7th Cavalry Serial Numbers

[5MadFarmers]

All good except - tool mark evidence is definitive in court, in fact as definitive, from the legal standpoint, as fingerprints or DNA (I actually took an FBI course that include tool mark evidence which, with firearms includes rifling impressions on bullets as well as those made on the case.

Regardless of what they taught you in that class, that isn't the case. Either that or the presentation was flawed. Biometric information and tool marks are not the same.

If they have my biometric information that only ties back to one person and isn't alterable. Tool marks, on the other hand, are. Point: I shoot somebody with an M-1911. I then change the barrel and sell that barrel at a gunshow. Somebody buys it and is pinched during a robbery. The tool marks taken from that person's gun match the murder round but it's obvious to us that they, and that gun, didn't do it. They produce a receipt for the barrel and it's post-murder. So much for your tool marks being the same as biometric information. I can't lend or sell my fingers or DNA in a useful fashion. Depending on the part of the tool I very well can. A test of my M-1911, with the replacement barrel, won't match the bullet recovered from the murder. "That gun wasn't used in that murder." Really? So much for tool marks being the same as DNA. In this case that's important.[1]

Now the evidence doesn't prove the weapon was fired at the battle, only that cartridge cases found on the battlefield can be tied to the breech block of that carbine.

This is also untrue. This is where the rubber hits the road. A "breechblock" typically doesn't leave marks on the cartridge - the firing pin does. If it can be established that the gun isn't "as it would be expected" during the battle, and that stock alone qualifies, I'd be willing to testify, as an expert witness no less, that US military arms were turned in by units and typically overhauled. Everybody knows this. So now you get to attempt to prove that the firing pin was retained in that breech block with that gun after it quite probably received a once over. Or that the gun avoided the normal course of issue, turn-in, clean and repair, issue, rinse and repeat. Good luck proving it was or wasn't. At this point it's considered opinion only.

Tool marks aren't as definitive as biometric. Tools can be changed. Tool mark evidence is "preponderance of evidence" instead of what DNA gives: scientific proof.


[1] "But the barrel itself is the tool!" A barrel isn't a firing pin and I'm not even going to bother debating that until you produce firing pin impressions from a wide sample of 1873 carbines with a double blind study showing that somebody can match that firing pin to that cartridge.

[5MadFarmers]

Art, I'm going to pile on. Mind you I have a lot of respect for you and your career but you're presenting one side so I'm going to present the other.

"Science" requires something very fixed and rigid. "This happens. Every time it happens." Gravity, as an example. Every time you drop a bowling ball, anywhere on the face of the earth, it "falls" to earth. Doesn't matter who does it. Yes, wiring it up will prevent that but that's more science. Math is very science based. In fact one could say that science is really math in so many ways. 3+4=7. Everyone doing that problem will get that result. Science. Generally established when the "proof" can be done by anyone and the result is always the same.

The "arts" or "humanities" are the opposite. It's all consensus based. Ergo, not science. "Choosy mothers choose Jiff." That's not science. "Most historians agree that the German offensive against the Russians failed." While some may think that's science it clearly isn't. Perhaps losing a war was needed to lose the Nazi party and solve the historic "Greater" versus "Lesser" German land problem (should all "Germans" be part of Germany? If so hello Austria). Consensus. A majority of people familiar with it agree. Einstein was told that a lot of scientists tried to disprove something he did and his answer was: "if I was wrong it'd only take one." Science works that way.

So "science" versus "not science."

If "science" was what courts were after they'd not have a judge, lawyers, the jury, etc. So one doesn't really "prove" anything in the "science" sense - one "convinces" the Jury. Consensus. Thus not science. If it was science there wouldn't be a Jury - just a scientist or two.

So courts are in the realm of the "arts" and not "science." Lawyers rarely have math degrees as the two, science and the arts, tend to be where people are typically good at one and not the other. No, that's not a science observation but I think we can get consensus on that....

On one had is the "prosecution" and the other the "defense." The prosecution side is generally trying to convince the Jury that somebody did something. The more "evidence" the produce the more likely they'll get Jury consensus. The defense, obviously enough, is doing the opposite. This is where a claim that "tool marks" are the same as biometrics is founded. That's not science. That's also the Law Enforcement side's view. Why? Because they're generally on the same side as the prosecution. So they try to come up with ways to convince people that non-science is science. Dogs sniffing out stuff is a pretty egregious example. A dog can, and may, alert on a nice juicy steak. Nobody has managed to figure out how to get the dog to tell you what exactly it's interested in. Blind studies don't indicate that dogs alert like the police would like you to believe.

So the law enforcement side is generally trying to get people to believe that non-science is science. "But the cops are interested in a fair trial! Not just winning!" If you believe that I have a slightly used bridge in New York I'm looking to off-load. Cheap.

Tool marks. Barrel markings are a good example. The law enforcement side is going to try to convince you that's science. It isn't. Defense is going to insist on a good sample of items and multiple "experts" if they know what they're doing. Find 100 similar guns. Fire bullets. Dump them into a pail. Have three "experts" pick out one. As Einstein said, "if I was wrong it would only take one to prove it." This is why they have countering expert witnesses. Removes non-science from the realm of science. Make them establish everything.

Tool marks aren't science. Biometrics are. Give my DNA to any DNA lab. They can run it against billions of samples and every one of them will point to me. Take a bullet and have people review it under a microscope. At that point it's interpretation of the marks. "Art appreciation" if you will. That isn't science. Pour a million bullets in there, all fired from various examples of the same type of gun, and see if everyone points to the same barrel. I'd be suspicious.

So law enforcement attempts to convince people that non-science is science. Goes with the territory. Like sniffing dogs.

[Dick Hosmer]

One must bear in mind that the comparison in this instance is between item(s) buried in the earth, or exposed to the elements, for well over 100 years and - at least in some cases - relatively modern ammunition. The originals had soft copper alloy cases with concealed internal primers, whereas modern ammo uses an exposed primer housed in the base of a much sturdier brass case. I believe that machining marks could show on the soft rounds that might not show on the new - so - the originality of the breechblock IS also of interest/concern.

I'd guess that the ignition (actually an explosion) of BP in a soft case would, by itself, produce a slightly different mark than that of a smokeless cartridge with a separate, hard, primer. The only "fair" comparison would be to use period cartridges. This may have been done; I am ignorant of those details. I am sure that modern forensics comparison between rounds fired only weeks or months apart would produce better results - but - 5MF's points about swapping parts remain absolutely valid.

I'd much rather have an iffy match on an impeccable gun, than an almost TOO good one (as some of the details come back to me) on a fairly hinky gun, which is what we seem to have here.

[45govt]

"A barrel isn't a firing pin and I'm not even going to bother debating that until you produce firing pin impressions from a wide sample of 1873 carbines with a double blind study showing that somebody can match that firing pin to that cartridge. "

I have always been skeptical about this "forensic" matching when I read the book Battle at The K-H Butte by Ludwig and Stute where the cartridge cases could not be matched as they were too corroded, in an arid environment as compared to Montana a more wet environment where you would expect even more corrosion.

Also I have heard the stories about the park superintendents, (Luce?) spreading bullets and cases around for the tourists to find.

I don't think I would buy any supposed artifact from the battle, even if I had the money.

[Dick Hosmer]

I do not disagree with any of post #19, above. The whole thing is a very slippery slope.

[Tom Trevor]

Just a thought. I have so few. The carbine was sold after the article was published for quite a lot of money. Now a friends wifes father, he is gone now, was a wheel at MGM and he was a collector of Springfield arms and found the studio had a large supply of 45-70 Benet rounds they pulled the bullets from and used as blanks. He obtained a large group of them and found most would fire. The owner of the carbine is a major collector of Custer items and I believe knows a number of battlefield personnel. Just suppose for a minute the Benet round were fired in the carbine in question then placed in tight groups where they can be found buried by the road? Seems odd that the cases were so tightly clustered in one place as anyone firing a Springfield knows they fly several feet behind you when ejected. Was he firing a one lone Indian standing still one hundred yards away and not moving so the cases landed in a neat pile? As I said just a thought not anything more.

[Dick Hosmer]

Funny - you and I think alike. Actually, it isn't - we've both been at this a long time. I cannot put my finger on it but something smells about that whole thing.

[45govt]

Just a thought. I have so few. The carbine was sold after the article was published for quite a lot of money. Now a friends wifes father, he is gone now, was a wheel at MGM and he was a collector of Springfield arms and found the studio had a large supply of 45-70 Benet rounds they pulled the bullets from and used as blanks. He obtained a large group of them and found most would fire. The owner of the carbine is a major collector of Custer items and I believe knows a number of battlefield personnel. Just suppose for a minute the Benet round were fired in the carbine in question then placed in tight groups where they can be found buried by the road? Seems odd that the cases were so tightly clustered in one place as anyone firing a Springfield knows they fly several feet behind you when ejected. Was he firing a one lone Indian standing still one hundred yards away and not moving so the cases landed in a neat pile? As I said just a thought not anything more.

You can just picture the guy walking along with some park personnel and going "oh my, look here what I found a bunch of cases that must have been used in the battle, lets check them against this old carbine I have"

[DRAGONFLYDF]

Dick,
Your welcome to include my 1873 Carbine in your book.
http://www.jouster.com/forums/showth...t=1873+carbine

[Dick Hosmer]

Have it, thanks. That looks like one of the scarce thick-wrist-but-no-trap stocks.

[cwbuff]

Great discussion! Clearly the forensic evidence of matching cases to carbines has been brought into question. If I understand correctly, having a carbine "tested" to see if there is a match to cases known to have been at the LBH costs about $10K. It makes me wonder how their business plans influences the "forensics" they produce.

[Dick Hosmer]

Quick disclaimer - I do not doubt that such testing can produce good results in some cases, but it is not infallible - especially when subject to the number of potential variables, and emotions, as are in play here.