Forensic evidence showing the silencer was used for the massacre:

[scipio_usmc]

Can I just remind you that it was only a few days ago you made up a dozen or so reasons for why the pig skin experiments were somehow useless. Now your using the very experiments you rubbished to try and convince people the moderator was attached?
LMAO!

This is just further evidence of how you either intentionally distort or honestly don't have the first damn clue what you are talking about.

David: Look at the muzzle imprint in these pig skin tests- Sheila's non-fatal wound looks just like the wound made by the rifle sans moderator

Scipio: Sheila's non-fatal wound looks like neither because her non-fatal wound was not a hard contact wound and did not result in a muzzle imprint but in any event visually it more closely resembles the moderator wound than the shot sans moderator.  The rifle shot features 2 thick bands while the moderator features a thick band and then a very sparse almost blank band.  The area you circled on her neck that you claim is the outer band of a muzzle imprint is very sparse band and thus more closely resembles the moderator mark.
----

What you wrote just now can be summarized as follows:

David: You are using the pig skin tests as proof it is a muzzle imprint from the moderator.

Here comes my response:

Scipio:

You are accusing me of arguing that Sheila's non-fatal wound had a muzzle imprint and that the muzzle imprint resembles the imprint left in the pig skin photos.  DO you possess no reading comprehension skill whatsoever or are you just intentionally distorting?

What part of the following can possibly be construed as saying that Sheila had a muzzle imprint that matched the imprint left by the moderator on the pig skin:

"Sheila's non-fatal wound is in the middle it looks like neither but is closer to the right than left. ...The wounds to the left look nothing like Sheila's....Sheila's wound has very sparse sooting and looks much more like the sparse soot band associated with the moderator photos. The reason why Sheila's looks like none of the above is because her wound was not a hard contact wound and had no muzzle imprint period."

I CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY stated she had no muzzle imprint.  I simply added that the marks around Sheila's non-fatal wound you claim resemble the impression made directly by the rifle muzzle in the pig skin do not in any way, shape or form resemble the marks left in the pig skin and in fact more closely resemble the marks made by the moderator on the pig skin and moderator on the human neck you posted.  Though I accurately noted that the marks more closely resemble the marks made by the moderator I ALSO stated they did not match perfectly and that there is no muzzle imprint.

So your claim I argued there was a muzzle imprint made by the moderator is sheer nonsense.  Whether you made up such with the intent to distort or are simply clueless the result is the same.  You made bogus claim.

In the same way no doubt your supposed breakthrough is either a giant intentional distortion or put together in error. It is no more valid than your claim that at the time the moderator was classified DB/1 case number SC/786/85 was not in use.  SC/786/85 was in use from September 7 forward while DB/1 was in use towards the end of September. 

You are so biased you either intentionally spin things or are incapable of thinking clearly with your blinders on and make error after error.

 
 

[scipio_usmc]

I showed it was not necessary for blood to be in the Barrel of the gun from a contact by quoting from a forensic text book. You claim to refute such things by ignoring them then making things up(again)

1) Your claim you proved it would not be necessary for blood to be inside the barrel from the fatal shot is patently untrue.

2) Your claim I ignored what you wrote is also patently untrue.  You are projecting as usual.  You are ignored he argument I presented as to why blood would have to be inside the barrel and and more importantly ignored what the trial experts testified to as to why- which happens to be the same rationale I provided- how surprising- NOT!.

The Prosecution experts:

Sheila's nonfatal wound severed her external jugular vein causing hemorrhaging inside her neck near the skin.  This created a blood filled cavity.  The nature of the skin and this blood filled cavity is such that drawback would be sure to occur if a subsequent wound was delivered.  If that subsequent wound was a contact shot then it would be sure to result in drawback.

I added the following materials to help explain/.support the prosecution position:

Vanezis noting the hemmoraging inside her neck from the first shot:



The significance of that for backspatter:







This is your post that you claims refutes the prosecution position and the evidence I posted in support of it:

David:
"The chin and tongue region not containing any major veins such as the neck does will not cause such a leakage of blood so not only does the second shot expel possible blood from the first shot it shows the gun was unable to produce enough impact to create drawback in parts of the body with less blood flow. (Turn K♣)"

You didn't refute the argument of the trial experts you ignored it.  You ignore that Sheila was shot in the neck not in the chin and the area where her fatal wound was delivered was an area that was filled with blood as a result of the first shot causing hemorrhaging. You ignore the reality and simply pretend that there was no bleeding so you can pretend that there would not be a source of blood that would definitely get inside the barrel.

Your claim I ignored your argument is sheer nonsense I effectively refuted your argument that there would not be blood available.  I presented sources that explain how a wound will often cause a cavity to fill with blood and that when this happens it creates the ideal conditions for backspatter to occur when a second wound is delivered.

Your claim that this ignores the argument you made is nonsense it addresses and refutes your argument. 

You never responded to this argument you ignore this argument and refuse to deal with it because you have no competent way to do so.  That is fatal for your position because this argument was used at trial and you must refute it in order to prevail.  You can't do so and didn't even try.

Was she shot in the chin?  No the chin is formed by the apex of the jaw.  Her fatal shot was in her neck, the same neck that was full of blood:




You failed to deal with the blood in her neck that would result in drawback from a contact wound and yet claim you proved drawback would not occur because there was no source of blood.   

In your fantasyland all you have to do is claim something and it must be truth.  That is not how things work in the real world.