Yes that is why you have peer review. The report from the US was not peer reviewed once but twice!
All peer reviewed means is they PAID someone to read it and say they think it sounds good and agree. Of course they are going to say that for money. Their unsupported opinions don't mean squat what matters is what they can PROVE.
You try to prove a coroner misidentified a muzzle imprint as bullet abrasions by examining the body and making your own independent assessment describing exactly why you think it is something else providing any evidence you can to back it up. The only other way is to have very high quality closeup photos along with other evidence such as measurements and details observed by someone who inspected the body visually and then explaining in detail what the items are and offering the proof that can be had.
Reading a report and saying based on the report you think the coroner might have observed a muzzle imprint though they think it was just a bullet abrasion is worthless speculation.
It would be like in My Cousin Vinny if Mona Lisa Vito had simply read the testimony of the prosecution expert on the tires and then said she thought he observed something different than he said. That is worthless and offers her no basis to provide a different assessment. She had to look at the tire tracks herself and on the basis of such she noticed the tire tracks were made by a car that had an independent rear suspension and posit traction. She didn't decide such features existed by just reading an assessment form the expert that stated otherwise. Moreover the other expert ended up agreeing with her that the marks could only be made by a car with an independent rear suspension and posit traction.
No one has shown anything to Vanezis that would get him to change his assessment that he saw a bullet abrasion ring around the wound. Fowler just made some wild speculation about that Vanezis observed something different than he thought he observed nothing more. He offered no evidence to establish such.
Brick work and masonry is much more a simple than forensic pathology. Its an insurance companies 'expert's job that is to help ensure his employer does not have to pay up. What you do for a living I can only take your word for it.
The point was that experts make mistakes so you can't just use an unsupported claim form an expert they must provide evidence that proves their assertions.
No, I simply mentioned the size of the wounds and that they where contact wounds. Taking my words out of context to support your claims will do you no favours.
It looks to me like you asserted the measurements were the size of the abrasion rings:
"Abrasion rings on both wounds being 3/16 of an inch wide the other 1/4 of an inch wide is consistent with the end the rifle with the moderator removed."
The truth is that Fowler doesn't know how big the abrasion rings were because Vanezis didn't record it in his report. Vanezis described bullet abrasion rings in his report which Fowler decided amounted to a barrel imprint ring though he had no basis to misinterpret Vanezis words in such manner and worse he had no idea of size so even if Vanezis has said it was a barrel imprint Fowler still would have no way to assert the size matches the barrel without the moderator.
Can you please tell me where you got the above information from? Its not the first time I have asked and you have not answered me
Which information, be specific about what you want to know. Are you asking about Fowler's claims? His claims were reported in part to the press:
"In my professional opinion, the complex just described of the lower entrance and two abrasions is consistent with the rifle not having a silencer."
Left out was that he said testing would have to be done to see if he was correct. Which is why the CCRC called the claims speculation.
The CCRC stressed that such speculation did not grapple with other evidence that established Fowler's speculation was wrong.
