Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripper 2.0
The fact that the examiner had not experience with gunshot wounds does not prove anything. A rifle shot at that range with FMJ ammunition would produce a through and through wound at any range in question. All they would have to determine is which was the entry wound.
|
A wound from a gun shows not only the entry wound and exit wound. It also shows how far away the shooter was, what kind of weapon the shooter was using, and the direction the bullet came from. A lot of forensic stuff is very subtle and you can't notice it until you know what to look for from prior experience.
Another interesting case in point: you know how Kennedy had a bullet wound to his throat? The people who did the autopsy assumed it was not a bullet wound at all and it was just a trechtioctamy (however you spell it) the surgeons did in Dallas. In actuality the Dallas surgeons expanded the bullet wound while trying to save him, but the people doing the autopsy did not know this because they didn't know the difference and never checked with the Dallas surgeons (which you never EVER do!). By the time word got out their official report was filed.
I of course am by no means an expert on this but my facts are from an internationaly known forensic scientist who was involved with the assasination. I kinda assume he knows what he's talking about in these matters! At least I hope so...