buckshot pellet identified

[Alpo]

They have definitely upped their game in forensics. They found a buckshot pellet in a secret service agent's vest and they have absolutely identified that that pellet was fired by the suspect's shotgun.

 

 

"We now can establish that a pellet that came from the buckshot from the defendant's ⁠Mossberg pump-action shotgun was intertwined with the fiber of the vest of the Secret Service officer," Pirro said during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union. "It is definitively his bullet."

 

 

https://www.npr.org/2026/05/03/nx-s1-5809482/correspondents-dinner-shooter-bullet-vest-secret-service

[Eyesa Horg]

Well if there was only one shotgun shell fired and it was by the suspect. It doesn't take a lot of forensics to figure out where it came from!

[Subdeacon Joe]

Well...

No other shotguns were fired there at that time. 

 

The shot probably matched in size and composition the shot in unexpended cartridges found in the weapon. 

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

15 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Well if there was only one shotgun shell fired and it was by the suspect. It doesn't take a lot of forensics to figure out where it came from!

In a trial evidence has to be presented proving the shot came from the defendant's gun.  Especially when the judge has already apologized to the "alledged" assassin for his jail accomodations.

[Alpo]

If it was only one shotgun that was fired, and there is a shotshell pellet in the vest, I can see how you could conclude that that buckshot was fired by that shotgun.

 

I just don't see how you can prove it.

 

I can see forensics proving, maybe, that that buckshot came from a Winchester shell or a Remington shell or an S&B shell. But I have never heard of any way to prove that something was fired in a specific smooth bore barrel.

[Pat Riot]

Could be the powder burn composition. 

[Oak Ridge Regulator]

I would bet on Pats thoughts about powder burn composition. I have seen slow motion video of different shot cups being fired and there is always a huge cloud of gas enveloping the shot column as it leaves the shot cup. And they have some pretty impressive toys at their disposal. I wouldn’t be surprised if they could find powder residue on the shot and match it to powder residue in the barrel 

[Utah Bob #35998]

9 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Well if there was only one shotgun shell fired and it was by the suspect. It doesn't take a lot of forensics to figure out where it came from!

And it was on vide

[Rye Miles #13621]

20 hours ago, Alpo said:

If it was only one shotgun that was fired, and there is a shotshell pellet in the vest, I can see how you could conclude that that buckshot was fired by that shotgun.

 

I just don't see how you can prove it.

 

I can see forensics proving, maybe, that that buckshot came from a Winchester shell or a Remington shell or an S&B shell. But I have never heard of any way to prove that something was fired in a specific smooth bore barrel.

In this instance I don't think it has to be proven since the scumbag was the only one with a shotgun! The defense will push for proof Im sure but I dont think it'll fly. I guess we'll see. Next court date is May 11.

[El Chapo]

21 hours ago, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

In a trial evidence has to be presented proving the shot came from the defendant's gun.  Especially when the judge has already apologized to the "alledged" assassin for his jail accomodations.

 

Not quite.  Jurors are allowed to make reasonable inferences from evidence and they are told that during the trial process.  If all other sources are logically excluded, that is "proof."  A chunk of lead doesn't magically appear embedded in an officer's vest.

20 hours ago, Alpo said:

If it was only one shotgun that was fired, and there is a shotshell pellet in the vest, I can see how you could conclude that that buckshot was fired by that shotgun.

 

I just don't see how you can prove it.

 

I can see forensics proving, maybe, that that buckshot came from a Winchester shell or a Remington shell or an S&B shell. But I have never heard of any way to prove that something was fired in a specific smooth bore barrel.

 

It seems like the dispute is not about whether there could be proof, but what constitutes proof.

 

Cases have been "proven" for 1000 years of jury trial tradition by witnesses taking the oath to tell jurors the truth and giving their testimony.

 

The words "conclude" and "prove" do not mean different things in the context of what you're saying.  If all other realistic sources of the projectile are excluded by credible testimony, it would take speculation to conclude that the pellet came from any other source, which is not permitted.  Jurors do not have to find witnesses to be credible, so there could be a failure of proof if they were to disbelieve the testimony.  But as to whether a logical conclusion based on credible evidence is proof, it is, and every judge in America is going to instruct the jury as to how they're allowed to do that.  If jurors were not allowed to make logical inferences from the testimony, nobody would ever be convicted of anything, because jurors by definition in our system, at least in the modern era, are not witnesses, and so unless they could at least conclude that witnesses are telling the truth and know what they're talking about, no conviction could ever result.

 

Firearm toolmark testimony is junk science even for metallic cartridges, and so while your comment is especially true for a shotgun, it's true for conventional firearms as well.  That's not to say judges haven't allowed it in, they have, but I anticipate that before I retire, there will be at least one convicted murderer let out of prison because that junk evidence was used to obtain a conviction, and that firearm toolmark will be found to have no scientific basis and be disallowed everywhere.

[watab kid]

my question is why is the perp still alive ? he should be dead - we wouldnt be reading of some judge apologizing for his treatment and we wouldnt be paying for his upkeep , i feel the secret service - whom ive always stood up for - have some explaining to do in not just this instance but the first as well , 

maybe the secret service needs some more range time ? 

i also think the judiciary in that district need to look into that judge - he is not in his right mind , that suspect has been treated as any of us might have been if taken into custudy in that circumstance ,