But you said the autopsy doctors should have deferred to the Parkland doctors' opinions about whether it was an entry or an exit wound, and that that was an "inexcusable mistake." Now it develops that in fact they didn't know whether it was or not. Further, Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico both stated that the autopsy report was completely consistent with their observations at the time.

[edit: how does their stating that they didn't know if it was an entry or exit wound support your claim? It undermines it, because you assert that the throat wound couldn't possibly have been an exit wound, yet they both state that it could have been.]

I said the statements from Carrico and Perry do not refute my assertions. They both originally stated the throat wound appeared to be an entry wound, and they later said during the WC that they didn't know if it was an entry or exit wound. The original statements support my claim, while the later statements still do not refute my claim, which is what you said - that it "...clearly flies in the face of your assertions".


Of course, you had to omit the rest of the quotation, where he states that "that was just a guess," because it completely destroys this part of your case. Also, at that time, Dr. Perry didn't know what type of weapon had been used, or where the shots had come from.

It was a guess based on expert testimony, which is still valid evidence based on qualified opinion. That hardly "destroys" my argument.

It's only ridiculous to you because you postulate a conspiracy--anyone else who thinks it's ridiculous, please speak up.

No, it's ridiculous. It's called leading the witness - ..asking a question during a trial or deposition which puts words in the mouth of the witness or suggests the answer...A proper objection would be that this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.a...d=%7C%7C%7C%7C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_the_witness


All right, turbonium I specifically request that you list every "unfounded assumption" and "made-up fact" from Specter's question to Dr. Perry, and explain why each is so.

First of all, Specter states twice, once before and once after, that he is suggesting a scenario that should be based on "....facts..to assume as being true..."

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.
Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?

As I pointed out - this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation. The location of the back wound is completely unfounded - the evidence places the wound several inches below the location Specter is citing in his scenario. WC member and former Pres. Ford is on record admitting to illegally tampering with the evidence when he changed the WC's location of the back wound's entry to "..the back of his neck..", from the report originally stating it entered at his uppermost back.
http://i3.tinypic.com/wco2zm.jpg

That fact makes the subsequent details of the scenario more than just unfounded assumptions - they have no basis in fact and are simply false. Even disregarding Ford's admission of altering the evidence, the bullet trajectory would have a downward, right to left trajectory, that could not traverse through the body and exit at the throat as described.

<snip of lame attempt to ridicule Specter's line of questioning>

The line of questioning by Specter was lame. More precisely, they were blatant examples of leading the witnesses.

Let me stop at this point of the debate in order for you to address the evidence that Ford illegally altered the back wound location for the WC report so it would support the SBT. This evidence exists in the National Archives.