'This bullet was fired by the same firearm': Another ballistic expert confirms murder weapon that killed Meyiwa

A chief forensic investigator has confirmed the findings by a ballistic expert on the murder weapon that killed footballer Senzo Meyiwa in 2014.

According to ballistic expert Col Chris Mangena, the bullet found on the scene of the murder matched the gun belonging to one of the accused, Mthobisi Mncube.

On Monday, Lt Olebile Sereo testified on how he peer-reviewed Mangena’s tests and confirmed his findings.

“It was determined that this bullet was fired from this firearm. This bullet was fired by the same firearm, the test of which I compared it with,” he said.

Mangena wrapped up his testimony last week after the defence cross-examined him, more than a year after he testified on his findings.

Mangena testified he was able to determine the gun was the same one that killed the footballer after examining the projectile found on the kitchen counter at the crime scene and test bullets fired from the gun found in Mncube's possession.

There were several individual characteristics or sufficient marks, he said.

Sereo, who examines ballistics-related evidence and regularly testifies in local courts as well as those in neighbouring countries, said he has examined in excess of 4,000 cases.

Describing the bullet that struck Meyiwa in 2014, to the court, he said: “The bullet is a 9mm calibre bullet. The type of bullet is a complete metal jacket. It has a slight dent on the nose.”

Sereo said to be able to make microscopic examination comparisons ballistic practitioners rely on the theory of identification.

He said ballistic practitioners globally subscribe to this theory which governs their work.

“This theory is very clear, as it states that when two marks are compared with each other when the surface contours are analysed and compared with each other, an opinion of common origin can be made if there is sufficient agreement between those surface contours. It further defines sufficient agreement. as a significant duplication of random tool marks as evidenced by the correspondence of a pattern or combination of patterns of surface contours. The surface contour is made up of bridges, valleys and peaks.

“When compared, the relative height of the peaks, the relative depth of the valleys, the width of the ridges or the valleys, the relative position, so all these are considered before an examiner can consider whether or not an identification has been made. It defines what significant agreement is. Briefly, it states that agreement is significant when the condition of the best-known non-match has been exceeded,” he said.

He explained to the court that the finding is based on the degree of similarities and not absolutely similarity. Even though two tool marks may originate from the same source, there will always be a smaller degree of similarities.

Sereo said this was based on the fundamental principle that it is humanly impossible to manufacture two objects that are microscopically identical.

Ballistics investigators thus always expressed their findings as “the two tool marks have a common origin and not state that they are microscopically identical”.

Further, he said the finding is based on the degree of similarity, not on absolute similarity.

“What is important is that the degree of similarity must outweigh the degree of dissimilarity.”

TimesLIVE