Author Topic: silencer evidence  (Read 19318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33772
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #165 on: June 18, 2016, 04:09:PM »




No it wouldn't !


ANOTHER sweeping statement!!!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #166 on: June 18, 2016, 04:17:PM »

ANOTHER sweeping statement!!!




NO IT SN'T ! The jolt of the shot would have caused her to jerk.

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #167 on: June 18, 2016, 04:24:PM »



NO IT SN'T ! The jolt of the shot would have caused her to jerk.
oh so her neck would have jerked her in position for the kill shot,but had 2nd shot not entered the brain what would she have done then

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33772
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #168 on: June 18, 2016, 04:46:PM »
oh so her neck would have jerked her in position for the kill shot,but had 2nd shot not entered the brain what would she have done then

Sami, the first shot would have been fatal but not immediately so and Lookout is known for her sweeping statements which make no allowances for leaway.

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #169 on: June 18, 2016, 05:41:PM »
Sami, the first shot would have been fatal but not immediately so and Lookout is known for her sweeping statements which make no allowances for leaway.
yes that sounds right jane :)

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #170 on: June 19, 2016, 10:11:AM »
Can anyone explain how " a " silencer became damaged ?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #171 on: June 19, 2016, 11:56:AM »
Or why anyone wonders why PC Woodcock wasn't looking for a silencer when he first discovered the bodes ?
« Last Edit: June 19, 2016, 11:58:AM by lookout »

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #172 on: June 19, 2016, 11:58:AM »
Or why anyone thinks that PC Woodcock wasn't looking for a silencer when he first discovered the bodes ?
why would he be

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #173 on: June 19, 2016, 12:11:PM »
why would he be





Because he knew at the time that they were dealing with a murder suicide being first on the scene.

How come there was a damaged silencer found ?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #174 on: June 19, 2016, 12:13:PM »
Who found the shotgun and where was it found ?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #175 on: June 19, 2016, 01:15:PM »
Who found the shotgun and where was it found ?





Did AE say she'd found the shotgun in one of the rooms ?

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #176 on: June 19, 2016, 01:19:PM »
Who found the shotgun and where was it found ?
search me,lookout :)

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: silencer evidence
« Reply #177 on: October 02, 2018, 03:33:AM »
The only way to create the back splatter effect of a contact shot, is by (you guessed it), a contact shot.

The ballistics expert, Malcolm Fletcher, did not prove or establish that any blood had actually got inside the silencer by the process of back spatter, or back splatter, or drawback! All he did was postulate by providing an explanation as to how that blood could have got there, there was actually no physical proof that the blood in question had got there by those means!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...