Ok, I see it now. DiEugenios book says that Turner did the tests with Guinn. In fact Turner was not a participant in the test at all. Guinn did the test with Pinker and then just told Turner about it. So there is a break in the communication there. DiEugenio should have gone back and examined Guinns work as he was the one who did the test.
You stated:
He gets the point all wrong. In fact, Guinn confirmed Cunningham's testimony - the Mannlicher- carcano did not leave
enough nitrates on a cheek for the chemical dermal test to pick it up.
The evidence you use for this is the fact, as stated in Guinns article, that when Guinn did the dermal nitrate test he found "of the eight casts, only one "gave a clear-cut 'positive' test for nitrates.". This statement however is not clear. What does he mean by "clear-cut"? It sounds like there were nitrates on a few of the casts but only one was "clear-cut". In contrast, the WC report states "The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction". The WC report makes a very definite statement in the negative.
The Cunningham quote in the WC report is difficult to understand. He gives the impression that there should be no nitrates at all on the right cheek whether it was for the chemical dermal test or the antimony test. I can see how he would think there should be no nitrates blasting onto a persons face. It was a closed chamber. That seems to make logical sense. But as it happens, according to Guinns tests, the rifle does indeed blow back nitrates onto a persons face significant enough to be picked up on the antimony test.
You stated:
The Carcano did leave traces that could only
be found by the NAA.
This would appear to contradict Cunninghams quote. So did Cunningham just assume there would be no nitrates blasting back onto a persons face? In which case that would be an honest mistake by Cunningham. But shouldn't Cunningham have known better as he was an FBI ballistics expert?
