Many children's shoes say that bullet identification is too boring, too troublesome, and cannot be understood. So LZ decided to explain the next ha. This case is indeed very long, but it should be regarded as one of the most classic cases in new Zealand history. The small broken country has no history, the population is small, the classic color is limited, and the standard is low... LZ wrote this with direct reference to the final investigation report of the Royal New Zealand Commission of Inquiry in 1980, which totaled more than 100 pages, and was written after reading all of them. There is also a lot of data and charts on bullet identification. In fact, the argument is much more complicated than what LZ wrote.
In fact, to prove that these evidences are the same type of bullets made by the same manufacturer, but also to test the material composition or something, LZ has been simplified. After all, the size of the three inscriptions "ICI" is still easy to understand, and it is really too professional to analyze the structure of the bullet and the composition. Of course, LZ himself took a lot of time to fully figure this out. Well, LZ too much nonsense, early in the morning, or seize the time.
First, to answer the question of a classmate earlier, why are you holding Thomas and Ruth. Irie's .22 rifle? This is related to the two bullets that the Crewees were shot in the head. It's unprofessional, it's all-encompassing. After the bullet bullet is fired from the barrel rotating at high speed, the surface of the bullet and the rifled line of the barrel rub together to form a rifling mark. This rifling trace is similar to DNA or fingerprints. Identification can be used to know which gun fired the warhead.
Therefore, among the subjects of investigation identified by the police, the last 2 .22 rifles left are most likely to meet. Everything else is excluded. (The warhead is fired at a high speed from the chamber, the rifling rubs against the surface of the warhead, and finally the marks on the warhead are divided into 6 "Land" areas.)
At the time of verification, it is a comparison of "Land" areas. Only Thomas and Ruth. After Ari's rifle was fired, the warhead indicated that 5 of the 6 "Land" areas formed were completely consistent with the "Land" area of the warhead on Janet's head. The key is to compare the sixth region. However, Janet's head shrapnel shattered into 15 pieces. After the fix, the sixth area is difficult to identify and even more difficult to compare. That's why there are 2 guns that can't be ruled out. David's head warhead damage was even worse. ）
So again, the warhead that killed the Crewe couple was not Ruth. Ari's gun shot Thomas's gun. Of course you could say, I'm going to investigate all the .22 rifles in New Zealand, and that's 4, 8, 10 that match? Of course this is possible. But why? For example, LZ before in Wellington also had a .22 rifle. But do I have any connection with this? The police could not link me to this case and there was no reason to apply for a search warrant to test the possibility of my .22 rifle.
The warheads that killed the Crewe couple, their exhibit numbers, one is exhibit 234 and one is 289. Second, the police finally found a shell casing under the turf in the garden of the crewe's home. The only possibility that the casing proved to be fired by Thomas's .22 rifle. This is Exhibit 350. When a bullet is fired, the firing pin hits the bottom of the shell and the shell pops out. The surface of the shell also leaves marks. All of the survey subjects' .22 rifles were collected for firing testing, comparing the traces of dropped shell casings. Test results: Only the marks on the shell that fell after Thomas's .22 rifle was fired, and the surface marks on the 350 were 100% identical. Therefore, the evidence 350 can only be dropped after the Thomas rifle is fired.
Finally, let's look at all the bullets themselves. They prove to be the same manufacturer, the same model, the same shape. If you can't understand it, let's use an analogy. You buy a pack of cigarettes and the sign is Red Shell Marlboro. Are the 20 in it all the same? If you buy another pack of Red Shell Marlboro, are you still two packs of 40 cigarettes or exactly the same? Exhibit 350 is the shell casing dropped at the scene, and Exhibit 234 & Exhibit 289 is the warhead hit in the head of the Crewe couple. Simply put, Exhibit 350 is the mouthpiece of Marlboro, and Exhibit 234 is the cigarette body of Marlboro.
Now let's sort out the consensus at that time, a proof question: because the Crewe couple was shot in the head, the warhead was the standard .22 rifle bullet bullet from the CAC manufacturer. It wasn't Ruth who could shoot this warhead. Airy's .22 is Thomas's .22. And because the shell casing dropped on the spot is also the standard .22 rifle bullet casing produced by the CAC manufacturer, this shell can only be fired by Thomas's .22. At the same time, Thomas's .22 is the standard .22 rifle cartridge produced by CAC manufacturers. So, Thomas shot the Crewees. Is this inference correct?
The second instance trial was again found guilty of Arthur. Alan. Thomas was taken back to prison
The defense argued that it was wrong. The defense argued that the shell casing that fell at the scene, known as Exhibit 350, was neither the warhead of Janet's head nor the warhead of David's head. Because, the Crewees have a number "8" on the head warhead. None of the bullets that Thomas could use had an "8" mark on its warhead.
The one with the number 8 in the warhead is the old model .22 bullet, and the one without the number 8 is the new model bullet. The former has been discontinued and replaced by the latter. But how do you prove the defense's point? Because the warhead can be distinguished by the "8" mark, but there is no difference in the shape of the shell. Only one shell casing fell at the scene. The defense argues that there is a difference between the shell casings, and the difference is that the three letters "ICI" at the bottom of the shell
Zooming in on the ICI under the microscope, the top of C ("higher than the top of I"_" is basically this effect: _(_ So how much is the top of C higher than the top of I?) A warhead with the number 8 imprint, the letters ICI on its shell, C is 1.22 mm higher than I. The warhead without the number 8 imprint, the letters ICI on its shell, C is 1.57 mm higher than the I.
After measurement, the shell casing dropped on the spot, the letters ICI on its shell, C is 1.57 mm higher than I. The warhead that proved it must have no number 8 imprint, and it could not have been the bullet in the head of the Crewe, so Thomas did not kill anyone. (As for how this shell, which must have been shot by a Thomas.22 rifle, could have been found at the scene, I won't discuss it now.) ）
After that, the prosecution put forward a new point of view, will there be a special case of new shells with old warheads? That is, the letter ICI on the shell, C is 1.57 mm higher than the I, but the warhead has the number "8" mark. This relates to exhibit 343. We don't care where it came from for the time being, we just need to know that it is also a CAC-made .22 rifle bullet, its warhead proves to have the number 8 mark, and the shell has not been tested.
According to the defense's theory: because it has a warhead with an "8", its "C" height difference must be 1.22 mm. The special case that the prosecution wants to prove is that although its warhead has an "8", the height difference of its "C" must be 1.57 mm. The test sequence is: the defense tests first and the result is 1.22 mm. After the prosecution test, the result was 1.57 mm. A third-party test was 1.57 mm.
The result: Prosecutors say Dr. Sproth, who was responsible for testing, tampered with measurements of exhibit 343. The defense said the national science laboratory, which was responsible for testing, directly exchanged evidence. At that time, exhibit 343 was the only exception. But after a month of arguing, prosecutors found an entire box of exceptions. As a result, the defense lost the case again in the second instance.
The second instance judgment doomed Arthur. Thomas wants to continue his journey to life imprisonment. And as an important defense witness in this case, criminology expert Jim . Dr Jim Sprott got into trouble himself. After the second-instance ruling, Dr. Sprout began to be entangled in the investigation into whether the second-instance evidence 343 had been exchanged.
But compared to Arthur. Thomas's attorney, P.G. F. Vesey, was on the sidelines, and the counterclaim prosecutor exchanged evidence on behalf of the National Science Laboratory DSIR, and Dr. Sparrow always handled it calmly. He is still obsessed with researching the .22 caliber bullet at the CAC Ammunition Factory in Oakland. Although the prosecution took out a whole box of special case bullets at the last moment, completely overturning his theory. But he remained convinced that the 350, the decisive shell left on the scene, was not the matching case that killed the Crewees' warhead. So why is there a whole box of exceptions?
It has to be said that Dr. Sprout is a scientific researcher in the true sense of the word. The struggle over who changed the evidence 343 makes no sense for someone like him. The only thing he firmly believed was that the facts proved everything. And this fact that needs to be proved is that the old .8.22 shell and the new 18 &19.22 shell can be accurately divided and identified, and there will be no special cases.
The investigation of the 343 transformation of the evidence gradually became a mystery in the time that passed quietly afterwards. But more than a year after the second trial, Dr. Sprout has solved the mystery of the special case of the .22 bullet casing. Dr. Sprout was sure that there would be no more exceptions this time. The casing of the new Type 18 &19.22 bullet is unique, and the prosecutor's box of so-called special cases never existed. Dr. Sprout's findings greatly encouraged the confidence of defense counsel Visser. Soon, a new round of difficult and lengthy appeals began.
Visser appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed. The appeal was again dismissed. An enraged Viserso filed an application with the Governor-General of New Zealand to pay attention to the unfairness of the appeal process in this case. Because this case has been hyped up at the second trial. So when Visser continued to exert pressure through the media, the Governor's Office was forced to come forward and ask the Auckland Court of Appeal to accept the appeal of lawyer Viser. After much painstaking experience, the Court of Appeal hearing finally took place between 8 December 1974 and 8 January 1975.
On 29 January 1975, after discussion, the five judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that with regard to the determination of the warhead corresponding to exhibit 350, the court of appeal accepted the facts stated by the prosecution that the warhead hit the head of the Crewe couple confirmed that it was fired from the shell of the exhibit 350. So, Arthur. Thomas' verdict on charges of double murder is completely impartial and without any objection. The Court of Appeal upheld the original judgment and the case did not need to be retried.
Over time, Viser never gave up on the investigation, obsessively chasing every possible clue. As more new evidence emerged, Viser, with the last glimmer of hope, appealed directly to the Privy Council in London, England, in 1978 to retry the case. (New Zealand is a Commonwealth country, and the Privy Council in London is the ultimate avenue of appeal for Commonwealth countries.)
British Privy Council
At the second trial, we mentioned that Viser's heart was big enough. So in this appeal, Viser not only relied on the latest evidence to demand that Arthur be prosecuted. Thomas retried, and also counter-accused the relevant personnel of the Auckland High Court in New Zealand for dereliction of duty during the second-instance trial, which led to the exchange of key physical evidence. As a result, the London Privy Council said it had no jurisdiction over allegations involving persons involved in the New Zealand judicial system. The case is inadmissible.
What does it mean that the Privy Council in London is inadmissible? This means that the case has been completely put to rest. Because you can no longer find any effective legal way to file the next appeal, you will be cut off forever from the opportunity to retry and overturn. Viser and his client Arthur. Thomas's last hope was shattered.
If the Thomas Civil Appeals Board was initiated by Pat. Pat Booth, is Arthur. If Thomas was the first savior in prison, then his second savior, Mr D. A. Yallop, came at the most desperate moment.
亚洛普（Mr D. A. Yallop）
Mr D. A. Yallop is a British writer based in Sydney, Australia. In Arthur. During Thomas's second trial, he became interested in the Pulkava bloody case. After the second trial, especially after seeing the latest evidence from the defense witness, Dr. Sproth, a criminologist, he became Arthur. One of the staunchest proponents of Thomas's innocence.
Through careful study of various new evidences and extensive investigations, Yalop wrote and published a novel based on the case in 1978: Beyond Reasonable Doubt. The book was quickly published in New Zealand and Australia, and had a huge impact.
In New Zealand in particular, some of the ideas in the book sparked extreme dissatisfaction with the way the police handled the case, which immediately rose to strong doubts about the entire New Zealand police system. The core ideas of Beyond Reasonable Doubt are basically earth-shattering for New Zealand readers. This view shattered their long-standing perception of certain habits.
Then New Zealand Prime Minister Robert E. Malden
To put it simply, the ideal world is shattered and the dream is awakened. They asked the New Zealand Police Service to explain whether what was described in the book was true or false. The New Zealand Police Service has been silent on this. So many people were outraged, and they demanded a retrial of the Pukekawa blood case because they needed to know the truth. Arthur. Was Thomas the bloody murderer or the lamb?