An American ballistics expert giving evidence in the retrial of paratrooper Lee Clegg for the murder of teenager Karen Reilly rejected defence claims yesterday that his ballistics tests in the case were "flawed".
At Belfast Crown Court, Mr Luke Haag also rejected defence suggestions that because of the flaws, his conclusions were also flawed on how Ms Reilly (18) was shot twice when troops opened fire on the stolen Astra car in which she was a passenger.
Under cross-examination from defence QC Mr William Clegg, Mr Haag accepted that he and defence firearms experts disagreed on this very point. But he denied it was an example of a "classic" disagreement.
Mr Clegg told the court that it was the defence case that Ms Reilly had been shot by a "direct hit" fired through one of the car windows, and that the smallest wound on her back could not have been caused by a bullet fired through the side of the Astra car. Mr Haag said he was aware of the defence case and had carried out tests in Arizona by firing both damaged and undamaged bullets into pig and chicken skin to examine the proposition.
But he rejected defence suggestions that one result of those tests showed that a damaged bullet made a "bigger hole" in the skins. Mr Haag claimed that "would not be a safe conclusion", to which the defence suggested, "because it does not lie happily with your conclusion".
Earlier Mr Haag seemed not to accept that the measurement given by pathologist Prof Jack Craine for the small wound in Ms Reilly's back was "accurate". Mr Haag said (the court) would be "fooling ourselves" and he would not accept that skin wounds could be measured accurately.
"I don't think you can say `accurately measure', " said Mr Haag, who however added he would "not quarrel" if the measurement was described as the best estimate that could be given. He then said again: "The word `accurate' is not a safe word to use".
The defence put to Mr Haag that Prof Craine's measurements were consistent with a wound caused by a bullet "that has been a direct hit" without having hit any other object. Asked if he would accept that the wound on Ms Reilly's back was consistent with a direct hit, Mr Haag replied "yes, I do". The trial continues today.