Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give to be the truth so help you God?

I do.

Please have a seat on the witness stand? Repeat your name and spell your last name for the record.

My name is Paul Greer, G-r-e-e-r.

Paul, how are you doing today?

I'm great, thank you.

Take a moment to unpack yourself if you need to. Paul, if you would, please introduce yourself to the jury and tell us a little bit about when you graduated high school and where you went for education.

Sure, my name is Paul Greer. I am originally from the upstate of South Carolina. Went to school and graduated high school in 2009. Upon graduating high school, I attended the University of South Carolina and received a Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences from the University of South Carolina.

Thank you, Paul. I'm going to ask you if you would, to pull that microphone a little closer so we can all hear you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right, Paul. Walk us through a little bit about your career. With whom are you currently employed?

I'm employed at the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, which is commonly known as SLED.

All right, tell us a little bit about your professional career. How did you get started at SLED, and what is it that you do there?

Yes, sir. After completing my Bachelor of Science at USC, I began an internship at SLED in the Forensic Services Laboratory. I specifically did that internship with our Firearms and Toolmark Department. interned there for several months and ultimately achieved a position there in that unit. I began my employment officially at SLED in March of 2014 in the Firearms Department, where I began training to become a firearms examiner.

All right, and are you currently employed as a firearms examiner with SLED?

Yes, sir.

All right, Paul. Mr. Greer, if you would, walk us through what that required in order to become a firearms examiner.

Sure. In order to become a firearms examiner, there's a lot of extensive training on the job that must be conducted. At SLED, I began an in-house training program that we refer to as the Firearms and Toolmark Course of Instruction . During this time, again, it was extensive, approximately three years or so. I assisted other examiners who were qualified on the job and prepped their cases. I learned how to work those cases. I looked at thousands of fired ammunition components on the microscope and did many comparisons of those. During that time, I also completed multiple written and practical examinations. At the conclusion of that training program, I was given a comprehensive final exam that included some mock casework within our laboratory. I successfully completed all of that training and that mock casework and was able to begin working cases on my own.

In addition to the comprehensive qualifications and testing required to become a Forensic Examiner, are Forensic Examiners at SLED also subject to yearly testing as well?

Yes, sir, we do the competency at the conclusion of our training program, but we also participate in proficiency testing each year within an area in our discipline. So that is completed. I complete a proficiency test each year, and that just assures that we're maintaining our competency.

Thank you, Paul. Are you a member of any professional organizations?

Yes, sir, I am.

And which ones would that be?

I'm a member of the Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners , which is also known as AFTE.

Have you had any opportunity to attend additional trainings or conferences under the umbrella of firearms and Toolmark examinations?

Yes, sir, I have.

Please explain a couple of those or a few of those if you would.

Yes, sir. AFTE hosts an annual conference each year, and AFTE, I might add, is an international organization. It's a group of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners around the world, as well as other scientists and members from the academic world. We get together each year, and I attend that when I'm able in order to share information and see what's happening within the field of firearms and Toolmark examinations. I've attended several of those conferences, and I've also attended some regional conferences that have been hosted by the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.

And speaking of laboratories, is your laboratory is accredited?

Yes, sir, it is.

And what is the accreditation it operates under?

The SLED laboratory is accredited under ANAB. That is a national organization that follows ISO 17025 standards, and those are international standards. So, our laboratory is operating at—within the same set of standards as other labs in the United States that are accredited with ANAB and also those who follow the ISO 17025.

And in order to maintain accreditation, is there an inspection process that ANAB requires?

Yes, sir.

All right. And explain if you would that the kind of a couple of inspections that are typically required.

In order to maintain our accreditation, we have a visit approximately every four years. Auditors come into the laboratory to check our casework, review our files, make sure that we're operating within those standards, and they watch us perform casework. That's a big, huge component. And they do this for all the disciplines within the laboratory. And that audit every four years within that cycle helps to ensure that we are meeting those standards. Internally at SLED, we also have internal audits each year. So even though the ANAB inspectors come every four years, we may not see them every year. There's some type of auditing performed within our departments and in our casework each year.

Thank you. Does the SLED laboratory operate under a policies and procedures guideline for the overall agency?

Yes, sir, we do.

All right. And explain a little bit about how that involves the lab.

Correct. SLED, in general, has a large set of policies that we must adhere to. Within the laboratory, each department has a manual that they must follow that gives them information on how to conduct their everyday work and how to perform casework. Additionally, and following the ANAB accreditation, we have a SLED quality manual that is specifically for the laboratory. We follow that as well, and those are all guidelines to help us within to conduct casework. And in addition to the SLED quality assurance manual, there would additionally be a SLED Firearms Department manual that you have to comply with?

Yes, sir, there is a Firearms and, excuse me, a firearms manual that we must follow.

Okay, just very briefly, please explain what that involves.

Yes, sir. That, again, is just a document that gives us information on how to conduct our day-to-day casework and what to do with evidence. How we should examine that. It also gives us information into our training program, any type of calibration or measurement references that we need to consult for our equipment that we use. All of that information is contained within that manual that we have to follow and can reference.

All right. And if you would, please explain to the jury what Firearms Identification generally, the subject matter, what that is.

Sure. Firearms identification is a discipline in forensic science where our main objective each day is to examine those fired ammunition components. So, imagine a fired cartridge case or a fired bullet, and we're looking at those in order to determine if they were fired by a specific firearm.

Thank you. Um, how long—and how long, again, have you been working in SLED, in the SLED laboratory?

I've been employed in the Firearms Department at SLED for almost nine years.

And have you had an opportunity to testify in court, such as this?

I have.

Would that be both state and federal courts?

I have testified in state and federal courts, yes, sir.

Approximately how many times, or do you know how many times?

Approximately 27 times, yes, sir.

Your honor, at this point, state moves to admit Mr. Greer as a firearms and Toolmark examination expert.

Your honor, no objections to his qualifications.

He's so qualified.

Thank you, your honor.

All right, Mr. Greer, I'd like to take the moment to kind of educate the jury a little bit on Firearms.

Yes, sir.

And if you would, please tell us a little bit about the well, first of all, are you familiar with the two kinds of cartridge rounds we're going to object—primarily be talking about today.

Yes, sir.

And are you familiar with the two kinds of firearms we're going to generally be talking about today?

Yes, sir.

If you would, please give us a little an intro to Firearms, beginning with perhaps a shotgun. Tell us what makes that a unique type of firearm and how it generally operates.

Yes, sir. In general, a firearm is a mechanism that propels a projectile through the combustion of gunpowder. As he was stating, there are several different types of firearms, and one of them is a shotgun. A shotgun, if you imagine, is a long gun, typically that is designed to be fired from the shoulder. I mean, that has a smooth bore and what the bore is, it's just the inside of that barrel, so there's no rifling inside that barrel. Typically, a shotgun is also different than maybe a handgun that you may be familiar with, and it fires shotshells. And a shotshell is a cartridge, if you will, that could be plastic or metal that can contain multiple projectiles or a single projectile.

When you said, barrel, smooth bore, and rifling, would rifling mean sort of the interior of the barrel where the bullet exits is spiraled inside?

Correct. That rifling is in barrels in order to give a bullet that's traveling down that barrel its rotary twist and spin so that way you can travel to a target or its destination.

And does that rifling assist in the bullet traveling in a straight line consistently?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

The rifling, spinning the bullet, making it go out? Does that allow it to travel in a straight line?

Uh, yes, that rifling that's inserted into that barrel, um, if you'll think of kind of like a quarterback throwing a football, it helps give it that nice spiral so that it can travel more efficiently.

And, and kind of the opposite of that would be the smooth bore of a shotgun. How does that affect the pellets or the BBs inside of the shotgun?

So, in the typical shotgun, you don't have that rifling that gives it that spin or twist, but that's not the design of the shotgun. So, when those pellets or a slug or whatever is traveling down the bore of that shotgun, it is just traveling out the barrel based on the combustion from it firing.

Okay. And if you would, please describe to us what type of ammunition a shotgun will shoot.

Typically, you use a shotshell. That can be made of some type of plastic. Typically, we see that with some type of metal head on it. Inside that shotshell, there can be multiple projectiles. You hear of pellets; we think of birdshot, buckshot . That's what would be inside of a shotshell. Also, in there—there may be other components that could be plastic or some type of paper material, and that would be a wad. And those have different jobs within a shotshell. Those can be to protect the pellets, to keep them together as they travel, to provide some type of cushioning between those pellets and the powder. So, they all have different various purposes within inside that shotshell.

Mr. Greer, did you bring with you some demonstrative items to kind of just demonstrate generically what you're talking about in a shotshell?

Yes, sir.

All right. Can I see that real quick?

Yes, sir. Yes.

I'm giving these back to you. All right, Mr. Greer, if you would begin with the shotshells that—you brought, some demonstrative exhibits, is that correct?

That's correct.

If you would, just please hold them up, show them to the jury, and explain what it is we see when—what we're looking at and what the components are in there.

Sure. Again, these are just two examples of a shotshell. Here you have a plastic body there of the shells with a metal head on this end of it. That is the end that's going to be up against the breech face of the firearm. In this middle, you'll see a small circle that's the primer area, and that's what's going to be struck by a firing pin in a firearm so that it will fire. That's what's going to detonate inside this shotshell to cause it to be fired. Out this end, you see it's crimped then on this end, this is the end that the projectiles or the pellets that are inside of this shotshell will exit and travel down the barrel of that shotgun.

Thank you. All right, Mr. Greer. The second firearm would be, if you would talk about a little bit about what the AR platform is.

Sure. An AR platform is something that is commonly seen throughout America. Originally, it was designed by ArmaLite, and it's just a modular platform, and it's a rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, in its—in its normal state, and that's what we have here today.

Okay, and what would be the more common caliber that you might find on the AR platform?

Yes, sir. Typically, what is very common that we see in the laboratory and that you may be more familiar with is it's chambered in .223 Remington caliber, 5.56 NATO. That is a very common caliber for an AR-15 type firearm.

Okay, and what were some of the items that you examined in this case as far as rifle calibers?

In this case, I received one rifle, and it was chambered in .300 Blackout caliber.

All right. Explain to us what the .300 Blackout round is and maybe how it's similar and different from a .556 round NATO.

Sure, again, you may be familiar with the .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO caliber. The .300 Blackout cartridge is sort of similar to that. When that was designed, it was designed so that it could be used with a lot of the original features of an AR-15. So, the overall dimensions of those cartridges are very similar, with the exception of a shorter case length and a much heavier or larger bullet.

And .300 Blackout, being relatively, at least compared to .556 NATO round, were some of the components interchangeable on the AR platform?

It's my understanding that when that .300 Blackout caliber was developed, it was designed so that some of the components from the original AR-15 type that were chambered in the 5.56 NATO or the 223 Remington could be used with a 300 Blackout.

And it is possible, maybe not ideal, but possible to use a magazine that would be formatted for the 223 556 round in a 300 Blackout rifle.

Yes sir, I would say it's possible.

And did you bring any 223 and 556 and 300 Blackout rounds with you today for demonstrative purposes?

Yes sir, I have two.

All right, would you please identify the two and tell us what we're looking at and what the similarities and differences would be?

Sure, to start off this is an example of a 223 Remington. This is the one that you may be more familiar with. I will show you now side by side this is the 300 Blackout and I'm trying to do this so you can see; you can see that their overall dimensions there are a little larger—I mean, excuse me about the same except some—with the exception of the larger bullet, and I'll give you a little bit of anatomy here of the cartridge, and what we would refer to as this item right here is an unfired cartridge. Terminology in our firearms department is very key to us in being accurate in what we do so, we would refer to this as an unfired cartridge that contains a bullet which is this portion right here. This copper color projectile, and that's what's going to travel down the barrel of the firearm towards the target. Again on this end just like the shotshell there's a primer there in the middle, and you see the circle object there, and that's what the firing pin is going to strike so that way that it can detonate and cause the cartridge to be fired. When it's fired, we will have a cartridge case which is just the brass colored portion here and that is the cylindrical component there that holds it all together; it holds the primer the bullet and the gunpowder inside of it.

Thank you Mr. Greer. Permission to approach. This is for demonstrative purposes. I'm going to put it on the Elmo. Mr. Greer, if you would just pay attention, you have a little video screen there. All right Mr. Greer, can you see these two bullets on the screen?

Yes sir, I can see the (UNINTELLIGILBE).

This is not going to work. All right, can you see them clearly?

Yes, sir I can.

What's the big black thing on the screen?

Appears to be a bullet.

In your expertise, that's a bullet? The two rounds we see there—the top round, can you identify which one that is?

The one that is up against the foam there would be the 300 Blackout caliber cartridge.

And then, as you said before, the below—the round below that would be the 223/556 round?

Yes sir.

And seeing the actual projectile—meaning the item that exits the barrel of the rifle, would that be that tip—the cylindrical tip on the top?

Yes sir, and I believe, if I remember correctly, both of those projectiles were copper in color if you can distinguish that on the screen.

Okay, thank you, and I don't know if you mentioned it, but I'll ask, did the—as compared to each other, does the fact that— the 300 Blackout have a higher grain typically than the 556?

It's possible. The bullets come in different grain weight so that is a much larger bullet so I would expect it to be heavier.

And we're all going to hear about grain weights; could you explain what that means also?

Sure, grain is a term that we use in firearms and it's just a unit of measurement. So, when we measure our projectiles we are going to measure those in grain and just as a common way to relate to that; if you imagine 7000 grain that's equivalent to approximately a pound.

Thank you. So, measurements and bullets are done in grain basically?

Yes sir, that's what we refer to them as.

Going back to shotgun shells very briefly, are there various types of shotgun shells and gauges, or calibers?

Yes sir, there are.

Could you explain a couple of the types that you might commonly find, and then just some of the calibers so we know what we're talking about?

Sure, some of the more common gauges in shotshell, and gauge is just—referring to the size and how we are able to determine what that firearm is chambered in so, a 12-gauge is something that's very common; that's a very common shotgun that I would expect to encounter. You may also have heard of or be familiar with a 20 gauge and that's another one that may be common, or 410 bore which is a type of shotshell as well. Those are some of the more common ones that we would see in our laboratory setting, and that you may be familiar with. Again, throughout those there are all different kinds of shotshells loaded with different projectiles, loaded with birdshot, loaded with buckshot and they all will serve a purpose within their own respect, but those can have multiple projectiles, hundreds of projectiles, it could have just one large projectile which we refer to as a slug, and so there's lots of options, if you will, within a shotshell.

And although this may be obvious, a buckshot is typically used to hunt what type of game?

I'm not hunting often, but I would expect a buckshot could be used for something, you know, as it suggests—a buck; you would expect maybe a larger animal. Again, I'm not a hunter, but that's where I could imagine that.

Thank you, Mr. Greer. Before we move on, um, and speaking about the area of forensic science and firearm examinations, is that an area that is subject to peer review?

Yes, sir.

And uh, could you explain to us what that means, what's the peer review process, and why that's important in forensic science?

Sure, um, within the firearms and Toolmark examination , this is something that's been around for years—firearms examiners have been, learning about the firearms identification process, building studies and designs and experiments throughout many years. And it's part of that process, in designing those studies and doing this research within the firearms Toolmark, they're going to, draft an experiment, conduct an experiment, publish an article on their findings, and during that process, there can be a review—I mean, there will be a review of the article, of the experiment, where other scientists within our field or other scientists or researchers can examine that and see what was going on during that process and say whether they agree with it and share their comments. And that's part of that peer review process. We as an AFTE member, I have access to our AFTE Journal where a lot of those peer review articles, are published, and they're available for other examiners to look at, for other scientists and researchers to look at, and help bolster their opinions and thoughts on firearms identification.

And personally, do you know how many exams you've done, you've conducted?

I do not have a number of examinations that I've conducted while at SLED; however, at this point, I would say it's somewhere in the thousands.

All right, Mr. Greer, I'm gonna uh, ask you, did you receive a volume of items concerning this case for review?

Yes, sir, I did receive several items to examine in this case.

And generally, did you have an opportunity—we're going to go through those items very shortly—but did you have an opportunity to in general review a significant amount of items for identification, possible identification?

Yes, sir.

Okay, and did you prepare a report after conducting these examinations?

Yes, sir, I did prepare a report.

All right, I'm going to ask—if we would go through a number of items very shortly. Do you have a copy of the report? Is it needed in order to refresh your memory and be able to specifically recall each individual item?

Uh, yes, sir, I do have a copy, and I would appreciate being able to refer to it.

Okay, very good. And prior to your testimony today, have you had an opportunity to do—well, first of all, generally, when items are submitted, do you know anything about the case?

Generally, when items are submitted to the SLED laboratory, I do not have information about the case. I do not.

Prior to today's testimony, have you familiarized yourself at least very briefly with the layout of the scene of the crime?

Yes, sir, I have.

And what specifically, paying attention to what on that crime scene layout?

Um, I reviewed a crime scene layout in relation to where some of the marker numbers were that are listed in my report. Those just reference numbers, and I reviewed where those were in relation to the crime scene, that evening where the two bodies were.

And is that just to assist us when we reference item number X, Y, or one, two, or three; it allows us to then—you then testify where that was located?

Yes, sir, it can.

All right, um, Agent Greer, I'm going to go down the list of items, and I'd like you to identify the item that was received for me, beginning with item—item numbers two through five.

SLED items two through five?

Uh, yes, sir.

Your items two through five?

Did you conduct a review of that item?

Yes, sir, I did look at SLED items two through five.

And while I find those items, please explain how you receive items in general, how you receive items in the lab, what the condition is when before you review them, and then what you do ultimately with that item.

Correct. Yes, sir. So as items are submitted to the SLED laboratory, those can come from agencies all over the state, to include our own SLED Crime Scene Department. Those items are given assignments for, uh, for multiple departments depending on what the requesting agency is asking to have completed. We are a full-service laboratory, so sometimes the evidence has to travel through to other departments before it arrives to me in the Firearms Department. Typically, if you want something like latent prints or DNA to be processed on those items, it would go there first. Because when I get the item, I may decontaminate it or, touch it, and those prints or DNA may be not be relevant anymore, and because you would find my—me on it. Evidence travels throughout the laboratory to those departments and through our Evidence Control Department. I received those items either from those analysts or from our evidence control technicians, and when I receive that item and before I begin my examination, I want to make sure that the item is submitted to me in a manner that I can tell that's not been tampered with. So, we use a lot of heat-sealed pouches, so I'll make sure those are sealed or our cardboard box—that it's sealed up, and I can tell that there's either evidence tape or initials of that sealing examiner prior to me. So that way the evidence has been preserved in a manner that I know no one has altered with it.

And just so we're clear, thank you, Mr. Greer. Just so we're clear, when I referred to items, sometimes I'll say items two—does that refer to the items that you received them as—as a SLED designation?

Yes, sir. Um, one other thing about the SLED laboratory: when evidence is submitted to the lab, it receives its own unique lab number that's specific to our laboratory, and it also receives new item numbers, and that's so we can track it throughout the laboratory and our analysts throughout the lab can report and identify those clearly.

Thank you, Mr. Greer. I'm going to hand you what's been entered into evidence already as state's exhibits 63 through 68. And I believe they correlate to items two through seven on your report. Would you please take a moment to look at these items and let me know if you're familiar with them?

When we receive these items, I do mark the packaging, and I'm also looking for my heat-sealed pouches, and this is how I package the evidence after I examine it. So, I'm just confirming that I see some of the information on these items. Yes, sir, this appears to be what was submitted to the SLED laboratory as items two through seven and your state's exhibit 63 through 68.

Thank you, and did you have an opportunity—I'll take those from you. Did you have an opportunity to examine these items?

Yes, sir, I did.

If you would please tell us what your findings were for these items.

I determined that each of those items—they were all fired, S&B heads.

Your honor, I'm gonna renew my prior objection to the opinion testimony based upon the hearing we had. And just for the record.

31:40

Yes, sir. You may continue.

I determined that each of those were one fired S&B headstamp 300 Blackout caliber cartridge case, and that was items two through seven. That's what each of those items were.

Thank you. Mr. Greer, and the item on the screen in front of you would be what's marked as State's exhibit 63. Is that representative of the collection of items that you reviewed in that batch?

Yes, sir.

All right. There is your Blackout round. Do you, do you—were you able to see the headstamp on, and I can give you back one of the items if you would. Were you able to identify the headstamp and do the manufacturer background for this?

Yes, sir. I was.

Alright, who was that?

The manufacturer of item, uh, items two through seven was, uh, Sellier and Belott and you may hear that I'm referred to as S&B.

300?

Yes, sir. And headstamp 300 Blackout.

Alright, Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what's been marked and entered into evidence already, it's state's exhibits 33 and 34. Kim, do you want to see this?

No.

33 and 34 which I believe correlates to 9 and 10 on your report? Would you please, uh, take a look at these items and let me know if you recognize them.

Yes, sir, I do.

Okay, and please tell us what they are.

SLED item nine, which is state's exhibit, um, 34, is a fired Federal Premium double-aught buck, three-inch Magnum shotshell. And, and SLED item 10, which is state's exhibit 33, is one fired Winchester Dry Lock number two 12- gauge shotshell.

And, after your review of the scene, where were items—your items two through seven located?

Um, after reviewing the, uh, the crime scene diagram, I was aware of the marker numbers, those were recovered from, and then reviewing that diagram is my understanding that those, items two through seven, the 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases were located around or near the body of Margaret Murdaugh.

All right. And I'm referring now to your items nine and ten, state's 33 and 34. Where were those at the review of the crime scene diagram, where those were identified and retrieved from?

Those appear to be, in or around the storage room area near the kennels.

Thank you. I'm putting these two up on the screen. Mr. Greer, are these the items you just testified to having examined?

Yes, sir, they are.

Okay, thank you. Now after—right now, we're identifying a number of items. Is it—would it— would it be fair to say that we're going to go over your results then at the conclusion to the identification?

Uh, yes, sir, we can.

All right. Referring to item—state's exhibit number four—your item number 22. Would you please direct your attention to that?

Yes, sir.

Alright, I'm handing you what's been marked—I'm handing you what's been marked as—I'm handing you what's been marked, and entered into evidence as state's exhibit 4. Please take a look at this firearm. Let me know if you're familiar with it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this firearm is unloaded. It's safe for me to handle. I will keep it pointed in a safe direction here. I'm going to look for some of those identifying marks that I placed on this shotgun. Yes, sir, I do recognize this shotgun.

All right, tell us what that gun is.

This shotgun was determined to be one Benelli model Super Black Eagle three semi-automatic shotgun in 12-gauge with a serial number of U573210E17.

Thank you. Was there anything that accompanied state's exhibit number four?

Yes, sir.

What were—what did you look at?

Also submitted with that firearm was an accessory, which was the sling and one unfired Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch 12- gauge shotshell and one unfired Winchester Super X game load 16-gauge shotshell.

I think you just testified that 12-gauge—this shotgun is what gauge?

38:31

That is 12-gauge shotgun.

And I think you just mentioned that loaded, and it was a 16-gauge. Could you explain what the process was? It ejected. Is that the proper gauge for that shotgun?

No, sir, that—this, the unfired ammunition as it was submitted to me was received in another package. I did not remove it from that firearm. However, a 16-gauge would not be correct for use in that firing.

Did you have to manually remove it from the shotgun?

It was already removed when I received it.

Alright, I'm handing you what's been marked as state's exhibit, and entered into evidence as state's exhibit 250, SLED item eight, but state's item 250. Take a moment to review it; let me know if you are aware of what it is.

Yes, sir, I recognize this as SLED item eight.

39:09

Did you have an opportunity to examine and review that item?

I did.

Uh, what did you determine it was or is?

SLED item eight, state's exhibit number 250, was determined to be one fired bullet, and that was listed as a near tire impression at marker eight.

Okay, and you were able to do further analysis, which led to the results to determine its weight?

Yes, sir.

Very good. Sir, as you testified before, this would be the bullet minus the casing that it originally came in, is that correct?

Yes, sir, that is just one fired bullet.

And that's what it looks like when it doesn't have the back part on it?

Yes, sir, that's just a bullet without any cartridge case attached.

Alright, Mr. Greer, I'm going to direct your attention to state's exhibit number 20, SLED item 14. This has been entered into evidence already. I'm going to hand it to you and ask if you conducted an exam of this item.

Yes, sir, I did.

Alright, what were the results?

SLED item 14, which is state's exhibit 20, was determined to be 24 birdshot pellets, listed as from dog food storage room.

And then can you repeat it for my purposes; these are pellets from what?

Uh, yes, sir, 24 birdshot pellets listed as from dog food storage room.

You testified before, and you presented what a shotgun shells looks like. Would that be what's inside shotgun shells ultimately?

Yes, sir, that would be an example of birdshot pellets that would be loaded into a shotgun shells .

Alright, Mr. Greer, I'm going to direct your attention to what's been entered into evidence as states exhibit 76, SLED item number 12. Did you have an opportunity to review this unintelligible have you you take a look at it.

Yes, sir.

Alright, tell us what it is, please.

SLED item 12, state's exhibit 76, was determined to be one fired bullet listed as from bedding inside the doghouse.

I'm going to direct your attention to the state's exhibit 102. SLED item 11—already entered into evidence. Please take a look at this item and let me know if you're familiar with the contents.

Yes, sir, this is SLED item 11. State's exhibit 102, and that was determined to be one fired bullet jacket fragment, three bullet jacket fragments, and one piece of lead listed as deflecting ground gravel marker 13.

Thank you. Alright, I'm going to refer to what's been identified as state's exhibit 109, SLED item 137. Please review this item and let me know if you recognize it and if you performed an examination of it.

Yes, sir, this is SLED item 137, States exhibit 109, and it was determined to be one piece of lead listed as from hair on the item 92 dress.

At this point, the state would move for 109 to be admitted into evidence.

Moving on to state's exhibit 110, which is SLED items 67 and 68, so marked for identification purposes as states's exhibit 110.

No objection.

All right, Mr. Greer, I'm going to show you what's been admitted as evidence as 110. If you would please take a look at it, let me know if you've recognized and performed an examination on it.

Yes, sir, state's exhibit 110 represents two SLED items, SLED item 67, which I examined and determined to be 48 birdshot pellets listed as from left shoulder and head of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy. And, uh, SLED item 68 was one piece of plastic listed as from the left shoulder and head of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy.

And when you say where it's from, that's because that's what was identified on the item when it was submitted to your—to you for review?

Yes, sir, that's solely based on how it was logged into our system by the submitting personnel.

All right, I'm going to refer your attention now to three items just to speed along the process a little bit. State's 111, 112, and 113 marked as identification purposes SLED item 69, 66, and 104. So, if you please take a look at those and your items in your report and I'll be right with you.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to break for lunch. We will, um, resume in one hour and 15 minutes.

47:11

Thank you. You may continue.

Thank you, your Honor, may it please the court?

Yes, sir.

Beginning with items States exhibits, 11, 111, 112, 113, I believe right before we broke, I presented to council and was going to offer to the witness, and I believe it was without objection to be offered into evidence.

47:43

Is that correct?

No objection.

Admitted without objection.

Alright, agent or Mr. Greer, please review what's been marked as state's exhibit 111, 112, 113 which would align with SLED items 66, 69, and 104. If you would please let us know if you had an opportunity to inspect those items and analyze them.

Yes, sir, I did. Um, States exhibit 112 is SLED item 66, and that was determined to be three fired bullet jacket fragments and seven pieces of lead listed as from Margaret Murdaugh at autopsy. State's exhibit 11.

111?

Yes, sir, excuse me, I apologize, 111 is SLED item 69, and that is one combination wad listed as from the left axilla of Paul Murdaugh at autopsy, and state's exhibit 113 is SLED item 104, and that was one birdshot pellets listed as "found with Paul Murdaugh's clothing."

Thank you. Alright, Mr. Greer, I'm going to direct your attention to state's exhibit 90, SLED item 31. Did you have an opportunity to inspect this item?

I did inspect a SLED item 31.

This is the item you inspected?

This firearm is unloaded, safe to handle, yes, sir. I see my identifying marks as SLED item 31 on this firearm.

Tell us what this is.

And that was determined to be one Browning Model Auto 5 light 12 semi-automatic shotgun, 12-gauge, with serial number 03867NB211.

And did you conduct further examinations on that firearm that we discussed a little bit?

Yes, sir, I did.

I'm going to show you what's been marked as state's exhibit and entered into evidence— states exhibit 89, item 30 on your report. Did you have an opportunity to inspect that firearm?

This firearm is also unloaded. Yes, sir, I did.

How do you know that?

When I'm looking at these firearms, we scribe our evidence if possible in multiple locations, so I'm looking for those identifying features of that SLED lab number and that item number as well as my initials on some of these items that I was able to mark that, so I see that on this firearm.

Thank you, and for purposes of our results that we'll discuss shortly, did you conduct additional testing on that firearm?

51:38

Yes, sir.

I'm handing you what's been marked and entered into evidence as state's exhibit 91. That would be your SLED item number 32. Okay, tell me if you recognize that firearm if you in fact were the one that received it and conducted any examinations on it.

This firearm is also unloaded. I'm going to look again for those identifying marks. Yes, sir, I identify this as my SLED item number 32.

Lastly, I'll direct your attention to what's been entered into evidence as state's exhibit 91, I'm sorry, state's exhibit 88 and SLED item 33. Are you familiar with that item?

This firearm is also unloaded. Yes, sir, I am familiar with this item.

Is that the item that you conducted tests on?

Yes, sir, this is the SLED item 33.

Thank you. Can I direct your attention then to state's exhibit 210, which would be SLED item 34. That's been entered into evidence collectively as item—state's item 210. Are you familiar with the contents of that evidence package?

Yes, sir, I am.

And what are they?

SLED item 34 states exhibit 210 was determined to be one magazine and 26 unfired Sellier and Belott 300 Blackout caliber cartridges.

And was SLED item 34, but this State's exhibit 210 included with the rifle we just, uh, took a look at?

Yes, sir, it was submitted in the same package as the rifle.

Alright, moving on to state's exhibit 143 through, sorry, state's exhibit 143, 144, 150, and 148. Entered into evidence already. That would be SLED items 166, 167, 168, and 169. I'm handing you what has been marked as those exhibits. Would you please take a chance to review those, let me know if you're familiar with them, and if you had an opportunity to analyze them.

Yes, sir, I believe I have seen these items.

Tell us what they are if you would.

Each of these four items are 12-gauge Federal shotshells, and they each all have the markings that are consistent with each other, a Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum.

And do your notes indicate where they were located?

I have an indication based on the packaging.

Okay, and what does the packaging indicate?

The packaging for state's exhibit 150, from what I can tell says "from red bin on workshop bench". For state's exhibit 144, says "from red bin on workshop bench". State's exhibit 143, says "from red bin on workshop bench," and state's exhibit 148 also says "from red bin on workshop bench."

Alright, thank you. Now I'm now going to hand you what's been previously entered into evidence as state's exhibits 145, 146, 147, and 149. That would SLEDS number 162, 163, 164, and 165. Same as before if you wouldn't mind, please take a look at those and let me know if you are familiar with their contents.

Yes, sir.

59:11

Tell us what they are.

All four of these items are Winchester 12-gauge shotshells , and they all appear to have the same information on the shotshell of Drylok three-inch with the number two.

Thank you. I'm going to hand you what's been previously entered into evidence as state's exhibit 213, SLED item 45. Please take a look at that piece of evidence and let me know if you are aware of what it is.

Yes, sir. This appears to be a box for ammunition in the 300 Blackout caliber.

And does that box indicate the maker of that 300 Blackout ammunition?

It does.

Who is the manufacturer?

Sellier & Belott.

S&B?

Yes, sir.

1:00:22

All right. This is State's exhibit 260, which was previously marked for identification purposes only. State's exhibit 260 contains SLED items 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39.

No objection, your Honor.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE)

Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what's been now admitted into evidence of State's exhibit 260. Please take—if you would, please take a moment to review those items and let me know if you're familiar with them.

Yes, sir, I am familiar with this evidence.

All right. What are they?

These are SLED items 35-39. These were each fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases with the headstamp of Sellier & Bellot.

Thank you.

I'm handing you what's been previously, state's exhibit 261 for identification purposes only—just a reference SLED item numbers 108 to 135 collectively.

No objection, your Honor.

Admitted.

Agent Greer, these items now admitted under state's exhibit—as state's exhibit 261. Please take a moment to review those items and any notes or information you might have on them and let me know if you're aware of what they are.

Yes, container A/B—it was submitted to the laboratory. I'm—in it is to contain SLED items 108 through 135. I am familiar with these items, and this package appears to not have been tampered with since I sealed it last, as I see my initials and seal date there at the bottom.

And what's inside that package?

Inside this package, there are 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases as well as 12-gauge shotshell.

And did you have an opportunity to perform analysis on these items?

Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. Greer, I'm offering you what's been marked as State's exhibit 398 that would reference SLED item 22.4. And I believe without objection, we'll offer into evidence.

That's correct. No objection.

Would you please take a look at that item and cross-reference with your report and let me know if you're familiar with what it is.

Yes, sir. This container contains two SLED items; that's item SLED item 22.4, which is a swab of debris that I took—a reddish-brown debris swab from the right side of the item 22 receiver.

Which item is 22?

Item's item 22 was the Camouflage Benelli model Super Black Eagle 3 semi-automatic shotgun. And it also contains SLED item 22.5, which was another swab from that same shotgun. And that was a reddish-brown debris swab from the left side of the item 22 receiver above manufacturer information.

Tell us a little bit about the swab and what you're looking for with that.

Yes, sir. When I receive items of evidence, a part of my process in documenting the evidence and opening the evidence is to look to see if there's any foreign or trace materials on that item. And when I was examining this firearm and opening it for the first time, I took note of that. And when I did that, I noticed those two—those two areas that I saw reddish-brown debris. In order to preserve that prior to my examination, I swabbed those items so that way they could be collected and maintained.

I'm handing you what's been marked as State's exhibit 399 which references SLED item 22.7. State would offer that into evidence after you identify it and I believe without objection.

Yes, sir. I do recognize this and this package is still sealed with my initials and seal date. Item 22.7, um, was the unfired 12-gauge shotshell that was submitted with the item 22 Camouflage Benelli Super Black Eagle 3 shotgun. During my testing, I used that submitted ammunition that came with the firearm to test-fire the weapon with, and that is represented here as SLED item 22.7, States exhibit 399.

No objection.

Submitted.

All right, Mr. Greer, before we move on to your analysis in your results, if you would, please tell me a little bit about the firearms identification process, and the number of ways that you use to identify whether a firearm shot a particular projectile.

Sure, as we were discussing earlier when I receive evidence into the laboratory, and I begin my examination, there's a lot of documentation that has to happen. First, we're opening the evidence—we're going to, one, make sure to preserve any of that trace or foreign material. We take—use photography to document the evidence as we're opening it, and to photograph the actual item itself, and that trace material or foreign material. We also use a lot of departmental worksheets where I take notes on the firearm, the magazine, the fire components such as the cartridge case or the bullet, and also any other thing that we need to document throughout the process or unfired cartridges. We take note of all of that, writing down all these characteristics that we're seeing on the evidence. In order to do our examination though we have to look at these fired ammunition components, these parts, these cartridge cases, and these fired bullets and look at their class characteristics. So, we're going to count on a bullet; we're going to look at it as rifling trying to determine its caliber through weight and measuring it, and counting those number of lands and grooves that comprise that rifling like we spoke earlier. That's what gives that bullet that twist. We document that. We may also look at those cartridge cases and look at those things that have the same class characteristics that could be the caliber of that cartridge case, the shape of that firing pin, and any overall features. Items that share the same class characteristics will compare together, and it's kind of like climbing a ladder. At this point, those items that share the same class characteristics, we climb to the next step on that ladder, and we compare those items. We're going to look at those fired bullets with each other, those fired cartridge cases with each other, and we're going to look at all that under high magnification. We use a comparison microscope in our laboratory to look at these items, and basically, if you think back to a biology lab that you may have had in school or some kind of science lab, when you look through a microscope, that's what we're doing, but we're using this comparison microscope to look at two things at one time, and we've used—it uses an ocular bridge so we can look through like a set of binoculars to look at these things. We can change the angles that we're looking at all these tiny little scratches and striations and impressions on the evidence that you can't really see with the naked eye. We're going to look at it under that magnification and compare all of that to each other to help us reach our final goal, which is a conclusion. If we have firearms that are submitted, we'll also have that documented. Those firearms that have the same class characteristics, for instance if we have a gun that's the same caliber as our fired bullet, and it shares the same rifling specifications, then that means we can compare that bullet with test-fire from the firearm. So, I'll make sure the firearm is safe to fire, and we'll shoot that firearm within our laboratory, and we have several different ways to do that with a water recovery tank, and a tunnel that we're able to shoot and recover those test specimens that I physically shot from the firearm. I'll compare those test specimens with each other to look at how those marks that I was looking for in the microscope that we were talking about to see how they're reproducing on those test-fire, and whether that be a bullet or cartridge case, compare that under the microscope and then compare that where necessary to the submitted evidence. After looking at all that, I reach a conclusion about whether this was fired by this item or not, or whatever that conclusion may be. I arrive at that, and I write that conclusion down at that point in time, another qualified examiner within our firearms department will review the evidence themselves. They'll look at all the submitted evidence and compare that with each other, and with those test specimens that I fired and arrive at their own conclusion. If they're in agreement, then they'll sign off on my conclusions, and a report can be drafted, and that's how we get the information out to our customers through our report. At SLED, we have the 100% micro-verification process where everything that we're issuing a conclusion on is reviewed by another examiner. So that case file, all that documentation that I generate goes to that examiner or reviewer. It undergoes a technical review and administrative review before a report can be released. And in a nutshell, that's how we work each case. There are different parts. There are different items of evidence that we get in each case, but that's a quick overview of how each case is worked, and that process was applied to this case.

1:12:37

Thank you, Mr. Greer. Speaking of the peer review process that goes on in the lab, is that conducted blindly, meaning the person reviewing your report doesn't know what your findings are?

That's correct.

Okay. Could you explain—so, the subsequent reviewer doesn't know what you decided in your first primary opinion is that right?

Right. I'll look at the evidence myself, arrive at a conclusion, and the second examiner will look at it and come to their conclusion on their own. If, once they have arrived at their own conclusion looking at the evidence with their own eyes on the microscope, they'll read my results to see if they're in agreement with what I have determined, or not.

And that I think you just testified. Was that done in this case?

Yes, sir, it was.

Tell—before we move on, please tell me what it means for a cartridge casing to be cycled through a weapon. What does that mean?

Sure, if you think back when we're looking at the cartridge earlier, an unfired cartridge, when we're gonna—when we look at these items under magnification on the microscope, there are several different areas that we're going to be concerned with in looking at—for those microscopic scratches and impressions, those little striations. One of those would be a firing pin, and that's what comes through the breech face of the gun to detonate the primer. Also, the breech face marks on that primer from the gun ejector marks; that's what kicks that cartridge out of the gun or the cartridge case extractor marks, that's what pulls it out of the chamber of the firearm so that can be kicked out, and also, chamber marks, and that's on the body of the cartridge case, that cylindrical portion. So, when we're looking at evidence, our ultimate goal is to say something was fired by this gun, or they were fired by the same gun. And we do that and we can rely on that firing pin, those breech face marks, and those class characteristics because that's what struck the primer and caused it to detonate and fire that cartridge. There's other things that we can look at just to single out like extractor marks and ejector marks and chamber marks of such that we can look at to say that a cartridge has traveled through a gun. For example, if you were to load a magazine, insert it into a semi-automatic firearm, pull the slide back, load that cartridge into the chamber, and then you decide you're not going to shoot or you need to remove that cartridge for any reason, you would pull back on that slide of the handgun, and the cartridge would be extracted out of the chamber and ejected. Through that process, there can be marks left on the cartridge that also would happen when you're firing it. But that's not what detonated that primer and set that off. Those ejector marks, those extractor marks, and that just means that that cartridge, we can say, has traveled through that firearm at one point in time. And that's not to say it was fired by, but it's cycling marks that we're seeing as it cycled through that gun.

So is it accurate to say then that the cycling marks are separate and distinct from the actual firing pin marks that when you're reviewing these under a microscope?

Yes sir. As far as what we're looking at geographically on the cartridge case, those would be in a different location. When we're looking for those ejector marks or extractor marks or chamber marks, that's not something that we typically would be seeing on um the primer area that detonated that cartridge.

Thank you. If I could—beginning with your results, if we could begin with your examination of all the shotgun shells. So, the actual shells that were retrieved as part of your analysis beginning with items SLED items nine and ten, which would be State's item 33 and 34. Could you tell me where these items were retrieved? Remind us where these items were retrieved from first of all.

SLED items nine and ten, that State's exhibit 33 and 34, item nine was from marker nine, and item 10 was from marker 10, which is my understanding that it was, at the feeder storage room.

And I'm gonna put these on the Elmo, but if you would tell us what your analysis of these items would be.

Yes sir.

Objection to these opinions based on prior ruling.

Yes, sir.

Please proceed, Mr. Greer.

Yes sir. When I compared and examined those two shotshells with each other, I determined that those two shotshells have been fired by the same firearm.

And, do you know the make and manufacturer of those two weapons or shells?

Yes sir, I do.

All right, item nine?

Yes sir.

Item nine is which item?

Item nine is the red colored shotshell, which is State's exhibit 34.

Okay.

That was a Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum shotshell, and SLED item 10 was—is the black in color shotshell, State's exhibit 33, and that is a fire 12-gauge Winchester Drylok number two shotshell.

Thomas Greer moving on to— referencing item 22 collectively.

Yes sir.

State's exhibit 399, 22.7 on your report.

Yes sir.

The State's exhibit 399, did you have an opportunity—could you tell us what that is?

Yes sir. That was the unfired gauge shotshell that was submitted originally with the item 22 shotgun, which is the camouflage color Benelli shotgun.

Did you go ahead and open that package for us, please?

Yes, sir. Do you have scissors or just—

Remind us again where that item was retrieved from.

This item that was originally submitted with the item 22 camouflage Benelli shotgun that was submitted to the laboratory.

Meaning it was actually loaded into the shotgun?

When I received it, it was not loaded in the shotgun, but this was an unfired shotshell as it was submitted. This is the shotshell that I test-fire in that shotgun.

All right, very good. Mr. Greer, could you tell us—I'll put it on the Elmo. Tell us what the make and manufacturer of this item is.

Yes sir, this is also a 12-gauge Federal shotshell, and on the shotshell itself, it also says Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum.

I'm going to direct your attention back to State's item 34. Are those two items consistent with each other?

Yes, sir. It does appear that they are consistent in construction and their headstamp information.

Thank you. If you would, since—let's work through the number of firearms that were identified by you. Did you have an opportunity to test those firearms with the projectiles retrieved?

Yes sir, I did.

What were your results for item 30, the Mossberg pump-action shotgun? In regards to the two shotshell?

Correct.

My results after examining that, it was determined that the item 30 shotgun did not fire the items, nine and ten shotshell.

And could you move on to item, your item 31, State's item—one moment, I'm sorry. An item you just referenced was State's item 89, the Mossberg shotgun, State's item—State's exhibit 90, SLED item 31. Please tell us about that item.

Yes sir, based on my examination, it was—I was able to determine that item 31 was not fired by, excuse me—that item 31 did not fire items nine and ten.

All right, concerning State's exhibit 91, your SLED item 32, that would be a Benelli Super Black Eagle 2, black in color. Could you tell us the results of that?

Yes sir, based on my examination, it was determined that Item 32 did not fire items nine and ten.

Item 32 was, however, covered with a number of rounds. Is that correct?

Yes sir, that is correct.

And what were those rounds?

Um, the—item 32, the Benelli model Super Black Eagle 2 shotgun, was submitted with two unfired gauge shotshell , Federal and Winchester.

Thank you. All right, did you have an opportunity to compare the shotshell with Item 22, the camouflage color Benelli Super Black Eagle 3?

Yes, sir, I did.

All right, and if you would please tell us your findings concerning Item 22.

Sure, when I compared SLED items nine and ten with those test shotshell that I fired through the Item 22 camouflage shotgun, the results of those comparisons were inconclusive. I was unable to determine whether or not items nine and ten were fired by Item 22, or if they'd been fired by another firearm with similar characteristics.

And were you able to eliminate item number, um, 33 from this round of testing concerning the shotgun shells?

That's correct. The shotgun shells were not fired by the Item 33 rifle.

1:25:34

Moving on to your results, uh, sorry, moving on to your testing, or did you conduct initial testing of 300 Blackout rounds?

Yes sir, I did.

And of the cases—of the ammunition, both fired—spent—so, shells, casing or unfired ammunition, were the ones we examined today that were retrieved from the scene, what make and manufacture were they?

The cartridge cases were headstamped with the S&B logo and 300 blackout caliber.

Did you have an opportunity to test-fire and examine SLED item 33, State's item, State's exhibit 88, the PSA—uh, the T300 Blackout rifle—black in color?

Yes sir, I did.

All right, could you please tell us your results from that examination for that weapon?

Um, in regards to test firing the weapon?

Correct.

Yes, sir, when I examined the Item 33, I test-fire it using the Item 34 magazine. That was the magazine that was packaged alongside the rifle. During that test firing, the first available cartridge in the magazine, as I inserted the magazine into the firearm, it was fed and chambered into the rifle correctly, and as I expected. The cartridge was successfully test-fire, and then extracted and ejected from the rifle, again, as I expected it to. However, as the firearm cycled, meaning when that bolt was coming back forward to load the next available cartridge in the magazine, it failed to feed that cartridge into the chamber, and I had to manually cycle it to load the next cartridge into the chamber. That issue did not prevent me from test-firing the firearm, and no further analysis to determine that cause was conducted.

Referencing your results, SLED item 128, in your exam, were you able to identify any cartridge casing that would have been fired by Item 33 rifle, your Item 33, State's exhibit 90, um, State's exhibit 88?

Yes sir, I was.

And just to be clear, we're talking about this 300 Blackout rifle. Is that correct? What we're talking about, your Item 33?

Yes sir, that is a SLED item 33 that I examined and test-fire.

What were you able to identify with the rounds of the covered 300 Blackout rounds recovered? Please list their item numbers as well.

Yes sir, so I compared all the 300 Blackout cartridges that I received, and based on my examinations and comparisons, I was able to determine that SLED items 38, 109, 110, 121, 126, and 127 were fired by the item 33 rifle.

And those would be various items that were recovered that we've been through and identified in the State's exhibits. Is that correct?

Yes sir, that's correct.

So, some of them you would say were fired by Item 33.

That is correct.

I know you mentioned before with Item 33 or sorry, State's exhibit 89, I'm sorry, State's exhibit, um, 88. I know you'd mentioned before that it wasn't working properly. Does that inhibit your ability to test it in any way?

No sir, I was able to test-fire that firearm and recover those test specimens that I needed in order to make those comparisons.

Do malfunctions occur in firearms from time to time?

Yes sir, they can occur.

But, nevertheless, you were able to uh, simulate the fire. You were able to fire the weapon eventually.

Yes sir, I was able to test-fire the weapon and recover those test specimens that I needed.

All right, I'm going to reference SLED items two through seven, 35-37, 39, 108, 111 through 120. Do you understand which items I'm referencing?

Yes sir.

And how did you compare those, or how did the analysis go when compared with Item 33, State's item 88?

Yes, sir. When I compared those, those items, that was items two through seven, 35-37, 39, 108, 111 through 120, and 122 through 124, and 128 with each other, and when I compared those with those test specimens that I fired through Item 33, the results of those comparisons were inconclusive. Again, that means I was unable to determine if they had been fired by Item 33, or they have been fired by another firearm or firearms with similar characteristics.

Still on Item 33, State's item, State's exhibit 88. The recovered 300 Blackout rifle. Were you able to compare the ejection and extraction marks of various 300 Blackout rounds casing recovered and recovered?

Yes, sir.

And what was your findings concerning some of those items, and please list the items, and we will go back and identify State's exhibits in a minute.

Yes, sir. In looking at the mechanism marks on items 111, 114 through 115, 118 through 119, 123, and 128, I was able to determine that those items had all been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the Item 33 rifle. Excuse me, the Item 33 rifle at some previous time.

All right, Mr. Greer, I'm going to ask you—

Your honor, I'm going to restate my objection to the next opinion that he's about to offer based on our prior rulings. Just for the record.

Yes, sir.

Based on prior arguments, and I understand the Court's rule.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Greer, I'm gonna—real quick, reference on your chart, on your list, items marked SLED items two through seven, 35, 36, and 37, and SLED item 39. And that would be State's exhibits 63 through 68. And just—please verify that I've handed you State's exhibits 63-68 and identify if they correlate to items two through seven.

Yes sir, these State's exhibits 63 through 68 are SLED items two through seven.

And then I'm going to show you what's been marked as—with the Court's indulgence, State's exhibit 260. State's exhibit 250, which correlates to SLED items 35-39, please verify that for me.

Yes sir, this is State's exhibit 260, which is a container that is to contain SLED items 35-39.

SLED items two through seven, State's exhibit 63-68. After review of the crime scene, where were those items—where were those located?

After reviewing the crime scene diagram, it's my understanding that those cartridge cases were at marker numbers that were near around the body of Margaret Murdaugh.

And those would be 300 Blackout rounds, is that right?

That's correct, that they are 300 Blackout caliber.

Or they were spent casing?

Yes sir, those are fired cartridge cases.

And State's exhibit 260, items 35-39, what are those again?

Those were, um, all fire 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases, um, headstamped with the S&B logo with the, and 300 Blackout caliber.

And where were those items recovered?

Listed on our submission documents, those were from the ground at side entrance door.

Have you physically been there to the Moselle property?

Yes sir, I have.

Are you familiar with the ground at the side entrance door?

Yes sir, I believe so.

Is that the side entrance that leads into the pool table and the gun room?

Based on my understanding of the scene, yes sir, I believe that is where those were collected from, near that door that goes into that room.

We have, we have 300 Blackout round casing from—collected from around Maggie's body, and we have 300 casing collected from the house, is that correct?

That's correct.

1:35:52

And do you have—do you have any notes? Did you take any contemporaneous notes on the condition of items, your items 35 to 39, those collected at the side of the house?

Yes sir, I do believe so. I'm going to reference my case file here to confirm.

Would referencing your file help you refresh your memory on that matter?

Yes sir, it would.

During my examination when I looked at items 35 through 39, which were those recovered near that door area, I did note that they were tarnished in weather in my case file.

Tell us what you found concerning those items.

Based on my examination, it was determined that items two through seven, and 35 through 37, and 39 had matching mechanism marks, and it was concluded that those items had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.

So, if I understand this correctly, the items collected right by Maggie have been extracted, loaded into, extracted to, and ejected by the same firearm that identified that items were picked up by the side of the house?

Yes sir, that's correct.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE). Additional items were collected as well, and did you have an opportunity to analyze those?

Yes sir, I did,

And identify the SLED item numbers, and then we'll identify the State's exhibit numbers.

Those were SLED items number 108, 113, 116, 117, and 122.

I'm handing you what's been marked as State's exhibit 261, which includes various items, and what are they again?

Yes, sir. This is a container that contains multiple 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases and fired gauge shotshell.

And in that collective bin includes 300 Blackout rounds of the items you just listed?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

All right, tell us what your findings were for those items. Where were these collected?

Based on the submission documentation, those were collected from areas such as from to the left of a shooting chair, near a field, from a right corner, near a field, from in front of a shooter's chair, under a table. Would you like me to identify each location?

For those items, have you had an opportunity to review some body-worn camera footage and evidence and kind of identify what that actually meant?

Oh yes, sir.

What—and generally when it says left leg and right leg and near the front or back, what is it talking about?

It appears that there's some type of a shooting area that those were collected from.

Okay, what were your findings concerning those items?

It was determined that those items, um, and to include items 108, 113, 116, 117, and 122 also had those same matching mechanism marks to conclude that they had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm as those at the crime scene around Margaret Murdaugh's body in those several recovered from the home.

So, the items collected around Margaret Murdaugh's body matched the items collected outside the house, which matched items that were collected in the field at the shooting range.

Yes sir, I was able to identify that the cartridge cases recovered, items two through seven near the body—did have matching mechanism marks with several of the items from the area around the home and those in the shooting field. And several of those in the shooting field, to conclude that some of those had been, excuse me, that those had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.

I'm gonna reference SLED item eight. That would be State's item 250. State's exhibit 250. I'm going to put it on the screen. What is that item again, remind us please?

Um, SLED item eight was one fired bullet. Um, determined to be 300 Blackout caliber, listed as near tire impression at marker eight.

Recovered from the scene?

Uh, yes sir, at marker eight.

Is that a fired projectile?

Yes sir, that is a fired bullet.

Is that—how much does that bullet weigh?

According to my notes, when I weighed that projectile, it weighed approximately 147.4 grain.

I'm handing you what's marked as exhibit 213. Remind us again what that is.

States exhibit 213 appears to be an ammunition box marked Sellier & Bellot, and 300 Blackout caliber.

What are the grain indicated on that box?

On the side of this box, it has information about the projectile, and it says 147 grain on the side.

Is item—iis State's exhibit, up on Elmo, is that consistent with 147-grain projectile?

Yes sir, um, that bullet appears to be intact and based on, um, my examination and looking at these fired bullets as a part of an examination, I would say that would be consistent with, uh, having been 147 grain.

Do you have an opportunity to inspect SLED item 12?

Yes sir, I did.

Tell us your results of that.

SLED item 12 was one fired bullet determined to also be 300—most consistent with being 300 Blackout caliber, and it was listed as" from bedding inside the doghouse."

And did you have an opportunity to weigh that object out?

Yes sir, I did.

And what was the result of that?

Um, when I weighed that projectile, it was approximately 146.8 grain.

147 grain unfired ammunition?

Yes sir, I would say that would be consistent with 147 grain.

Agent Greer, lastly I'm going to show you what's been marked as State—and entered into evidence as States exhibit 143, 144, 148, and 150. Could you please remove those collectively and let me know if you are familiar with the make and manufacturer of those items?

State's exhibit 143 is a 12-gauge Federal shotshell. It also says Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum on the shell—on the side of the shells. State's exhibit 144 is also a 12-gauge Federal shotshell. On the side of it, it says Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum. State's exhibit 148 is also a 12-gauge Federal shotshell. On the side of it, it says Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum, and States exhibit 150 is also a 12-gauge Federal shotshell with the same information of Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum.

Thank you. Are all of those four exhibits that you just reviewed of the same manufacturer and same make and model?

Yes sir, they appear to have the same information and also in their construction as well. If I use one for demonstrative purposes, all the rest are the same?

Yes sir, they appear to be all consistent.

Showing you what you just identified. This would be States 143. Is tis the item you just looked at, Mr. Greer?

Yes sir.

Showing you what's been marked as State's exhibit 34. Remind me again, which item that is?

SLED item nine.

States exhibit 34 was SLED item nine, that's correct.

What's the make and model of that?

SLED item nine, States exhibit 34 was a fire gauge shotshell with the Federal Premium double aught buck three-inch Magnum, red in color.

Showing you what's been marked as State's exhibit 399. This would be, Yeah, where's item nine from?

Item nine is listed as from marker nine, and again, based on my understanding of the crime scene document, that was near or around the feed room.

And marked as State's exhibit 399, SLED item 22.7. Where is that item from?

SLED item 22.7—States exhibit 399 was the unfired gauge shotshell that was originally submitted as item 22 with the camouflage Benelli shotgun.

State's item four—and you've already reviewed this exhibit for the state, 22 for you—is that the same shotgun that you're referring to?

Yes sir, this is my item 22 shotgun.

Camouflage Benelli Super Black Eagles three. Is that right? Is that right?

Yes sir, that's correct.

And all those items are of the same model and manufacturer, is that correct?

Yes sir, they all appear to have the same headstamp information and information on the side of the shells, and their case construction all appears to be consistent.

Reference your item 10. But first, let me collectively hand you what's been marked as State's exhibits 144, the State's exhibits 145, 146, 147, and 149 collectively. Please take them out individually, review them, let me know if you recall what they are. Make and manufacture is what I'm interested in.

State's exhibit 145, it's headstamped Winchester 12-gauge with Drylok three inches and a 2 on the shells. State's exhibit 146 is headstamped Winchester 12-gauge. On the shells, it says Drylok three inches number two. State's exhibit 147 is headstamped Winchester 12-gauge on the shells, Drylok three-inch number two. And States exhibit 149 headstamped Winchester 12-gauge on the shells, Drylok three inch number two.

Do those items indicate where they were recovered?

Based on the packaging.

What is the packaging? Where does the packaging indicate those items were recovered?

The packaging for State's exhibit 145 says "from estate box on bookshelf in Gun Room." States exhibit 146 says "from kent box on bookshelf in gun room." State's exhibit 147 says "from nightstand in Paul's room." And States exhibit 149 says "from estate box on bookshelf in Gun Room."

Thank you, I'm gonna hand you what's been marked and identified as State's exhibit 33, SLED item 10. Where was that located?

SLED item 10, again, was a fire gauge shotshell headstamped Winchester 12-gauge on the side Drylok three-inch number two. And that was located at marker 10, which again, based on my understanding, was near that feed room.

Identify, please, the make and manufacturer of that item.

Yes sir, it was headstamped Winchester 12-gauge, and on the shells, it says Drylok three inch two.

Is that consistent with the make and manufacturer of all the other items you just reviewed?

Yes, sir, it is.

Are those all the items you just reviewed, Mr. Greer?

1:52:26

Yes, sir.

All right, no further questions from the state.

We'll take a few minutes break, ladies and gentlemen. Do not discuss the case.

Sir, cross-examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE). I just wanna see if we can agree on one thing, and that is, you're not here to tell this jury that any of the weapons in this room were used, in your opinion, to murder Maggie or Paul. Correct?

Based on my examination of the evidence I had—was able to identify that there were matching mechanism marks in items around, as much in the body of Maggie Murdaugh, and other areas of the property. And in regards to the two shotshell in comparison with those shotguns, items nine and ten were inconclusive with the item 22 shotgun.

So, that means you cannot and you did not and you are not offering an opinion that item 22 shotgun was used to murder Paul Murdaugh. Correct?

My result was inconclusive. I mean, what that ultimately means is I'm not able to determine that. It's a possibility that it could have been fired by that shotgun, and it also could have been another firearm with similar characteristics.

Meaning it's just equally possible it wasn't that gun.

That's possible.

And this three 300 Blackout, we know a 300 Blackout was used to murder Maggie Murdaugh. Correct?

Based on the evidence that I received, I did have several projectiles that were 300 Blackout caliber that were most consistent with that, as well as several cartridge cases that were headstamped that caliber.

And you're not here to tell this jury, in your opinion, that this 300 Blackout laying on the floor here was used to murder Maggie Murdaugh. Correct?

The results of the comparisons of those cartridge cases, items two through seven, with test-fire from that item 33 rifle, were also inconclusive, meaning I was unable to determine if those cartridge cases were fired by item 33 or they've been fired by another firearm.

Well, how many shot—how many cartridge were found at the murder scene of 300 Blackouts, do you remember?

Based on my understanding of the crime scene, I believe I was only submitted items two through seven. So, that would be six fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases. And again, I was not at the scene to recover those. That's just what was submitted to me and based on my understanding of the evidence.

Okay, I'm gonna—I'm gonna stay on the 300 Blackout for a moment. I'm going to show you what we marked as Defense exhibit 69.

(UNINTELLIGIBLE).

Excuse me?

Just what I previously (UNINTELLIGIBLE)—

Yeah, and um, and you have your file there but take a look at Defendant's 769 and see—tell us if you recognize that document as coming from your Firearms file report, excuse me, extended report.

Yes sir, this um, State's exhibit—

Defendant's exhibit.

Excuse me, yes sir, defendant's exhibit 69 does appear to be a copy of two pages from my case file.

Thank you, your honor we would move defendants exhibit 69 in the evidence, I believe without objection.

No objection.

Submitted.

This is page number 6768. We're going to pull it up on the screen, and while we're doing that, um, Agent Greer, is this your worksheet for the 300 Blackout that's here in the courtroom and SLED item 33 which bears state's exhibit number 88?

Yes sir, that would be a copy of my worksheet for SLED item 33.

Okay, and this is the— this is the item—you're not prepared to tell the jury here that in your opinion was not used to murder Maggie Murdaugh.

Based on my examination of the cartridge cases or several of those cartridge cases that were recovered from all the locations, the results of those comparisons were inconclusive. I'm unable to determine if they were fired by that firearm or by another firearm with those similar characteristics.

But you did test-fire this item 33, correct?

Yes sir, I did.

And on the second page of exhibit 69, um, Doug if you'll pull up the description of what happened, and if you'll tell the jury what problems you encountered when you test-fire item 33, which is States exhibit 88.

Yes sir, during the test firing, I loaded the magazine with cartridges , and that was SLED item 34, and I inserted that into the magazine well of the SLED item 33, the rifle. I chambered the first available cartridge into the firearm and fired it. That went as expected. The cartridge was fired; it extracted and ejected from that firearm properly. However, as that bolt was going back forward, I would have expected it to pick up the next available cartridge from the magazine. However, it didn't, and I had to manually cycle that bolt again to load the next available cartridge from the magazine. That issue did not prevent me from test fire it, and I was able to collect those test specimens that I needed, and no further analysis to determine the cause of that was conducted.

So when you say you had to manually, says as a firearm cycle—the next available cartridge in the magazine failed to feed in the chamber, so then you had to manually do it— how do you manually do it?

Yes sir, on the um, the top of the firearm, there's a charging handle. I had to pull back on that charging handle, which in turn pulls that bolt backwards, and when I did that and released it, it was able to then go forward on its own and pick up the next cartridge from that magazine that was inserted into the firearm.

And you had to do that every time you fired, um, exhibit 88, is that correct?

Yes sir, I believe so. During my test firing, I did have that phenomenon occur.

So, was it fair to say exhibit 88, item 33, was malfunctioning when you tested it?

It did not work as I expected it to. I would have expected it to fire and load that next cartridge as it should. However, when we're test firing these firearms, we're holding them in different ways because we're testing them in a bullet recovery tank, which at the time was a vertical tank filled with water. So I had to hold it in kind of a strange position, but through all my test firing, I did have this situation occur, but again, no other testing to determine why that was happening was conducted, and I was able to test-fire that gun and collect those test specimens

And, and it is fair to say you were not able to rapid-fire—pull the trigger, pull the trigger, pull the trigger, and shoot, bullets in immediate succession?

During my testing, I had to, to manually load that next cartridge in, so it just took the amount of time that it would take me to, to do that step if you will, instead of the firearm performing that function for me, I had to do it and, and that's what I did in this case.

Okay. And then, um, all right. Were you able to get the, um, projectile out of the water tank and compare it to the two projectiles found at the murder scene? I believe I know it's item eight or, as part of your analysis, did you compare projectiles from item 33 to the projectiles found at the scene?

Yes sir, that is correct. I did collect those test-fire bullets from our water tank, and I did compare that where appropriate with the fired projectiles that were submitted.

And did you reach any conclusions based upon that projectile comparison?

Yes sir, I did.

And what were those conclusions?

Based on the observable physical characteristics of items eight and twelve, those are SLED items eight and twelve, I determined those to be most consistent with 300 Blackout caliber. Item eight may be suitable for identification with other evidence, and item twelve sustained damage, and it was unsuitable for identification with other evidence, and that means that due to the damage that it had sustained, there were no identifying—identifying features that I saw under the microscope that I would use for identification purposes. I also received several other projectiles and fragments that I compared to the item 33 rifle. Due to damage in their size, the caliber—calibers of items 11, 66, and 137 cannot be determined. They were just too small for me to make any determination about their caliber. Due to damage, and the limited marks of value that I saw on item 11, specifically the fired bullet jacket fragment in the item 66 fired bullet jacket fragments, it was concluded that those may or may not be suitable for identification and used and compared those later on to the rifle. Based on that no marks of value that were displayed on the item 11 bullet jacket frame, it's item 11 piece of lead, and item 66 pieces of lead, though—I determined those were unsuitable. So, again, due to there being no marks of value for me to compare, I was unable to—to compare those with those test bullets. Item 137 bore some type of striae marking; however, I was unable to determine the origin of those marks and—and use those for identification purposes, and it was determined that it was also unsuitable. Lastly, the three items that I did compare with those test specimens that fire from those rifles, which were item eight, the item 11 fired bullet jacket fragment, and the item 66 fired bullet jacket fragments, the results of those comparisons were also inconclusive with each other and with those test specimens, and that was due to damage and just insufficient markings for us to base our opinion on. It could not be determined—whether those items were fired by item 33 or by another firearm or firearms with similar characteristics.

So, exhibit 250 is the projectile that was found by marker eight, I believe was confirming that one. Is that right?

Yes sir, that is correct. State's exhibit 250 was SLED item 8, near tire impression at marker eight, that's correct.

And I, I believe you just—as you're reading from your report, you told the jury that that you couldn't make any conclusions about the projectiles seen—of the scene from the projectiles fired in a water tank from this 300 Blackout laying on the floor here, is that right?

That's correct. The results of those comparisons were inconclusive, so I'm unable to determine if item 8 was fired by the rifle or by another firing with similar rifling characteristics.

Well, aren't, aren't the rifling marks on a projectile as it goes through the barrel more reliable when making firearm identifications than—than most any other tool marks that you rely upon?

I wouldn't say they're more reliable. We do rely on the rifling in that barrel to—to mark those projectiles, and that's what gives those markings on those bullets, so we're able to look at them and do a firearms identification examination on them. Tools, firearms, all mark evidence, again I was unable to do that in this case, and my results were inconclusive. I mean, that's due to the damage that these may have sustained and to just insufficient markings that that were on the bullet when I looked at it. There was not enough of those markings on there for me to determine if they were fired by item 33.

But item eight, exhibit 250 there, do you recall whether there was human organic matter on that projectile when it was recovered?

Let me refer to my notes, um, I don't have documented in my notes that there was any foreign material or trace on it as I received it.

Okay, but we know that that projectile was recovered at the murder scene at marker eight, is that right? Near the top.

Yes, sir, near the firing position at marker eight, that's correct.

And you made comparisons of projectiles, excuse me, of shells cartridges, the back end of the full bullet that was collected at the shooting house on the property at Moselle, did you not? I don't have the numbers, but we went through them a moment ago. You did. Do you remember—let me ask you to take a look at the projectiles that were found. I believe they're items—well, nope, they are items 108 through 125. I'm not sure what their state exhibit numbers are, but if you look at 108 through 125 in your report, those are spent 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases.

SLED items 108 through 125 were determined all to be fired 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases, and in your report, it references "left of shooting chair near field, right front corner, etc." Maybe you don't know, but are you aware those were collected at a gun house at a firing range on the property?

Yes, yes sir, and I'm going back up, I misspoke earlier. It's 108 through 124 are the 300 Blackout caliber cartridge cases. But based on my understanding of everything, yeah, there was some type of shooting field or stand that I believe those were collected from, and that kind of seems to coincide with the item descriptions, which is what I'm familiar with.

Okay, and were you aware that when you're sitting in a shooting house and you're target practicing, that there was an earthen berm that the shots were fired into?

No, sir, I've never seen this area.

Okay, would it have been helpful to your analysis if investigators had dug out items from the earthen berm of the projectiles, such as what's sitting in front of you as States exhibit 250?

We're able to look at bullets, um, that are submitted, and we don't have any type of restraint. It may have been helpful. Bullets, as we've seen here, come to us in all shapes and sizes due to their damage that they may have sustained, and so I'm unable to really answer that question without seeing the evidence and determining if it would be helpful.

Okay, I want to ask you a little more about the conclusions that you've reached as documented in your report, and I've particularly focused on item 128. And I'm still talking about the Buster 300 Blackout that's laying on the floor here in the courtroom. And just so we're clear, there were items—the cartridges that we talked about, the back end of the bullet that you were able to conclude that they were fired. They were fired by this gun, right?

Yes, sir. I was able to determine, in looking at the totality of the marks on those cartridge cases, that there were items submitted to me have been fired by that firearm.

And your conclusion that they've been fired by this gun, and we're talking about the cartridges, one is cartridge 38 which is up by the residence, correct?

Yes, sir, SLED item 38, that's my understanding, and it was submitted as being recovered from near a door.

Well, and that's the door that you testified that you saw when you went on the property.

Yes, sir, I believe so, that's my understanding.

And so, it's been a long week, two weeks, but there was a SLED agent early in the case who had body cams going around picking up chairs, spent shells cartridges adjacent to that door, and you believe this is one of those, right?

That's my understanding, that those items came from the area outside that gun room door.

And you concluded that—that item 38, along with some other items found at the shooting house, which would be, well, items 109 and 110, you concluded, were 109 and 110 found, yeah, that's the shooting range, correct?

Yes, sir, as submitted to the lab, collected item 109 was collected from right front corner near field, and item 110 was in front of shooter's chair under table near field.

Okay. And so, one spent cartridge found next to the door up at the main residence at Moselle, and then you've got five are found at the shooting range that you say, in your opinion, were fired by this gun.

Yes, sir, that is my opinion.

But then you've also—also matched other cartridges according to report items 111, 114, 115, 18, 19, 123—and it says 128, in your report that you say were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from this rifle.

That's correct.

But you don't say they were fired from this rifle.

That's correct.

But they were spent shells casing found at the shooting range, correct?

Yes, sir, and those were fired cartridge cases in—in just plain terms, they had been fired. When I'm looking at the totality of all these markings, again, we go back to those five areas that we're really going to look at. The marks that I saw that were in agreement that I made that conclusion and based my opinion on were those ejector or lug and extractor marks, and that's not what detonated that primer. So, that's the difference there. So, we know those marks can occur when that cartridge or fired cartridge case is cycling through there, but that's not what detonated that cartridge, and that's the difference in that result. Yes, sir.

Well, let's look at it from the other side of the coin. So you're saying that the breech marks on the primer where the firing pin hit the primer did not match up. Items, rifle 33, the breech marks on the firing pin didn't match up on these, um, spent cartridges 111, 114, 15, 118, 119, 123, 128.

No, sir. Um, when I—I did compare all of these cartridge cases to each other and with those test cartridge cases fired from it. Those items 111, 114, 115, 118, 119, 123, and 128. Um, due to insufficient corresponding markings on those, on that primer and in those breech face marks, I was unable to determine if they were all fired by item 33 or by another firearm, or firearms with similar characteristics. I did examine those, and the results of those comparisons were inconclusive.

So, you're saying you didn't—you're not telling the jury they don't match. It's just you couldn't match them. They're inconclusive.

My results of those, um, comparisons are inconclusive, yes, sir.

Okay. And then you also, in your report, reach the same, um, you conclude that it's inconclusive on whether item 33, State's exhibit 88—are you saying it's inconclusive whether item 33, which is exhibit 88, fired 2-7?

That's correct.

Are you saying it's inconclusive whether item 33, which is exhibit State's 88 um, at some point in time, loaded and ejected, extracted from item 33?

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

Well, we just talked about there's a difference between firing and then cycling and extracting—

Yes, sir.

—tool marks .

Yes, sir.

Did you look at that? Did you look at States exhibit 88 to see if the extraction marks matched up to items two through seven?

Um, based on the evidence that I received, I was able to determine that items two through seven had those matching mechanism marks with items 35 through 37, 39, 108, 113, 116 through 117, and 122. To conclude that those items had been loaded into, extracted, and ejected—

Sorry about that—

—from the same firearm at some previous time.

But you can't identify the fire—the firing firearm—the gun?

Correct, in terms of being fired by, I was able to determine that several items had been fired by that rifle, and the results of those comparisons with the other items, SLED items two through seven, 35-37, 39, 108, 111 through 120, 122 through 124, and 128. Those comparisons with each other and the test cartridge cases fired by the item 33 rifle were inconclusive.

And so, um—so let's see if I can understand what you're talking about with regard to your conclusions on—that items two through seven, which were shell casings found near Maggie's body and other spent cartridges found around the Mozelle house, and at the shooting range; you conclude that they were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time.

That's correct.

And for those, I guess we have the same issue. You looked at the primer, the breech marks on the primer, and you couldn't make any conclusions on those, right?

When I looked at the primer area where those breech-facing firing pin impressions are, the results, including that in a fire-by result, were inconclusive, and that is the results for items two through seven and 35 through 37, 39, 108, 111 through 120, 122 through 124, and 128.

And again, aren't the breech marks in the firing pin, aren't those more reliable than extractor marks when you're doing an analysis?

During the marking of these specimens, if you will, through firing, um, the machining process to create those firearms, we see tool marks on fired cartridge case and fired bullets from multiple different processes. I can't say that one's more reliable to mark than the other. It's all due to the machining process and also due to the individual wear and tear of that firearm through use or abuse of the firearm. That can also add to the markings in each of those locations that we're looking at, whether it be something from the breech face, from the firing pin, those extractors and ejectors, or even the rifling in the barrel. All of those variables can play into those markings and how we see those and how they reproduce on our evidence and how individual they are to each gun.

Well, that does bring me to another point. Isn't your opinion based upon the conclusion that every 300 Blackout manufactured in the world, whether it's put together by John Bedingfield or mass-assembled at a State Armory or anywhere in the world, that each one, when they cycle a bullet through and eject it, will produce its own unique, like-no-other-in-the-world, its own unique tool mark? Isn't that—isn't that what your opinion is based on?

Again, during the manufacturing of these components—

Is that a yes or no?

I would like to explain it a little more.

Your Honor, can I get a yes or no and then an explanation?

Your Honor, I'm objecting, but he can answer the question.

Restate the question.

Is it your opinion, based upon the presumption, or the basis of your opinion is that every 300 Blackout manufactured in the world produces its own unique set of tool marks when it cycles a bullet through? Yes or no?

I would like to answer that with a little bit of explanation if possible.

Your Honor, I would appreciate a yes or a no, and he can explain all day long.

You can answer yes or no. You must answer yes or no, and then explain.

Can you repeat the question one more time? I apologize.

Is it your opinion in this case about the shells cartridges being fired from the same 300 Blackout, isn't that based upon your presumption that each 300 Blackout manufactured in the world makes unique tool marks when it cycle a bullet and ejects it?

And it's hard to say. I have not looked at every 300 Blackout that's in the world, so it's hard to answer that question, but, but again, based on my knowledge of that process and how they're made, I'm able to support my answer without answering it in a yes or no manner, I suppose.

But you're saying you found shells here, shells—cartridges here, cartridges there, cartridges at the murder scene, and they all have very—I mean, not all the marks are identical, but enough marks are close enough to being identical, in your opinion, they were fired by one weapon in the world.

It's my opinion that those had all been cycled through the same firearm at one point in time. Yes, sir.

But not fired by the same firearm.

No, sir. That's not what my conclusions say. As far as being fired by that firearm or by the same gun, those results are inconclusive.

So, that means that the markings on the breech, because they were all fired, they all have a firing pin hitting the primer, and you call that breech markings, correct?

Uh, yes, sir. Those are breech face markings that we would see on the primer.

And they were dissimilar. The similarities between those were—you couldn't reach a conclusion.

That's correct. Those shared, again, those same class characteristics—so we were—we compared those to each other based on our comparisons. That's correct. There was not enough—there's not enough agreement. There was insufficient agreement there for me to reach a conclusion based on my training and experience and looking at all these cartridge cases that I could say that they were fired by the same firearm. And that's how we arrived at that conclusion.

And, um, can you say when those, um, tool markings were made on the—or when the— scratch that—there is any way to determine—for you to determine when the shell casings, cartridges were cycled and ejected in this one firearm that's unique to all others in the world?

I cannot date when those were fired or when those were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from a firearm. No, sir. I cannot put a time stamp, if you will, on that.

And you can't state whether it was a 300 Blackout assembled and, um, 2016 given as a birthday gift or if it was a replacement given in 2017 or 2018. I mean, you don't know what year the gun was that cycled and ejected.

That's correct. I do not have knowledge on the year of manufacture of these firearms.

Okay. Now let's move on to the shotguns, and we were clearing a few things up. You were shown a lot of items that were taken; unfired shotshell, and this was 12-gauge. I'm gonna show you Exhibit 143, 144, 145, 6, 7, 8, 19 all the way 50, and I'm not going to ask you to take these out, but I want you to, um, take a look at all those and tell me when those were received or taken into evidence in this case.

I do see a date on the packaging—some of these packages are ripped right through it—that states 9/13/21.

Okay, and so you understand that is June, July, July, three months after these murders, correct?

Yes, sir, that, uh, September 13th will be several months after the murders, yes, sir.

And those were seized at different places around the property?

Yes, sir, according to the information here. It appears they were from different locations, um, that and where they were collected from, yes, sir,

Okay, and, um, and I guess you don't know whether—I mean the property of Moselle was open to Alex Murdaugh. I mean, from June till September, as far as you know, right?

I have no knowledge of that, no, sir.

And if he had the mind to, he could go out and remove every shotgun shells on the whole property, right?

I have no knowledge of how the scene was maintained.

Well, it would appear that no one removed any shotgun shells since you have them there in your lap, right?

It does appear that these were collected from these areas listed on the package on September—I assume it's September 13 as it's dated and labeled by the person who collected these.

Okay, um, let me show you Exhibit 63 and 60, and what I marked at 63 and 64. And these are pages 51 and 55 in your report. And when you just confirmed this for me, 63, 64, pages 50, 51, and 55 from your report?

Yes, sir, I do recognize Defendant's Exhibit 63—appears to be a copy of an item 10 worksheet for the fired shotshell, and Defendant's Exhibit 64 appears to be a copy of my worksheet for SLED item 14, which were 24 birdshot pellets.

Thank you. I'd like to introduce into evidence Defendant's 63 and 64.

No objection.

Submitted.

And just, uh, Doug, if you pull up 63, which is page 51 of the report, and, Agent Greer, will you tell the jury what this is?

Uh, yes, this is just a copy of one of our standard worksheets that we use to document evidence in the laboratory. So this is an ammunition and cartridge case worksheet, which is why I utilized it when I was documenting the item 10 fired shotshell. And this contains my notes that I took on that item.

Okay. And just so that we're clear, are we talking about Exhibit 33? This is the black-colored shotshell that was found in the feed room where Paul Murdaugh was murdered.

Yes, sir, that is correct. State's Exhibit 33 is the item we're discussing.

And you have a name under notes. It says, on shotshell, it says, "Drylock 3-inch 2." You see that?

Yes, sir. I do.

See that Duncan? Highlight that. Thank you. And, and again, um, the exhibit there, and that's what you're talking about, right?

Yes, sir. That's correct.

And, number two is the size of the pellets?

Yes, sir. That would refer to the size of the pellets or birdshot that was, um, that we would believe to have been loaded into that cartridge or that shotshell, excuse me.

Okay. And then, um, if you go to Exhibit 64, page 55, Doug, and it's 55 in your report, um, Agent Greer, and are these the, pellets that were provided to you to analyze? The number two size pellets.

Yes, sir. SLED item 14, I determined to be 24 birdshot pellets, and those were listed as being dog food storage room.

And if you look under the caliber, it says number 2, and it says "steel." These were steel pellets? Were they not?

Based on my examination, and based on my observation, yes, sir, they were magnetic so, that would provide that they had some steel in them. Yes, sir.

And—and birdshot can either be steel or lead? I suspect. Maybe there's a third kind.

There can be multiple different metals used in making pellets. Lead is one. Steel is one. There are also other metals that can be used in making pellets, yes, sir.

Have you analyzed any of the Winchester Drylocks that were seized in September of 2021 to see whether they were steel or lead?

No, sir. I have not analyzed their contents.

Okay. Now, here you've got exhibit 64. You've got grain weight, and I want you to explain what you're referring to. I guess I needed—I'm missing a page for that. So, if you'll look at your page 54 in your file because I—it says "continued from Wade," and I guess that's on page 54. Is that right?

No, sir, That's just referencing from the weight category that's kind of the top portion of the page—

Okay.

I just continued my thoughts down below.

Well, so help me out here. You say there's five pellets weighing 3.4 grams, and then 18 pellets only weighed 3.6 grams. How does that work?

I weighed each of those pellets individually. And again, we're weighing in grain, and when I weighed those on our scale, that is what I documented; five of them weighed 3.4, and that should be a piece. Eighteen of them each weighed 3.6 grams, and one pellets weighed 3.8 grain.

Okay.

So, the total of them all together was approximately 86.4 grain.

Great. Thank you for explaining that. You also weighed the grain of the 300 Blackout projectiles? You don't have that in front of us right here, but did you not weigh the grain there?

Yes, sir. I did.

And if you've got it, tell us what they were. I have my notes here. I believe you said 147 grain. State's exhibit 50. Which is your item 8 on your report.

I—yes, sir. When I weighed SLED item 8, which is one fired bullet, it was approximately 147.4 grain.

And are you familiar with how 300 Blackout ammunition is sold? What weight classes there are?

I don't know all of the different weights that are within that caliber, no, sir.

Do you know that there's like a subsonic and then supersonic?

Again, I don't know everything about that caliber. There are various weights that bullets are sold in for each caliber. So, I would not be surprised at other grain weights, but I don't know all of them off the top of my head today.

And as far as you know, the only weight you could ever get is 147 grain, right?

When I weighed these items. Item 8 and item 12, they weighed approximately 147.

You mentioned in your testimony that item 32, which is exhibit 91, had a Winchester and a Federal 12-gauge shotgun shells in here. Do you remember that?

Yes, sir, they did have two unfired gauge shotshell submitted with it. That's correct.

But you did more than that when you testified shortly ago. You said one was a Winchester and one was a Federal, I believe.

Yes, sir. One is Federal Premium Heavyweight TSS, and one is a 12-gauge Winchester Long Beard XR, I believe.

The Winchester is not a Drylock, correct?

No, sir. The markings on that shells said a Long Beard XR.

Okay, and the Winchester found at the murder scene was a Drylock, correct?

The item is 10 shotshell which was recovered from marker 10 which I do believe—my understanding was that around the body of Margaret Murdaugh was a Winchester 12-gauge shells and it says Drylock on it. Yes, sir.

Alright, thank you. And then item 22 which is the gun that Alex Murdaugh—Murdaugh came down—was holding—or it was leaning up against his Suburban when Deputy Daniel Green arrived. That was—do you understand loaded with a 12-gauge and a 16 gauge shells, correct?

When I received it, it was unloaded, but I did receive a 12-gauge shells and a 16 gauge shells. That's correct.

If you fire a 16 gauge in a 12-gauge shotgun, what's likely to happen?

That's something that I have not done so, I am unable to answer that question.

Is it dangerous to do such a thing?

As a firearms examiner, I would recommend shooting the ammo that your firearm is chambered for. I can't predict what would happen if you shot that shotshell, or attempted to.

Alright. You spoke of this review process at SLED with regard to your Toolmark analysis , and you said you do your analysis. You look at things under a microscope, and you type up a report?

Yes, sir. I look at the evidence, reach a conclusion, and write or type those conclusions, yes, sir.

Uh, yes, sir. I look at the evidence, reach a conclusion, and then write or type those conclusions, yes, sir.

And then a reviewer, someone, and in this case, what the name—the initials CW?

The reviewer was Chad Smith, another examiner within our department.

Is he on the same level with you at SLED?

He is also an examiner. I don't know his classification, but he has been employed in the department longer than I have and completing firearms examination.

Okay, and then he looks at it, but does he prepare an independent report and then flips the two over and see if they match? Or does he just take a look at it, come up with his thoughts, and then look at your document to see if he agrees with it?

He does not prepare an independent report. No, he does look at the evidence and arrives at those conclusions, and he would read my results. If he agrees with them, then he will sign off on this conclusion. If he disagrees with them, then there's also a procedure for that to happen.

Now you mentioned that in order to make an identification or a match, or do you have to have a certain number of similar or—is it similar or identical characteristics?

In order to make an identification, we want to see sufficient agreement between the individual characteristics. There's not a certain number that I use. As we use a series, excuse me, a method called pattern matching, and we're looking at—under the microscope all these tiny striations and impressions and looking at the surface contours of those two tool marks with each other, and we're looking at those individual peaks and ridges and comparing those under high magnification in order to make an identification. And based on that, through our training and experience of doing this job, we look at thousands of comparisons and, excuse me, conduct thousands of comparisons. During that time we look at things that match each other that we know have been fired from the same gun or made by the same tool, and we look at things that have been fired by separate guns and see if there's any agreement or disagreement. And we look at thousands of these cartridge cases and bullets and tool marks in order to learn what that sufficient agreement is to make our identification.

Okay, and you gave this jury an analogy like a ladder, and that you have to get up so many steps. As you reach the first step, I guess, would be rifle or shotgun, right? And then the second step would be caliber of rifle if we're talking about a rifle. Then you keep going up the ladder?

Yes, sir, yes, sir. We're going to look at those class characteristics, so we're going to determine if, you know, one, if they're the same caliber. Do they share the same rifling specifications? If they're a fired bullet. If they are, then we can compare those. If, for instance, if a bullet has five lands and grooves and it's going to the right, then we compare that to another bullet that has six lands and grooves and it's going to the left, then we know those did not come out of the same barrel, so there's no need to do any type of comparison there. However, if we look at two that have those same lands and grooves, those five lands and grooves, and they're all going to the right, they're the same caliber, then we'll go up that ladder, if you will, and compare those individual characteristics to see if they were fired by the same firearm or not.

Tell us, Jerry, how many steps of that ladder you have to go up before you can make an identification.

As far as making identification, it's based on the marks that—what we see under the microscope. When we're looking at all of these marks, we want to see that sufficient agreement. Again, we want to see enough agreement so that what is there is better than anything—any agreement that we've seen in tool marks that have been created by different tools. And that's learned on the job doing this—doing practicals that I did in training, looking at thousands of comparisons of things that I've test-fire that I know were fired from the same gun, looking at things that I've tested from different guns, and looking at that. It's also done through studies that I participated in in training, looking at things that help us know what that sufficient agreement is within all of those features and looking at the totality of those markings. So, we're not going to base our opinion just on one little mark. We're going to look at the entire surface area of that bullet, the entire surface area of that cartridge case, in order to make our conclusion. We're not looking at one little mark and making an identification, so we have to think of the totality of all the markings that we see under the microscope.

So, the short answer to my question; there is no set number of steps on the ladder you have to reach before you can make your decision.

We use a pattern, excuse me, a method of pattern matching again, and that's how we do it. And that's widely accepted—a method throughout all firearms examiners in the United States and the world, really. That's what we've been using for years to complete firearms identification, and that's what's been widely accepted, looking at these patterns and comparing them in order to make our identification and reach our conclusion.

Well, now you say it's been widely accepted, but isn't it true that your field of expertise has come under criticism by the scientific community?

There has been criticism, but again, there's been research completed to support firearms identification, if you will.

Well, I mean, the National Academy of Scientists issued a report and was pretty critical of the objectivity of your work. That it is more subjective because you don't have a set number of ladder rings on the ladder you got to reach. It's based upon your experience, your training, and your opinion, but there's no objective criteria by which to measure whether something matches or not, and that—you're aware of that criticism by the National Academy of Scientists, right?

I'm aware of some of the criticism, yes, sir. However, the process of making the identification is subjective in nature, but it's based on some objective data that we're looking at. So there's again lots of information that we're looking at, the contours of those tool marks , the individual peaks and ridges of those tool marks , and looking at it. It's not just looking to see, um, is this a match, and it looks good. We're really looking under high magnification at all of these features to see what agreement or disagreement that we can determine. And again, that's based on some objectivity, you know, of how we arrive at that situation.

But you agree that your chosen field is part art as much as science, right?

Our field is an applied science, um really. We do use lighting and angles to look at these features under the microscope, and it's important to know how to move those items around and move those lighting and those different stages on our microscope in order to see some of these markings. I mean, it can be difficult to do, and there is a special technique that you know—you have to learn in looking at this and doing it and using that microscope to really become familiar and efficient.

Did you agree with me previously in this courtroom under oath that this profession you're in is part art?

There is some art to it, and that's just the lighting thing, for example. We have to look at that, and we have to use that oblique lighting in order to make some of those striations show up. Again, these are tiny little marks that we're looking at under magnification, but the field itself is not art; it's an applied science. We're using scientific processes to reach these conclusion, excuse me, these conclusions, with years of research to support it.

You first examined—you first examined item 22 back in June of 2021, correct? Which is—

Yes.

Which is the right, the shotgun that Alex Murdaugh had that was taken by Deputy Green, right?

Uh, yes, sir. Item 22 was a Benelli model Super Black Eagle, and I did receive that item in June, yes, sir.

And when did you receive—I'm not going to pick it up again because I dropped it, and it's almost past five o'clock on a Friday. I don't want to create a bit more of a delay--but when did you receive the 300 Blackout?

Is that the item 33 rifle that you're referring to?

Yes, sir.

I received item 33, which was inside SLED container K, on June 10th.

And when did you issue your preliminary opinions on item 33 and item 22 to your agency, SLED?

I released some results to our agents and investigators on June 10th, June 10th, yes, sir.

Are you aware after June 10th that SLED dive teams have been going out in Colleton County, diving the waters, trying to find murder weapons?

I'm not aware of what all our dive teams were doing. No, sir.

Well, you certainly didn't report to the folks who are relying on your work that we found the murder weapons, did you?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

You didn't report to the folks at SLED who rely upon your analysis that, "Hey, eureka! We got the murder weapons!"

No, sir. That's not what I reported.

And you've never received any projectiles from the shooting range at Moselle to compare—

Your Honor, asked and answered.

I haven't asked my question yet.

May I hear your question?

Have you ever received any projectiles from the shooting range of Moselle to compare to the projectile item number eight?

I object. It's been asked and answered.

Possibly, but you can answer it again.

Yes, sir.

If you've answered it before.

Based on my understanding of the scene, I do not believe I received any projectiles from that shooting area. But that's based on my understanding of where I believe the other projectiles are recovered from.

When you got item 22, the shotgun, do you know whether it had been swabbed on the inside of the barrel?

Um, I believe it had been processed by other departments. However, I do not know what those swabs entailed.

If a shotgun has been recently fired, does it leave evidence in the barrel that should? Stuff.

Yes, sir. It's possible that we would see some type of residue from firing in that barrel.

And are you aware that Agent Worley swabbed it before she removed the 16-gauge shells from it?

No, sir. I do not know what Agent Worley did in this investigation.

Can you see residue with the naked eye of a shotgun that just recently been fired?

Sometimes, yes, sir. And that is something that we also document as part of our examination of the firearm. And when I looked into the barrel and looked down the bore of the item 22 shotgun, I do have in my case file circled that I noticed some fouling or residue in the barrel.

Was it recent fouling or residue, or was it just a dirty gun?

I do not—I can't date when that fouling was placed there. That was the residue—that residue was placed there. No, sir. I can't put a time on that.

What about the 300 Blackout? Was it—I think you have a note that some fouling there, but maybe I'm confusing it.

Yes, sir. That's correct. On the item 33 rifle, I did note that there was some fouling or residues in that barrel.

The opinion that you have provided this court as to the shells casing from the murder scene, which are items SLED items two through seven, and that your opinion is that they were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous time with items 35 through 37, 39, 108, 113, 116, 17, and 122, and those are shells casing that were found around the house and at the shooting range, your opinion that they were—that they were loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm—are you—do you hold that opinion with 100% certainty?

Yes, sir. That is my opinion. That is the conclusion that I reached.

Did you ever tell Agent Owen that you could not forensically state with 100% certainty?

Uh, no, sir. When I arrived at that conclusion, that was my conclusion, and it was also agreed upon by the reviewing examiner.

So, if there's a note in Agent Owen's report that you couldn't reach it with 100% certainty, that someone has made a mistake?

I don't know the contents of Agent Owen's report.

That's all I have, your honor.

You may redirect.

Thank you, your Honor.

Let's all stand for a moment.

Mr. Greer, I'm handing you what's been marked as State's exhibit 400. Could you kindly review that very, very quickly and let me know if you're familiar with what it is?

Yes, sir.

What is it?

This appears to be a copy of my report.

It's an accurate, complete copy of your report?

Yes, sir. It does appear to be.

All the things we just discussed here today?

Yes, sir.

State would move to admit item 4, State's Exhibit 400. I believe we've already talked about it.

No objection.

Submitted.

Mr. Greer, please. You know, because some of the questions concerned your field, um, please tell us how long has firearms identification and Toolmark identification—how long has it been around?

In its current form, I would say the early 1900s is when this really became popular, and firearms identification was born with several important cases. And it was as early as the 1900s that they started looking at this evidence and looking at those individual characteristics through, microscopy. So ever since that time, it's just evolved and grew with further research and support, advances in technology, and—but it's been around for several years.

And are you familiar with any studies that were done utilizing what would be called consecutive barrels?

Yes, sir.

Firearms. Explain to us what a consecutive barrel study would be and what's done in those.

Sure. When we're looking at those characteristics under the microscope that were imparted onto a fired bullet or, excuse me, a fired bullet or a cartridge case, and we're looking at all those tiny little features, a consecutively manufactured study takes into account the manufacturing process.

So, all those marks, as we discussed, are coming from that gun being produced by a manufacturer, metal scraping, and removing metal. So, we have tools cutting and tool stamping and really working on hard metal surfaces. Um, so when we look at a study that has consecutively manufactured things, that presents an opportunity for a worst-case scenario for us as examiners. If those tools were going to leave markings on other firearms, so if you had this breech face being made by the tool and it made the next one, it made the next one, those are consecutively manufactured. If there's any carryover of those characteristics from one to another, that's what that study does. It highlights that and it puts that as an emphasis as part of that study. And we, as examiners, in looking at that, that's our worst-case scenario. If we're going to see any carryover of that tool making that item or that breech face, we would expect to see marks. There are several studies that are out there, and I've participated in several of those as part of my training, where we're given samples that have been fired by consecutively manufactured barrels. So, if we see any agreement between each of those barrels, we should see it there or studies where we have consecutively manufactured breech faces. Again, those are breech faces made by the same tool one right after another. And if we see agreement in there, we should see it in that study. I've participated in those studies, my—excuse me, in those research projects. Some of them have been studies prior to me becoming an examiner, and I was able to clearly distinguish and accurately distinguish between those projectiles. So, I was able to determine those projectiles were fired by this barrel, this barrel, this barrel, and this barrel, or that cartridge case was fired by this gun with that breech face, this gun with that breech face, and this gun with that breech face. And so, we are aware of that in our community, and we do things to be proactive on that. And that's just an example, and that's something I participated in and was able to successfully pass as part of my competency in determining um what was fired by what in those consecutively manufactured studies.

Those were—and you repair firearms that you know were consecutively manufactured one after the other, right after the other.

That is correct.

And uh, just for clarity, we're talking about—I'm referring to items 33 and 22 on your report. That would be the item 33, meaning the blackout rifle, and then item 22 on the camouflage Super Black Eagle 3.

Yes, sir.

Your results for some of those were—when you say inconclusive, that what does that mean? Does that mean that they could have been fired, or that you just can't determine?

That's correct. Um, inconclusive is one of our conclusions that we can issue when there's not enough agreement or disagreement there in those tiny microscopic characteristics. So, what inconclusive means is it's possible it could have been fired by that gun, and it's possible that it may not have been fired by that gun.

Will you refer your attention to State's—to your item number 165, State's Exhibit 147. Remind us again what that item is.

Could I see item 165?

You're going to make me find it?

I'm sorry.

Okay, would you be able to find it in your report if you have it?

No, sir. I'm not sure that I'll be able to find it.

It should be here. There it is. Yeah, all right. I'm handing you what's—in order to—evidence of States 147 that would be SLED item 165.

Yes, sir. Did you identify what it is again and where it was located when it was found? More importantly.

Uh, yes, sir. This was a Winchester, uh, 12-gauge shotshell, and on the side of the shotshell, it's stamped Drylock three-inch two. On the packaging for State's Exhibit 147, it says, "from nightstand and Paul's room."

Now, I know counsel asked you a question about, you know, your field being an applied science. Just so we understand what an applied science is, are there any other examples of fields that are applied in that general realm of applied sciences?

Yes, sir. A lot of what we do as firearms examiner is learned through our process of training and looking at samples and learning the job. It's kind of like, if you will, a physician. They go to school. They learn a lot in their medical school, but they still do a residency program, if you will. So, they're on the job doing on-the-job training—

Your Honor, objection comparing what he does to—

Overruled. You may continue.

Please continue.

Yes, sir. So, they learn things in school. Firearms identification is not something that you can necessarily go to a school and learn to do. You can't get a four-year degree and become a firearms examiner the next day. There are universities across the Nation that have firearms identification as part of their firearms program, and they're teaching that component, but in order to achieve your competency at this, you need on-the-job training. You need the experience in looking at these samples and knowing how to evaluate the markings that we're looking at on these ammunition components.

Lastly, um, Agent Greer, uh, Mr., I'm going to refer you to State's exhibit 400. I'm going to put that on the screen. I'm going to direct your attention to item 128. Can you see that on your screen, Mr. Greer?

Yes, sir, I can.

Specifically, your findings concerning two through seven. You see where my pen is pointing?

Yes, sir. I do.

Which items were two through seven?

Those were from markers two, three, four, five, six, and seven, respectively, and from my understanding of the crime scene, those were the ones that were located around, um, Margaret Murdaugh's body.

Okay. And again, we're on what page now, Mr. Greer?

That's on page seven, yes, sir.

Items two through seven found around Maggie's body. Items 35 through 37 and 39. Where were those located?

Those were from the side entrance door, which would be the door, um, I believe coming out of the gun room area.

And items 108, 113, 116 through 17, and 122. Where were those located?

Those were from various areas thought to be from the shoot field or from the field.

And tell me again what they—what your conclusion was.

I was able to determine that, based on matching characteristics in the mechanism marks, that items 2-7, 35-37, 39, 108, 113, 116-117, and 122 had all been loaded into, extracted, and ejected from the same firearm at some previous times.

Nothing further. Thank you.

Further examination

No, Your Honor.

All right, thank you. You may step down.