"Hello, is this Dr. ______ (Deleted)? Comment deleted at called party's request. I received a call from a mutual acquaintance a few days ago and he thought that it may be beneficial if you and I spoke regarding the results of the Strasbourg Tests. Comment deleted. He asked me not to say. Comment deleted. Because it might affect your working relationship. Comment deleted. I'm not at liberty to divulge my identity, but he's under the impression that you may have questions regarding the legitimacy of the tests.....and maybe I can supply you with some usable information. Do you have time for a brief discussion of this? Comment deleted. Good. If you'd like me to proceed with this conversation, I'm required to inform you that you are on speaker phone and that both sides of this conversation are being transcribed. This transcript will be turned over to my superiors as well as to the editor of a law enforcement publication. This conversation is not being electronically recorded, but if you'd like to tape record your end of the conversation, feel free to do so. Please bear in mind that by regulation I am required to make it clear that I am not giving you permission to record my voice. A transcript of this conversation can be supplied if you would like one sent to you. Comment deleted. We can have it to you in twenty-four hours. Do you have any questions or objections regarding the required procedure I just outlined? Comment deleted. The entire transcript must be turned over to my associates but we can edit out your comments if you insist. Comment deleted. That's right, your comments will not be published. Would you like to proceed under these conditions? Comment deleted. We have your permission to proceed, then? Comment deleted.
To start, I'd like to make you aware that these tests really represent an unprecedented merging of military and trusted, private sector personnel and funding.....and while these tests were organized and directed by both retired and active military personnel, they were not directly sanctioned or funded by any branch of the U.S. military. Did you happen to see the 60 Minutes interview with Dr. Carey several weeks ago? Comment deleted. If you had, you would have sensed the pressure which was applied to his research team by animal rights activists and you would easily understand how apprehensive our entire military is regarding any further accusations that they are guilty of what the activist groups interpret to be the unconscionable killing of hundreds of helpless animals. Are you familiar with Dr. Carey's experiments? Comment deleted. Well, Dr. Carey is a military surgeon who was conducting experiments that entailed firing B-Bs into the craniums of anesthetized cats in an effort to identify the brain chemicals responsible for blood clotting in brain-shot soldiers. The bottom line is that even though these tests could help in saving the lives of wounded soldiers, the animal rights groups couldn't have cared less and effectively shut him down and gave the military a black eye in the process. Dr. Carey and his wife are still receiving death threats because of his experiments. Even though this.....save-the-animals-and-kill-the-humans type of mentality is twisted, it nonetheless prevails and is gaining momentum in this country. Unfortunately, the press bends over backwards to give these groups their full support. Comment deleted. No, a Naval surgeon.
With this said, I should mention that several of the members of the team are still active, high-ranking military personnel who are very concerned about being caught in the cross-fire of activist character assassinations and severe military discipline which could cost them their pensions. It's for these reasons that the Strasbourg researchers are so adamant about maintaining their anonymity. Comment deleted. I'm glad you can appreciate their concern..... could you tell me why you won't allow your remarks to be printed.....I've assured you that your identity will be protected? Comment deleted. Even if they did determine who you were from the context of your remarks, I'd think your colleagues would understand that you're just defending their position. Comment deleted. But your branch is so far removed from the melee. Comment deleted.
Well, your decision has been duly noted.....I can give you a little background on the research group if you have time? Comment deleted. One thing that should be emphasized is that the results of these tests were never intended to be distributed to the general public. The fact that they've become public knowledge by way of a recent magazine article might leave key people within the ballistic community with the impression that they were. Actually, the test results were meant to be released only to sponsors and upper-echelon military brass who were in turn going to share the information with federal agencies. To make a long story short, a leak occurred, which is, as you know, an inevitable consequence whenever the honor system is employed. The leak sprang from within a federal law enforcement agency and from there spread to major police agencies and eventually found its way to the shooting journals. Comment deleted. That's correct. Well, all this created major problems for the Research group. Aside from the threat of crucifixion from animal rights organizations the group was very concerned about having incomplete data released.....the data I'm referring to encompasses figures recovered from strip charts.....EEG and transducer charts which were not part of the preliminary report. Another major concern was that the particular agent responsible for the leak might have access to videos or photos showing these animals floundering around after being shot.....definitely not something they'd want the A.S.P.C.A. or Friends of Animals to witness. Unfortunately, this particular concern proved to be a legitimate one, as they've recently gotten word that at least two of these videos and possibly some photos are, in fact, in circulation within at least two major U.S. police departments. So, while they can't do anything about this security breach, they are attempting to minimize premature assumptions and misinformation stemming from the release of preliminary data by attempting to make complete and accurate information available to major police departments. This is taking the form of direct contact with some of those departments as well as letters and articles in police journals and other magazines. Comment deleted. How else could it safely be done? Comment deleted. They have to be selective.....this isn't something that can be sent to People Magazine.....the point is it's an effective method.
Previously, the credibility of the tests was never even an issue with members of the Strasbourg group since the full report to the military included all the chart data and over 600 photos and video tapes of the shootings. But now, because they're getting reports that there are some influential people out there who are questioning the genuineness of the tests, they've become very concerned.....primarily because if police departments dismiss the tests as bogus, they can and will make wrong decisions by selecting inferior ammunition that over penetrates.
From your viewpoint, what would serve as proof that these tests were authentic? Would a couple of videos or strobe photos qualify as proof? Comment deleted. Well, for what it's worth, I have the feeling that some ill-gotten evidence is bound to surface in the near future.....simply due to the fact that if a federal agency can't prevent a leak, there's no reason to believe that police departments will fare any better. Comment deleted. You're exactly right, the root of the problem is misplaced trust. The.....camaraderie that exists in the government agencies and police departments engenders trust. The next thing you have is an agent or officer divulging every detail to his or her brother-in-law.....and then classified information finds its way to the New York Times or 60 Minutes.
How much information do you have regarding the Strasbourg Tests? Comment deleted. Could you tell me how you obtained this material? Comment deleted. Don't be, I understand about protecting sources.
Do you think you can fairly assess the tests without studying all the data? Comment deleted.
From my point of view, you and several others are in a position to aid or harm this study. If you'd like, I can submit your name to the group leaders to see if they'll consider sending you a complete report. Comment deleted. If the request is approved, probably within a week.
If you'll allow me to backtrack a bit, I mentioned assumptions earlier.....ironically, the same assumption was recently made by members of the two opposing camps. Evan Marshall and Martin Fackler both erroneously assumed that these tests were conducted in Strasbourg, France. In fact, it's my understanding that Mr. Fackler made a special trip to Strasbourg, France in an effort to substantiate these tests. Our sources told us that since he found no proof of a test facility there, he again erroneously assumed that the tests never occurred.....what a coincidence.....he wasn't involved in coordinating the tests, or invited to participate, so he declares them fallacious. This is like you and I traveling to St. Louis and interviewing all the people in the city named Strasbourg to see if they were involved in goat experiments.....and after finding no one with test facilities in their basements, assuming that the tests never occurred. We obviously erred in our approach. We should have taken into consideration the fact that there are hundreds of other cities containing people named Strasbourg. My point is, there isn't any room for assumptions in investigative work.....or ballistics.....especially when such a gargantuan assumption can cost police officers there lives.
Comment deleted. Well, that's something you'd have to tell me, I'm not assuming that you made the same assumption, I'm only relaying what someone told me.....that you have reservations. Comment deleted. I'm glad to hear that.....I wish everybody was as open-minded.
Are you aware that the funding for these tests was provided by donations from private sector and military sponsors? Comment deleted. Well, I'm one of those sponsors and I can tell you that the tests occurred here in the states, and that I have personally visited the test facility during testing. Incidentally, the difference between the preliminary report you have and the report I have is.....mine cost five thousand dollars. Besides being personally known by one of the members of the research group, that was the minimum donation required to become a sponsor. A lot of dedicated people invested hard-earned money to learn the outcome of these tests.....and a good many of them aren't happy that these tests have become public knowledge. But that's water over the dam.
Another thing that should be made clear is that the members of the research group aren't claiming that these tests reflect the final word on the subject of incapacitation.....but they do claim that they provide a very close approximation of what will happen on the street when an unobstructed lung hit is involved. Since the scientific approach they used has determined that incapacitation is system pressure related, certainly ammunition rankings could be altered if an anatomical obstruction was involved, such as the humerus or even the triceps or biceps muscle. It appears obvious to me that obstructions account for the intermittent disparity between the ammunition rankings of Fairburn and Marshall as opposed to Strasbourg. Obviously, many more variables are involved in street shootings.....for instance, the angles of impact are rarely the same.....and the fact that other organs are involved makes a great difference in the outcome. That's why the tight controls used in the Strasbourg tests are so valuable.....five subjects could easily prove to be a more valid indicator of stopping power than twenty five or thirty street shootings. Comment deleted. Yes, statistically that's extremely important. Without such tight controls, the tests would be essentially worthless.
Since we're on the subject, another thing I feel is important is the way the researchers procured the ammunition used in the tests. All this ammunition was purchased off-the-shelf, through various retail and wholesale establishments with Strasbourg funds. To maintain tight security, none of the manufacturers even knew their products were being tested. After testing was completed, the manufacturers then received a report. This approach prevented any special ammunition from skewing the test results.
My main concern.....now that the Strasbourg study has become public knowledge is that law enforcement officers at every level are going to suffer as a result of friction between the two main camps out there. I'm referring to the deep penetration people, which primarily consist of the IWBA and its supporters, and the..... normal penetration people which pretty much include the rest of the world. Comment deleted. Sure, I agree, normal is a subjective term, so is deep.....but some word has to be used to differentiate.....I thought I was being kind in refraining from the word, excessive. Comment deleted. Agreed.
I'm unsure of your feelings now regarding Mr. Fackler's inflexible philosophy of deep penetration, but both groups should be concerned over the confusion that's being created because the lives of peace officers are at stake here. As I see it, while Martin Fackler certainly possesses high credentials as a surgeon, he very much lacks credentials when it comes to determining which bullet types incapacitate quicker. Where are the results of his tests? Why hasn't he performed live animal tests? All anyone gets from Mr. Fackler is criticism. He turned his back on his own people, that's why he wasn't invited to participate in these tests. Comment deleted. Fair? Has he been fair? One of the things that few people are aware of.....including outside supporters and even members of the IWBA.....is that.....Mr. Fackler has repeatedly stepped on the toes of a lot of high-ranking army officials by acting as their self-appointed representative. The brass resents this and Martin Fackler has been disenfranchised by many of them because of his unsupported statements regarding stopping power. Since his retirement, Fackler has become more brazen and appears even more indifferent to their pleas that he disassociate his personal theories from army policy. One of the Strasbourg researchers personally knows Fackler and is extremely disappointed in him as a colleague.....that is, from an ethical standpoint. Basically, what has happened over the last six years or so is that Mr. Fackler has single-handedly created a schism within his own service branch.....and to be perfectly honest, I think all this boils down to a case of inflated self-esteem.....but, don't get me wrong, Mr. Fackler isn't the only one guilty of egocentricity. Because many of the writers and editors publicly committed themselves to one side or the other early on, they've made it tough on themselves to admit they were in error.....so the end result is.....pride forces them to remain entrenched. I think this is where character and responsible journalism should come into play. There collective motto should be.....if you're right, don't flaunt it, and if you're wrong, acknowledge it.....but by all means, work together. I think you'll concede that the law enforcement community would be much better served if editors and writers of trade journals or police-type magazines adopted a.....non-partisan position and simply weighed the facts logically, and reported them fairly. Comment deleted. Yes, I admit its idealistic, but only because ego prevents it from being a uniform reality. If honesty translates to idealism, we need more idealists. We have a problem.....the opinions expressed in these publications carry a lot of weight, sometimes more than they should.....and they're especially dangerous when they're subconsciously formed through affiliation or personal prejudice. Along this line, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how the rivalry among the various publications will affect.....prudent ammunition selection by law enforcement personnel. Comment deleted. That seems like an idealistic observation to me. I hope it proves to be accurate.
But getting back to the tests.....it was confirmed that incapacitation time was definitely linked to the degree of energy lost. The greater the energy loss, the higher the system pressure.....and if the system pressure is high enough, incapacitation occurs relatively quickly.....sometimes almost instantly. Comment deleted. No, I'm not disregarding the importance of penetration. I'm saying that the bullets that performed best, penetrated less than the equivalent of ten inches of bare gelatin. Bullets that penetrated very deeply, did very poorly. A bullet that over-penetrates is evidence of low energy loss.....and low system pressure. This is incredibly significant. Incredibly important. Incapacitation is brought about in only one of two ways.....high system pressure or high blood loss. A high energy bullet that expands very fast or a bullet that breaks up, creates both. A deep-penetrating bullet can't create high system pressure, and because of its low energy loss creates a minimal wound channel.....the thing directly responsible for blood loss. The slower the blood loss, the longer the incapacitation time. Except for the dimensions and consistency of the test medium, the SIFS study was right on the mark. Comment deleted. I don't believe it was discredited. Most of its detractors lacked credentials.....again, this is where professional envy and poetic license can destroy valid, but immature methodology. The Strasbourg results actually prove these people were on the right track in using energy loss as their prime equation.
I've probably used up enough of your time already, but one other important element of these tests was that the animals used harbored no.....psychological predisposition.....regarding the effect a weapon is supposed to have. This is extremely important.....it makes the study even more valuable. I hope I haven't offended you or bored you too badly. I'd better let you go. Comment deleted. The pleasure was mine.....thank you for letting me break into your schedule. Comment deleted. Really all we ask is that you reserve comment until all the evidence is weighed.....lives are at stake. Comment deleted. Yes sir, it'll be sent out this afternoon. Comment deleted. Thank you.....have a good day."
Date of telephone conversation: 8-26-93
Transcription: 8-26-93
