
SLED Agent Paul Greer Testifying to Junk Science
Murdaugh Family Guns Assertion by the Prosecution is Debunked with Science:
Walterboro, S.C., — How the Murdaugh family guns theory is debunked as junk science. In 2003, Donald Kennedy, then-editor-in-chief of the esteemed journal Science, penned a controversial editorial titled “Forensic Science: Oxymoron?” Kennedy unequivocally concluded that it was, in many instances, a resounding “Yes.” His critique of unverified forensic methods resonates deeply two decades later, particularly in the realm of firearms identification. As seen in the Alex Murdaugh trial, such flawed methodologies have played a critical role in high-profile convictions.
The science—or lack thereof—behind firearms identification, including the techniques used by SLED Agent Paul Greer to link shell casings found at Moselle to alleged Murdaugh family guns, raises serious concerns about the accuracy of this evidence. When Greer testified that .300 Blackout cartridge casings found near Maggie Murdaugh’s body matched those from other areas of the Murdaugh property, he relied on methods endorsed by the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners (AFTE). But the AFTE methodology has come under fire for its lack of scientific rigor and alarmingly high error rates.
Firearms Shell Casing Identification: Junk Science or Reliable Evidence?
Firearms examiners often claim near-infallibility in matching bullets or casings to specific firearms. This so-called expertise, described as “Sherlock Holmes Syndrome,” is rooted more in practitioner knowledge than in scientific research. Unlike peer-reviewed and evidence-based scientific disciplines, firearms identification lacks standardized protocols and has produced dubious studies to support its reliability.
Listen to my new podcast on the Murdaugh Family Guns Assertion by the Prosecution is Debunked as Junk Science. https://t.co/T2vRZGiyXI #murdaugh
— CC News Network (@crimeandcask) December 18, 2024
For instance, AFTE studies report error rates of 1% or less, which examiners use to assert their methods’ accuracy in court. However, when examined closely, these studies reveal significant methodological flaws. “Inconclusive” results—essentially an examiner’s admission of uncertainty—are counted as correct in these studies. This statistical sleight of hand significantly lowers the reported error rate.
In one study, the inconclusive responses masked a real error rate of 35%. Another study, Ames II, initially claimed a false positive rate of less than 1%. However, when inconclusive responses were counted as errors, the error rate surged to 52%. Despite these flaws, such studies are cited in courtrooms, including in the Alex Murdaugh trial, where Agent Greer tried to bolster the credibility of firearms examiners science to prove it was Murdaugh family guns, when in fact what Greer told the jury was plain junk science.

SLED’s Paul Greer and the Murdaugh Case
Agent Paul Greer, is a member of the AFTE, and testified during Alex Murdaugh’s trial that .300 Blackout shell casings found near Maggie Murdaugh’s body matched those found outside the Moselle gun room and shooting range. He explained that the process of firing bullets leaves unique “fingerprints” on shell casings, a claim heavily criticized as scientifically unsound.
Greer relied on AFTE’s flawed methodology to conclude that the shell casings came from the same weapon, Murdaugh family guns. However, with error rates potentially as high as 52%, Greer’s testimony raises significant questions. If nearly half of such identifications could be incorrect, how can this evidence support that the weapons used were Murdaugh family guns, let alone allow a conviction of beyond a reasonable doubt?
Even more troubling is that neither of Paul Murdaugh’s .300 Blackout rifles—the alleged murder weapons—were recovered. Greer’s testimony suggested these were “Murdaugh family guns,” but without physical evidence, the connection relied entirely on his analysis. The defense failed to challenge this junk science effectively, missing an opportunity to highlight the lack of reliability in firearms identification.
Donald Kennedy’s Warning and the Call for Anti-Expert Experts
Donald Kennedy’s critique of forensic science warned against the blind acceptance of unverified methods in courtrooms. His concerns are particularly relevant in cases like Alex Murdaugh’s, where flawed forensic practices can lead to life-altering consequences.
The justice system must embrace the role of “anti-expert experts”—scientists who scrutinize and challenge practitioner-based testimony. Unlike firearms examiners, these experts bring evidence-based skepticism to the courtroom, ensuring that speculative claims do not masquerade as science.