever did the crime. So, your broad generalisation is nothing more than empty words sunshine.

I would venture further to say in the same generalising vein, that anyone who knows anything about methods, motives and behaviours of individuals would categorically think that the chances of a lone public servant like David Eastman shooting Winchester in the way it was done are next to zero, especially when you take the alternative far more credible options that relate to the murky worlds that Winchester had entered. But that’s OK sunshine, I’m sure each time DNA evidence frees another framed prisoner in the US you probably shake your head and deny the likelihood that juries and the prosecuting behemoth could ever get it wrong either.

I stopped reading as soon as you started the condescending ‘sunshine’ crap. You haven’t studied the transcripts, you have no idea about the case, and you don’t deserve any further response. Sunshine.

Testfest said :

@Tooks

“no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer”

Apart from the obvious one you mean?

The ACT police chief had just been murdered. The pressure on the cops to make an arrest, and to make it fast would have been truly immense.

Is it really so difficult to conclude that under these circumstances the detectives would have latched onto the first viable candidate, even if he was innocent? Once they had charged Eastman with the murder, they could hardly drop the charges without looking like complete incompetents so would be forced to maintain the stance that they have got their man.

Note – I don’t actually think this is what happened, I am just playing devil’s advocate and offering a reason why they would pin it on someone else other than the real killer… and so a conspiracy is born.

The cops knew exactly who was responsible. They just weren’t going to go there. Too many fingers in the local “industry” pie.

CraigT said :

Tooks said :

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

So, who ran the investigation, Tooks?
Why would he want a convenient nutter pinged for it rather than a proper investigation into the AFPs’ dealings with organised crime?
Is your question answered, or do you not know much about him?

And they sure picked the right nutter – very, very angry and unstable, alienates everyone who comes within his orbit, loses all sympathy – but I absolutely don’t think he would have been capable of a killing that involved this much planning, resourcing and expertise. I believe Eastman is innocent. And soon we will all have to dig very deep to help pay his compensation. Thanks, AFP !

Tooks said :

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

So, who ran the investigation, Tooks?
Why would he want a convenient nutter pinged for it rather than a proper investigation into the AFPs’ dealings with organised crime?
Is your question answered, or do you not know much about him?

RadioVK said :

Guilty or not, it’s looking like his conviction was based on evidence that was either circumstantial, incorrect, or just plain made up.

No sh1t.

“Mr Barnes had been dismissed for scientific misconduct by the VFSC in 1993 after serious concerns were raised about evidence he had given in a number of cases, and after an internal review of his cases had shown a persistent failure to follow established procedures for examining and recording evidence.

…The files show increasing judicial concerns about the evidence given by Mr Barnes in various Victorian cases and inquests, including accusations of misleading courts, lying and being evasive, defensive and defiant in cross-examination. In one case he was accused of ”setting out to prove [an accused woman] had fired the shots, and lied and misled to achieve that aim and protect himself from criticism for having done so”. He was also accused of doctoring a photograph to omit, from material tendered in court, particular identification marks that would not have assisted the prosecution case.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/crucial-evidence-used-in-eastman-trial-came-from-expert-sacked-in-victoria-20121106-28wod.html#ixzz2sfdrYgeX
“

troll-sniffer said :

Ummm I’ve got commonsense in bucketloads and I’ve studied the transcripts and I have always held the view that it was extremely unlikely that Eastman ever did the crime. So, your broad generalisation is nothing more than empty words sunshine.

I always had an open mind about Eastman’s involvement but a 100% certainty that the AFP have acted corruptly in trying to pin it on him.
This sawn-off scenario brings the obvious alternative to mind.

RadioVK said :

Guilty or not, it’s looking like his conviction was based on evidence that was either circumstantial, incorrect, or just plain made up.

Just like Lindy Chamberlain: a crowd of forensic “experts” lined up to share their mistaken opinions, paid-for by the prosecution that was concocting the case.

Tooks said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

Think of what people like Andrew Mallard, Chris von Deutschburg, and others that have recently come to light. It is a trend globally to review appeals laws. SA is leading the way here.

Tooks said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

I feel sorry for the victims. I can only go on what I have read. Being a ‘nutter’ is no substitute for evidence. Why did it take so long to lay a murder charge on him? If it was so clear cut, and he was identified very early on, 4 years to mount a case seems more contrived than it does anything else. Im not saying he’s innocent. But with the new evidence coming to light, a review is only fair.

Tooks said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

Guilty or not, it’s looking like his conviction was based on evidence that was either circumstantial, incorrect, or just plain made up.

This being the case, there should be no question of his conviction being overturned, and if it is, the AFP has only itself to blame.

I don’t personally believe he was responsible, but even if I did, it wouldn’t change my opinion that the conviction was unsafe, and should be overturned.

Tooks said :

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

Ummm I’ve got commonsense in bucketloads and I’ve studied the transcripts and I have always held the view that it was extremely unlikely that Eastman ever did the crime. So, your broad generalisation is nothing more than empty words sunshine.

I would venture further to say in the same generalising vein, that anyone who knows anything about methods, motives and behaviours of individuals would categorically think that the chances of a lone public servant like David Eastman shooting Winchester in the way it was done are next to zero, especially when you take the alternative far more credible options that relate to the murky worlds that Winchester had entered. But that’s OK sunshine, I’m sure each time DNA evidence frees another framed prisoner in the US you probably shake your head and deny the likelihood that juries and the prosecuting behemoth could ever get it wrong either.

@Tooks

“no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer”

Apart from the obvious one you mean?

The ACT police chief had just been murdered. The pressure on the cops to make an arrest, and to make it fast would have been truly immense.

Is it really so difficult to conclude that under these circumstances the detectives would have latched onto the first viable candidate, even if he was innocent? Once they had charged Eastman with the murder, they could hardly drop the charges without looking like complete incompetents so would be forced to maintain the stance that they have got their man.

Note – I don’t actually think this is what happened, I am just playing devil’s advocate and offering a reason why they would pin it on someone else other than the real killer… and so a conspiracy is born.

Tooks said :

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest..

What evidence?

There wasn’t any.
The only direct evidence to ever appear in this case was when the seller of the supposed murder weapon stated that its buyer looked nothing like David Eastman.
The AFP got a bee in their bonnet about one particular individual and they failed to investigate the crime. Instead, they put their resources into manufacturing a case that turned out to not exist.
Eastman was never pinned at the scene or with the weapon.
This is why the AFP hired a head-doctor to advise them on how to push Eastman over the edge so he would act like a lunatic and turn off the jury.
It’s also why Eastman was out on bail for so long – the case against him was so weak they couldn’t even justify locking him up.

Stating “Eastman did it” is not the issue here and smacks of ignorance and a basic disregard for the purpose of our legal system.
Was it proven he did it?

Tooks said :

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. .

Who had their chance? The nutter who was incapable of providing a defence?

History is replete with miscarriages of justice. The fact an individual loses a case is no argument against the fact such a miscarriage might exist.

Tooks said :

(no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

No, of course not – the Guildford 4 never happened, the Birmingham 6 never happened, and nobody has ever been fitted up by the police out of laziness, corruption, incompetence or malice. Never ever ever.

A_Cog said :

Still not getting it.

Can someone please explain the importance of this development IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE ENGLISH???

As I understand it – and others may disagree – that the ballistics testimony was a crucial basis of evidence for the conviction of Eastman.

That evidence, it seems, was bullsh!t.

So, this may be one step closer to revealing whether Eastman dunnit or not. But, the inquiry needs to run its course-of-course.

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Eastman did do it. Anyone who has a modicum of common sense and who actually studied the evidence in a bit of detail will come to the same conclusion. This joke of an inquiry will come to nothing and hopefully put all the conspiracy nuts to rest.

As far as defence trying to discredit expert evidence, that happens in every major trial. They had their chance and they blew it. This topic has well and truly been done to death. No conspiracy involved, just a well known nutter who threatened to kill Winchester and made good on that threat (no conspiracy nut has ever offered a sensible solution as to why police would want to pin it on someone else rather than the real killer).

I feel sorry for the family of the victim who have to go through this shit year after year.

Still not getting it.

Can someone please explain the importance of this development IN PLAIN AND SIMPLE ENGLISH???

Diggety said :

LSWCHP said :

There’s no way that a person 120 to 140 yards from the gun would hear a suppressed .22, assuming the use of subsonic ammunition which is the only sensible ammo to use with a suppressor. Even without a suppressor, .22 subsonics from a normal length barrel aren’t much louder than a very loud handclap, but the intensity of the report increases as the barrel is shortened. If someone heard the shots from that distance then the “no suppressor, short barrel” case is the only one that makes any sense to me, so I’m with Dr Wallace.

So, wasn’t this submitted testimony a key component of Eastman’s guilt?

I think ensuring Eastman behaved like a maniac was the key component of prosecution efforts to get the jury to decide on his “guilt”.

LSWCHP said :

There’s no way that a person 120 to 140 yards from the gun would hear a suppressed .22, assuming the use of subsonic ammunition which is the only sensible ammo to use with a suppressor. Even without a suppressor, .22 subsonics from a normal length barrel aren’t much louder than a very loud handclap, but the intensity of the report increases as the barrel is shortened. If someone heard the shots from that distance then the “no suppressor, short barrel” case is the only one that makes any sense to me, so I’m with Dr Wallace.

So, wasn’t this submitted testimony a key component of Eastman’s guilt?

I remember reading of Mr Barnes being discredited in his home state, Victoria. Something about his tendency to testify what the prosecution wanted.

I really hope the Federals end up paying for this mess, if it ends up being some sort of criminal conspiracy. Why should the ACT taxpayers pay for internal AFP games.

Diggety said :

Addendum:

Transcripts reveal Dr Wallace has contradicted Mr Barnes reports saying the evidence shows no silencer was used, and the weapon was most likely a sawn-off gun.

“If you assumed that a person between 120 and 140 metres away heard what he recognised as two shots, but at that distance, if the projectile had not become supersonic, does that suggest to you that there is unlikely to have been the use of a silencer?” asked Eastman’s lawyer Mark Griffin.

“It would be extremely unlikely, yes,” Dr Wallace said.

“If a person in the next house to the driveway of Mr Winchester’s car heard two sounds… like the sound of stones or pebbles being thrown on the roof or against the windows, would hearing such sounds inside a house within 20 to 30 metres of the shots be consistent or inconsistent with the use of a silencer?” asked Mr Griffin.

“It would be inconsistent,” Dr Wallace said.

Mr Griffin then asked Dr Wallace “Is it your view that the number of particles recovered from inside the car is more likely to have resulted from the use of a shortened rifle barrel than the use of a normal length… rifle barrel?”

“Yes, I cannot be 100 per cent certain of this but, yes, that would be my theory,” Dr Wallace said. [ABC News]

Apologies, I should have included that in the original article.

There’s no way that a person 120 to 140 yards from the gun would hear a suppressed .22, assuming the use of subsonic ammunition which is the only sensible ammo to use with a suppressor. Even without a suppressor, .22 subsonics from a normal length barrel aren’t much louder than a very loud handclap, but the intensity of the report increases as the barrel is shortened. If someone heard the shots from that distance then the “no suppressor, short barrel” case is the only one that makes any sense to me, so I’m with Dr Wallace.

Addendum:

Transcripts reveal Dr Wallace has contradicted Mr Barnes reports saying the evidence shows no silencer was used, and the weapon was most likely a sawn-off gun.

“If you assumed that a person between 120 and 140 metres away heard what he recognised as two shots, but at that distance, if the projectile had not become supersonic, does that suggest to you that there is unlikely to have been the use of a silencer?” asked Eastman’s lawyer Mark Griffin.

“It would be extremely unlikely, yes,” Dr Wallace said.

“If a person in the next house to the driveway of Mr Winchester’s car heard two sounds… like the sound of stones or pebbles being thrown on the roof or against the windows, would hearing such sounds inside a house within 20 to 30 metres of the shots be consistent or inconsistent with the use of a silencer?” asked Mr Griffin.

“It would be inconsistent,” Dr Wallace said.

Mr Griffin then asked Dr Wallace “Is it your view that the number of particles recovered from inside the car is more likely to have resulted from the use of a shortened rifle barrel than the use of a normal length… rifle barrel?”

“Yes, I cannot be 100 per cent certain of this but, yes, that would be my theory,” Dr Wallace said. [ABC News]

Apologies, I should have included that in the original article.

Nylex_Clock said :

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

Perhaps the silencer story came form the type of sound described by the witness who heard the shot. My understanding is that a 22lr rifle was used; a 22 does not make the load crack of a higher powered centrefire rifle and may have just made a “pop”, especially if subsonic ammo was used.

Antagonist said :

If the evidence I gave as an ‘expert’ was completely wrong or being contradicted by another ‘expert’, ….

…then you would want to compare the relative credibility of the two “experts”.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/crucial-evidence-used-in-eastman-trial-came-from-expert-sacked-in-victoria-20121106-28wod.html

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/forensic-expert-contradicts-key-evidence-used-in-case-against-david-eastman-20140203-31wlv.html

astrojax said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

it’d be a little quieter..?

I’m tempted to make Winchester puns but that would be in poor taste…

Grimm said :

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

I think the police had to write off the purported gunshots heard by a witness as this didn’t fit in with their version of events, hence the need to assert a silencer was used.
Not as dodgy as the “witness” who saw Eastman “buying the rifle”, but all part of the general dodginess of the “Eastman did it” scenario.

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

it’d be a little quieter..?

bundah said :

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

No.
If the projectile is marked by the suppressor, that means it is coming into contact with the baffles. That would be a pretty serious problem, generally resulting in the suppressor flying off or coming apart and becoming a projectile of its own. The projectile also exits ahead of any gasses captured by the suppressor, so that wouldn’t even leave any markings.

I would be very interested to hear how the conclusion that a suppressor was used was ever made. Very, very interested.

From a ballistics markings context would a silencer change anything?

“evidence against their client”, being the “expert witness”? Suppression orders? What was going on, exactly?

“Transcripts reveal Dr Wallace has contradicted Mr Barnes reports saying the evidence shows no silencer was used, and the weapon was most likely a sawn-off gun.”

If the evidence I gave as an ‘expert’ was completely wrong or being contradicted by another ‘expert’, I would want it suppressed as well. It might just amount to reasonable doubt!