In the last post a major detective was mentioned. He will be mentioned several times, so to keep it as brief as possible he will be Major R. Major R was a really good detective. One of the things he said was that in the absence of a murder weapon, the rest of the forensic work in a murder case had to be done in a very thorough manner. Neil was shot with a 25 caliber pistol. We know that because it was extracted from his chest. In the truck of the suspect the highway patrol found a box containing 25 caliber bullets. Major R said it was standard procedure to do a metallurgy test to compare the bullets in the box to the bullet in the chest. The State of Missouri was in charge of the criminal trial. They obtained the services of a national renown ballistics expert, Mr. John Cayton, to examine the bullets. This is what happened. I am quoting from a letter sent by the suspect's attorney to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau. "February 1, 2005. Dear Clerk: Enclosed herewith please find Motion to Exclude Expert Witness and Notice relative to the above captioned matter which I request you please file. J. Eric Mitchell" The Motion says "..1.Plaintiff disclosed John Cayton as an expert witness in the field of forensics by Motion to Endorse Witnesses filed on or about January 27, 2005. 2.That trial of the above captioned cause is less than one month away and there has been no lab report or analysis disclosing what Mr. Cayton will testify to. 3.That the defense has not yet had an opportunity to depose the witness and has just now learned of the said witness' existence. Further, no telephone number exists for the contact of John Cayton as a forensic expert and the endorsement of such witness as this late time is prejudicial to the Defendant." And so it was that the ballistic expert was not allowed to testify at the criminal trial.  Now to the holster. The following is from the Preliminary Hearing on February 4, 2004. The questioning is done by Prosecutor James Gray and the answers are by Corporal Jamie Folsom of the Highway Patrol. Q. "Did you ask him about whether or not he owned a .25 caliber handgun?" A. "..I believe right after we had discussed the .22 is when Sergeant Roark approached the vehicle--the vehicle we were seated in. Prior to, when I led....(the suspect) to the vehicle, Sergeant Roark had obtained permission from...(the suspect) to search his vehicle, and while me and...(the suspect) were seated in the vehicle speaking, Sergeant Roark approached the vehicle and he had in his possession a leather holster and a box of .25 caliber ammunition, and he approached the vehicle, spoke with me about that." Q. "Okay. Did you ask...(the suspect) about the .25 caliber handgun or the bullets?" A. "I asked him about the--he stated the .22 was the only pistol that he owned. I asked him where did the ammunition and the holster come from, he stated he had never seen them before in is life."  Now fast forward to the civil trial. The Maxwells hired the same forensic ballistic expert as the state did. He had already examined the bullets for the state. We asked him to examine the holster also. Here is what he said. The questions are asked by the Maxwell attorney the answers are by Mr. John Cayton. Q. "Did you also look and see if the gun turned in by Vickie Brown had fired the murder bullet." A. "Yes." Q."How did you check that?" Q. "I test fired it..and compared that. And the rifling was not the same class characteristic." Q. "So the murder bullet didn't come from Vickie Brown's gun?" A. "No." Q. "Did you compare the murder bullet to the partial box of bullets found in the defendant's car?" A. "Yes, I did." Q. "Mr. Cayton, how do you compare the murder bullet to the bullets found in the defendant's car?"  A. "Well, first I examined them, and they're the same caliber, .25 automatic. And then I examined the contents of the ones found in the car by breaking it down and pulling the bullet out and looking at the gunpowder." A. "Mr. Cayton, can I ask you, let me hand you what's been marked as Exhibit 115. Can you tell me what that is?" A. "Yes. This has my initials on it and the date 11/20/04. And it has the projectile unfired and the cartridge is unfired, then samples of the gunpowder here. And I looked at the crimp groove where the mouth of the cartridge is squeezed around the bullet to hold it together, and looked at the coloration of the bullet and also looked at the base of the bullet. When a bullet is manufactured, in this case it has a copper jacket, and a copper sheath is used first, then a little cup is punched out of that. And then that copper cup is drawn through a dye to make it long, and it's empty. Then a lead wire is cut and inserted in that, and then it swages together. And when it swages together, each manufacturer has their own process of swaging. And in this case it has a nice wide overflap and a crimp on the base of the swage. And so I examined that. And also on the nose portion just where the bullet curves, there's a color line on it, and that also is on the autopsy report. So all those class characteristics as to the construction of the bullet design, the crimp on the base, the crimping groove and the base crimp and the design are similar." Q. So is the murder bullet consistent with the bullets found in the defendant's car?" A. "Yes"  Notice that his report was dated in November 2004. Couldn't it have been sent to the defense attorney in a more timely manner so Mr. Cayton's testimony could have been used in the criminal trial?... To be continued.  In preparation for the civil trial Mr. Cayton was asked to examine the holster. This is what he said. "When you use a holster and a firearm, the contact of the gun inside the holster, depending on the type of material it is, that leaves an impression. It's a lot like when you wear a shoe. The pressure of you wearing your shoe leaves a pattern in the shoe....So this type of a holster is designed to wear inside to be concealed in the pants. And so this would all go inside under the belt, and this clip would go over the top of the pants or the belt. And so it would be, you know, squeezed between the belt, the clothing and the body. So anything in there would have that impression worn into it. And so I opened that up to look at that impression pattern that's in the holster. Q. "Are those impressions still in that holster?" A. "Yes" Q. "Did you ever compare the impressions in the holster to an AG pistol?" A. "I did." Q. "And what did you see?" A. "Well, in those areas that I described, the front of the gun, the bottom of the slide, actually the bottom of the slide, the shape where it curves off, the impression from the safety, the medallion in the grip, all those match up. They line up." Q. Are you aware of any other .25 caliber pistol that would have matched those impressions?" A. "No." Now when we go back to the criminal trial. The questioner is state prosecutor Bob Ashens, the person answering is sheriff Bob Wofford. Q. "In the course of the investigation, were you asked to check records to see if there was a pistol registered to the defendant or his father?" A. "Yes I was." Q. "I'm going to show you two exhibits." ... "They are numbered Exhibit 30 and 30A. Can you tell me what those are?" A. "30A is an application to acquire a gun permit, and it was on a Mr. Ray Brooks. The application was January 23rd of '89 for a .25 caliber handgun, and this is a record of the application." The questioner in the following exchange is still Bob Ashens but the person answering is Vickie Brown. Q. "In the course of your relationship with the defendant, did you ever know him to possess or carry a firearm?" A. "Yes." Q. "A pistol in particular?" A. "Yes, he did." Q. "What kind of pistol, if you know." A. "It was a .25 caliber." Q. "How can you be so specific? How is it you knew a .25?" A. "Because we had shot that gun before." Q. "And did the defendant tell you where he had obtained that weapon?" A. "He told me it was from his dad." ...To be continued. This may make the information on the holster and bullets have a little more sense.. Missouri State Highway Patrol Report of Investigation. "On November 24, 2003, a records check of the Dent County weapon registration log book revealed the Ray Brooks (NFI), who is reportedly the father of Brian A. Brooks, purchased a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol on January 23, 1989, from Counts Gun Shop in Salem, Missouri. The weapon is listed as manufactured by AG, and has the serial number 470229. A copy of the log book entry is attached to this report."  Mr. Cayton purchased an AG pistol similar to the one purchased by Ray Brooks to check the impressions on the interior of the holster found in the suspects vehicle. Now for some questions and answers from the defense attorney at the civil trial and Mr. Cayton. Q. "Let's take a look at 114. This was one of your exhibits. And if you could show us a the picture of the weapon. Black handle. It has some sort of medallion in the handle. And it looks different than the vintage of Galesi .25 caliber pistols that you have as part of Exhibit 118, true?" A. "Well, the vintage, if your talking about the manufacture year, this one in the picture is just a few thousand off from the serial number of the one that was from the records of the gun shop.The following are questions from the Maxwell's attorney and answers by Mr. Cayton. Q. "And then did you do any--did you ever acquire an Armi Galesi pistol?" A. "Yes." Q. "What did you do with it in regard to the murder bullet?" A. "I examined it and measured the rifling. I test fired it, functioned it both for doing a gunpowder residue test on some cloth material and also to get a bullet to compare the width of the land impressions with this bullet here, and they were the same."---- Q. "Did you look at the autopsy photos to help you with your opinion about how far the pistol was?" A. "Yes." Q. Can I show you these photos, and can you pick out one that you thought was perhaps important to your work?" A. "Well there are two here." .. Q. " And which one do you want to talk about first?" A. "Well, 45P shows him with his shirt on, and it shows the large hole with some discoloration around it. 45EEE shows him with his shirt pulled up, and it shows the large area around the entry wound to the left chest." Q. "Were you able to reach an opinion about how far you believe the pistol was from Neil Maxwell when when it was fired and killed him?" A. "Well, I believe it was against him when it was fired." Q. "Pressing up?" A. "Yes." Q. "When you take a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol and press it up against somebody and fire it, what does it do to the sound effects?" A. "Well, it would reduce the sound because part of the sound that you hear when a gun goes off is the gas escaping from the muzzle. And when they put a silencer on the gun, what they do on the muzzle of the gun, they'll put something to capture that gas pressure and spread it out over a little length so that it drops off, which is what happened when I shot--in my test. When you put it right against the material and the collecting medium and you shoot it, it sounds more like a pop. And if you back up where there's a space between the barrel, then you hear a louder report." Q. "Were you asked to testify in the criminal case?" Mr. Wilke the defense attorney, "Your Honor, this would be hearsay." The Court, "The objection will be overruled." Answer from Mr. Cayton, "No." --   Q. "Were you aware of any ruling in the criminal case that kept you from testifying?" Mr. Wilke, "Excuse me, you honor. This would be irrelevant." The Court, "The objection is sustained." Now for those who are being amateur detectives, here is the question. You have a holster and the preceding information. What do you have to do to link the holster to the suspect? Is there anything you can do?  Fingerprints? DNA? A beer bottle found at the murder scene was taken into evidence by the Highway Patrol the night Neil was killed. The following exchange happened at the civil trial. Mr. Wilke the defense attorney is asking the questions and  the Highway Patrol investigator, Henry (Jamie) Folsom is answering. Q. "When you got the beer bottle, when was it dusted for fingerprints?" A. The beer bottle was sent to the laboratory or actually seized as evidence and held." Q. "Yes. And I looked at the beer bottle, and I saw no indication that anybody had fingerprinted the beer bottle. It was never fingerprinted." A."When we seized--." Q. "Am I correct?" A. "Yes. When we seized those items of physical evidence, normally we would make a choice between fingerprinting and DNA. And Jim Gray, the prosecutor, he didn't decide on either one, so the bottle was not forwarded."---Q. "The holster that we've seen in evidence, it was never fingerprinted, correct?" A. "Correct." Some much for that.