Is that the scene the other fellow 'helps' by also typing on the same keyboard?! 🤣

I was so sad when I found out she was a fake Goth Girl.

Not as bad as when I met Elvira at a signing in the '00s and a middle aged blond woman wearing Mom Jeans and a sweater had taken her place.

Now I'm older and realize that Elvira is very busy and can't be everywhere at once, so that's why she hires helpers to fill in for her sometimes.

They don't seem to be denying fragmentation/massive deformation. In fact, the crux of their comment relies on that fragmentation.

That massive deformation of the bullet comes from massive force, that didn't happen to kirk's neck.

The point is that, with the amount of force in applied to fragment this bullet, we do not see a similar amount of force applied to Charlie's neck. There was no large exit wound, and the projectile did not appear to impact his spine.

Article says "fragment". Have you seen otherwise?

Did the bullet stop in some conveniently placed ballistics gel behind Kirk?

*munches on leaves*

It was the koala!

There are points of similarity in fingerprinting, and every state has their own number of points to be a match.

You mean they bring in an "expert" to testify that the fingerprints match... and when you give 2 "experts" the same set of fingerprints to compare, they literally come to disagreeing conclusions in 50% of tests

It is not a scientific or analytical process with scientifically identified "points of similarity", its just a person who is deemed an "expert", who looks at 2 fingerprints and says "yeah these look similar, and they look similar in X different places so 👍"

Did you try?

fingerprint evidence is not currently permitted to be reported in court unless examiners claim absolute certainty that a mark has been left by a particular suspect. This courtroom certainty is based purely on the opinion of experts

https://science.psu.edu/news/barriers-use-fingerprint-evidence-court-unlocked-statistical-model

Fingeprints are not admissable, just some guy's opinion, because fingerprint identification has no real basis in science. Science is not based purely on someone's opinion. And no, they aren't 95-99% accurate (especially because it is just some guy eyeballing it), when tested by giving multiple "experts" the same set of prints, the "experts" come to disagreeing conclusions about if the prints match or not over half the time.

I seem to recall that the debate is more about partial prints, which are often all that's found at a scene. A "100% match" of a small part of a print isn't the same as a 100% match to the whole print. And even full prints can be of varying quality: the print can be smeared to varying degrees, or on a substrate that allows for diffusion of the print once it's made (e.g,, an oily surface).

Enhance!

"I asked ChatGPT and it said that gun fired the bullet."