Rifling marks from the pistol should match the bullet. Nickel won,t even enter the equation and I think the Defence is just clutching at straws and trying to cast an element of doubt. Whatever you think of him that's his job. However, the expert witness will be required to give his evidence under oath and prove his qualifications to be an 'expert' witness. Sadly, soft .22 bullets can often get badly deformed; especially if they hit bone and the fact that the pistol was probable subject to great heat in the fire it may be difficult to make a match. The Prosecution expert may however be able to say what make of pistol was used but not whether that was the actual one.
One thing to consider is the possibility of fibres from clothing that the bullet passed through being embedded in the wound. Show that they match what he was wearing at the time and the position matching the wound and that would be good circumstantial evidence to indicate the recent nature of the wound. I guess he is trying to make is defence in that it was an earlier wound and not connected with the incident.
Any idea of the defence storyline? Lagopus..... (Ex-Detective).
