“If they shot him at point-blank range…..Experts could probably tell from the pictures”
Probably not….
A bullet does not bleed off enough velocity in its first 100 yards to measurably change the size of a wound cavity. A wound from 5 feet away would be identical to one from 100 feet, or 100 yards.
Only extreme “close contact” wounds (like, from less than arms length away) would be noticeably different…and then only due to the presence of powder (flash) burns around the wound, not the amount of wound damage itself…and even THESE are sometimes not noticeable untill the blood is washed away, and the wound examined, like during an an autopsy.
Given that they probably used specialty SMG with sound/blast supressors (as opposed to standard M-16′s or typical L/E style handguns) any “normally expected” powder burns from such a close contact wound would be even further diminished.
If the Bin Laden “shootout scene” photo is the same quality (distance from camera, lighting etc) as the images of other dead guys posted by Reuters, it would be impossible to know what the “range” of the shooting was.
Only a well lit closeup of a cleaned wound area, in an “autopsy type” photo would give any real clues.
