What does a senseless murder more than 30 years ago in Rockford, Illinois, have to do with recent events at the Toolmark Analysis/Firearms Identification Section of the Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory? More than you might think…
First of two parts
In what can best be described as a robbery gone horribly wrong, Andrew Asher was shot to death in Rockford, Illinois, on April 2, 1993, at approximately 10 a.m., while sitting in a car with his girlfriend.
The murder remained unsolved until June 10, 1993, when – based on a Crime Stopper report – the Rockford police set up a surveillance of the apartment that Patrick Anthony Pursley shared with his girlfriend, Samanatha Crabtree. Shortly after the surveillance began, the two left the apartment. A car chase ensued, and they were apprehended.
Later, the police executed a search warrant of their apartment and found a 9mm Taurus model gun that Crabtree purchased in February 1993, and a 9mm Beretta. After being held for two weeks on an unrelated robbery charge, Crabtree gave a statement implicating Pursley in the murder, which later helped secure a murder indictment against him. The police also seized a spent bullet from the car and spent casings from the scene, and secured a bullet fragment from the victim’s shoulder obtained by the medical examiner.
Firearm and toolmark analysis is a forensic science discipline that involves examining marks and impressions left on firearms, tools and ammunition components to identify their origin or link them to a specific crime scene. Samples of unknown origin are compared to those of known origin.
In the Pursley case, the unknown samples (spent bullet from the car, spent casings from the scene and bullet fragment from the victim’s shoulder) were compared to known samples (spent bullets and casings test fired from the weapons seized from the Crabtree apartment) by Daniel Gunnell, a firearms and toolmark expert employed by the Illinois State Police Crime Laboratory.
Relying upon the toolmarks and other impressions left during the machining process, Gunnell concluded that the Taurus was the gun that shot Asher; in short, he found that the known and unknown samples matched. Clearly, the firearm and toolmark analysis was a critical component of the state’s case against Pursley during its investigation and at trial.
A decades-long and tortured procedural history then ensued. Pursley was initially convicted of murder by a jury (notwithstanding the absence of any positive eyewitness identification and the permitted testimony of “incentivized” witnesses who were given either financial help or leniency in exchange for their testimony), but Crabtree eventually recanted her statement.
Pursley’s initial conviction was upheld by appellate courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Illinois. Pursley also pursued a variety of post-conviction remedies in the trial courts, where he was sometimes forced to represent himself. None were successful. Fortunately, later changes in Illinois law allowed him to obtain legal representation and independent-expert analyses of the firearm and toolmark analysis evidence. In one of these proceedings an independent expert, John Murdock, using more discerning testing methods, concluded that:
1) He could not conclude that the two bullets recovered from the crime scene were fired from the same gun as the test-fired bullets.
2) There was no significant agreement between the two groups.
3) The test-fired casings were fired from a different gun than the recovered casings.
4) There were sufficient dissimilarities to indicate that the cartridge casings were not struck by the same parts of the firearm that come into contact with the bullet when it is fired.
5) Other markings (such as firing-pin aperture marks, ejector marks, extractor marks and magazine lip marks) were also dissimilar.
The story ends with a just if not entirely satisfactory result. Pursley was granted a new trial and acquitted. On Dec. 28, 2022, an Illinois appellate court upheld the findings of the lower courts that:
1) Pursley’s innocence had been proven.
2) There was no competent evidence that would cause the court to reach a different conclusion.
3) The lynchpin of Pursley's original conviction was the firearm “match” evidence offered by the Illinois State Police Crime Laboratory, which was not thorough or complete.
4) Experts offered by the defense were unbiased and the most qualified the court had ever seen. Pursley was therefore entitled to compensation and other benefits provided to the wrongly convicted under Illinois law.
Michael A. DiLauro, Esq.
The Just Criminal Justice Group LLC
Warwick
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here