always going off on tangents...
anyway a muzzle imprint from a rifle looks like this:
The imprint is seared into the skin it can't be washed away unlike soot which will simply wash away. It is only possible with hard contact wounds which the fatal wound was not determined to be.
The diameter of the central hole will be very close to that of the barrel hole, which in this case is 6mm but the diameter of the hole of the fatal wound according to Vanezis was 4.75mm (3/16").
The outer ring would have an overall diameter of about 12mm. There isn't a defined outer ring at all let alone one that is around 12mm in diameter.
There isn't a defined outer ring 12mm in diameter for the nonfatal wound either.
Unlike the rifle that made the imprint I just posted the murder weapon has threading. Depending on just how hard the contact is and how long the gun is in place etc it is possible for there to be other rings outside of the 12mm ring. Note possible not mandatory. That is the kind of distinctive pattern showing the threading would indicate the rifle was used without the moderator. A 12mm ring seared in the skin with a roughly 6mm perforation in the center could still be identified if it were defined well enough but there is another problem.
Let's just pretend the photos did show a ring of sorts that might be a muzzle impression. From a photo you can't necessarily tell if it is searing or soot etc. so that is one problem. But worse, the moderator can leave marks nearly the same same as the rifle which makes it next to impossible to say which made the marks.
The only thing distinctive on the face of the moderator besides the hole is a round circle roughly 3mm around the hole. The diameter of the hole is 7mm so only 1mm more than the hole in the barrel of the rifle. The circle has a diameter of 13mm so only 1mm more than the edge of the rifle muzzle. If an impression was left by just these 2 features it would be virtually the same size as the feature made by the rifle. Only if the outer circle of the overall face of the moderator were left as well would it be distinguishable because the diameter of the entire face is 22mm which should be enough to be able to calculate the size difference one would think.
So even if there were a mark like the one above the prosecution would argue it could have been made the the moderator and there is no way the 1mm difference in size could be used to try to say it is more likely from 1 or the other.
So this whole line of inquiry is essentially hopeless.
