In 2001, an exchange occurred between a police officer and a young man in the locality of Bilbao.
As a consequence of this change, the young man suffers a gunshot wound in the left buttock.
The shot is produced with the regulatory weapon of the agent and the ammunition used was a single 9 mm projectile Parabellum Sako-Luger KPO [1].
The reports of the agent and the injured person were contradictory.
The detective, seated in a posterior seat and within a tourism, took him with a weapon find the agent outside the vehicle and the door open.
In a defensive attitude, the agent reports that he fired the injured person who was inside the vehicle and, after firing, gave him away from tourism.
The moment of firing in scenario 1, corresponding to the agent's statements, is schematized in image 1.
1.
In their statements, the injured person indicated that when seated at the back of the vehicle, the left posterior door was opened and the foot was lying on him by the police officer.
Once on the ground he listened and felt a shot in the left buttock region.
The moment of firing in scenario 2, corresponding to the statements of the injured person, is shown in image 2.
1.
HAZARDOUS EXPLOTORY CHARGES AND COMPLEMENTARY PRUEBES:
The injured person was seen for the first time in the forensic medical clinic of Bilbao one month after the events, after his stay in a hospital and his urgent care in which he did not extract the projectile.
The examination in this forensic medical clinic showed an oval scar of 1 x 1.5 cms in the left posterior flank (image 3).
1.
Radiographic studies performed in the emergency department (simple AP and lateral pelvic CT scans and pelvic CT scans) indicated the existence of several irregular radiopaque fragments of various sizes located in the left glue region.
No associated bone lesions were observed.
1.
Two years later, surgical removal of two fragments of projectile from the left buttock was performed.
The forensic physician is present during the intervention and the fragments are collected and, without previous manipulation, removed for ballistic study.
Several complementary tests were performed:
- Criminalistic study of the injured person's clothing: the study of the injured person's shirt indicated that there was a firing orifice with two large radial tears edges, and a sharp study of lead
The opening was situated at the back of the shirt, in its lower left quadrant.
- Study of the regulatory weapon used: the study of the weapon does not allow the identification of any abnormality in which it could have caused alterations in the projectile [2].
- A study of two fragments of projectile is located on the body of the injured person: both fragments are identified, deformed and corresponding with the ends of the buttock and the tip of a biological tissue condominium 9 mm.
On the same surface, irregular grooves and signs of the labrate of the weapon are found.
The conclusion of the study indicates that there has been fragmentation and rebound of the projectile with a 9 mm locked against an irregular surface.
- Study of the scene described in the police report: according to the data of the police certificate, there were no signs of projectile impacts on the vehicle or on the environment.
There is a projectile helmet on the asphalt which coincides with the supposedly triggered by the agent.
1.
The criminalistic studies carried out and the analysis of data derived from the examination of the certificate, wounds and imaging studies allowed us to establish that the shot had presented the following general characteristics:
- Disparo a cannon, concerning or very close to contact on the shirt.
- Penetration of fragments as a single hole in the victim's body with a trajectory described in pictures 6 and 7.
- Absence of fracture-like bone lesions or evident cracks on radiographic studies.
- Proyectil 9 mm Pb KPO Sako.
- ballistic analysis with rebound (ricochet) data on an irregular surface.
A metal or polished surface is discarded due to the irregularity of the furrows.
The absence of silicon on the collected remains does not confirm impacts on asphalt.
- Absence of data on defects in the weapon which might suggest projectile alterations prior to removal of the cannon's mouth mimicking a rebound and fragmentation of the projectile [2].
- Absence of any elements in the clothing of the injured person that could have acted as an intermediate impact point and a source of fragmentation and rebound between the weapon and the skin of the injured person.
