You mean where the shell popped back out alittle bit? The guns looks like fire soot is all over it. Why it that? Wouldn't her body have shielded the gun from soot? That isn't her pieces of her melted onto that gun is it?
If her body burned so badly that it didn't shield the gun then how can the coroner tell no smoke or soot in her lungs? Sorry to be so graphic but....
BBM:
:twocents::twocents: Simple answer: differing parts of the body burn at differing rates based on the proximity to the core of the ignition source.....aka skinnier body parts burn & "melt" faster/more completely if they are close to the flame...:scared::scared:
Also parts of the lung are protected somewhat by the rib cage & sternum...bones burn slower and the lung tissue is a "tougher" tissue vs epithelial (skin) and adipose (fat).
The pathologist :blushing: can determine if the individual has breathed in hydrocarbons from a fire in 2 manners: 1. is gross anatomy observation where the lung itself is removed, weighed, measured and observed for blackening or striations and then 2. evaluation via microscopic analysis where slices of the gross organ, here the lung(s), is embedded in paraffin, sectioned ("microtomed" or wicked thin slices made), placed on a microscope slide and processed with various chemicals (stains), THEN finally "read" (examined under a microscope).
Normal tissue looks one way, diseases look another and good ole soot look like "black splotches" or blockages.
PS: With bodies from fires or in near proximity to smoke & fires, forensic pathologists :blushing: will evaluate the entire respiratory pathway!
PSS: my theory: he wanted an incineration of the evidence & those "stupid"/"idiot" firemen ruined it! Guess he found out that :rockon::rockon: FIREFIGHTERS:rockon: throughout the USA, be they "vols" or "pros" RECEIVE effective TRAINING, HONOR their commitments to service and are TRUE public servants, unlike this "BS", thank God FORMER, LEO!