 |
|
How-to-Catch-a-Sniper Lessons
October 17, 2002
by John Bloom
Two of the most depressing Sniper Alert news conferences occurred Wednesday when a Montgomery County Police Captain lectured the public on "How To Be a Good Witness," and then again Thursday when the police essentially said many of the eyewitness reports from the Home Depot shooting were worthless.
They couldn't even execute a police sketch of the suspect. It's as though they were saying, "We have to wait until the guy shows up again, and this time you people WATCH MORE CLOSELY"-- assuming, of course, you're not the one with the bullet in your brain.
Of the three ways you can catch a guy like this--forensics that lead directly to his apartment, a snitch, or eyewitnesses at a murder scene--the cops appear to be leaning toward the latter. And yet the "How To Be a Good Witness" lesson was so juvenile as to be useless:
Look in the direction of the sound.
Remember that hair styles, facial hair, vehicle dents and burned-out lights are all "temporary."
Remember that complexion, height, make and model are "permanent."
Keep a pen and paper handy at all times.
Don't talk to other witnessess before the cops arrive.
This is treating witnesses as children. It's an attempt to conceal the actual investigative process and use the witnesses as automatons who respond in a predictable, controllable way. But actually, there ARE some specific facts that would help improve the quality of eyewitness testimony. So far I don't see anyone attempting to provide them.
For example:
1. Does the sniper always shoot for the head?
A witness needs to know WHERE TO LOOK when he sees a victim go down. A person with a head wound is going to fall before you hear the report, because the .223 bullet travels faster than the speed of sound. By knowing to look immediately at the head, you would be able to see the entry wound and line it up with the probable source of the shot.
You can piece these crimes together one by one and conclude on your own that he tends to prefer head shots, but I haven't heard the police say, "He shoots at the head." This would be good firm practical information that witnesses could use.
2. When the head is struck by the bullet, is it more likely to recoil forward or backward?
They key issue here is the direction of the bullet. As we know from the Kennedy assassination, the President's head recoiled in the direction from which the bullet was fired--not, as you would expect, in the same direction as the bullet.
If the answer to this question is that the head can recoil in either direction, depending on the position of the victim and what he or she is doing, then we should be told that. The witness might need to look in the opposite direction of where they initially think the shot is coming from.
3. Is the rifle report a crack, a boom, a pop, or that frequently used "sound of a car backfire"?
If they know what kind of gun is being used--there are 30 that fire the same bullet--then police could record the sound on a firing range and make it widely available. If they don't know what kind of gun is being used, they could provide a range of possible sounds. It only takes five seconds for the sniper to vanish. If you could be certain from the first second that it was a gunshot, you would have a better chance of spotting him.
4. How far away is the gunman?
We've been told that he can be accurate up to 500 yards, but we haven't been told what his "comfort zone" is. With 11 shootings now, and with investigators examining every inch of the surrounding terrain, there should be some solid information about what his range is. Wouldn't this be helpful to witnesses? Two football fields or three? Exactly where in the middle distance is he likely to be found?
5. Does he shoot from inside a vehicle or does he open the door?
This is something else that should be known by now. If they've found powder burns in the grass, then he could be leaving the vehicle in a concealed place and returning to it. If they've found powder burns near tire marks, then he could be standing outside the vehicle, perhaps using the door or window to steady his arm. If they've found none of the above, he could be firing from inside the vehicle.
Again, shouldn't we be told what to look for? Are we looking for a vehicle or a person?
There seems to be a tendency to withhold basic forensic details, presumably under the theory that the gunman is watching TV and might change his modus operandi. Since his current modus operandi has a 100 percent success rate, I'd like to see the information come out anyway. We SHOULD be forcing him to change. If he tried something he's never tried before, he just might screw it up.
If you're going to give us lessons, let's have some lessons that will matter.