[jjyergler]

I understand what you are saying, and you are correct. The point of this powerpoint is to correct inaccurate blogs, written based on the inaccurate report of the examiner. Unfortunately, in trying to correct this, he creates an even more confusing document.

In trying to correct the inaccurate information, the author doesn't take the time to present an accurate narrative of the event. In failing to do that, he adds to the confusion that he is attempting to correct. Instead of just saying that the coroner was incorrect, he should explain what actually happened. To not give that narrative, he defeats his whole purpose. So did the bullets penetrate or not? Did they expand or not? The .223s failed, but how? How many times was the perp hit? Were the .40s successful? How was the shot placement and how did it affect the outcome.

If you are going to attempt to correct inaccurate information, you are obligated to present accurate information. Knowing how government works,
I could easily conclude that this guy is just trying to cover the butts of those who have a vested interest in the .40 being a success. Look at my sig, I'm a .40 fan, but remember the primary function of bureaucrats is to not be blamed and keep cashing their paychecks.