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."
Your claim: "[T]he throat wound was also solidly established at Parkland as an entry wound."
Please explain how it can be "solidly established" that it was an entry wound, when it could also have been an exit wound?
It was a guess based on expert testimony, which is still valid evidence based on qualified opinion. That hardly "destroys" my argument.
Yes, it does destroy this part of your argument, for reasons that I mentioned (and you, as usual, have ignored) in an earlier post. You need to prove that the SBT is "virtually impossible." Any unrefuted demonstration that it
is possible, even if unlikely, destroys your argument. For example, let's be very generous and assume Dr. Perry had a 75% chance of making an accurate guess. That leaves a 25% chance that he was wrong. This shows that the SBT is possible, even if unlikely, and thus destroys this part of your argument. Further, as has been shown, Dr. Perry's guess was based on highly incomplete information, which increases the chance of his having guessed wrong. Or do you believe that an expert can always guess with near 100% accuracy based on highly incomplete information?
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.
I see we can add the law to the long list of subjects on which you are an expert.
First of all, the Warren Commission hearings were not a trial (this is why Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald), and did not follow the rules of criminal procedure. Second, because the hearings were non-adversarial proceedings, there were no "hostile witnesses" or "friendly witnesses"--there were only "witnesses." There would have been nothing improper about Specter's leading a witness had he so chosen.
Second, Specter is
not asking leading questions here--the only question he asks is at the end, and that is a yes/no question [edit: that is not leading--merely asking the opinion of an expert witness.]
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..."
Even in criminal proceedings, there is nothing inherently wrong with asking hypothetical questions as long as the judge allows them, and it is perfectly proper to ask an expert witness to comment on a certain theory of the crime.
Furthermore, the facts and assumptions that you are so quick to complain about
are in evidence. If you don't believe me, check the list of Warren Commission exhibits.
As I pointed out - this question assumes facts not in evidence or lacks foundation.
As
I pointed out (indirectly), you are not an expert in the law.
"Assumes facts not in evidence" is an objection to a complex (i.e. "loaded") question that would require the witness to admit or deny some non-established fact no matter how he or she answers.
For example:
Prosecutor: "Mr. Smith, have you stopped beating your wife?"
Smith's attorney: "Objection--assumes facts not in evidence. It has not been established that my client ever has beaten his wife."
"Improper foundation" can refer, among other things, to questions that assume the existence of evidence that has not been introduced.
Now, let's look at the list [edit: of facts that you allege are not "in evidence"]:
"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,"
Mannlicher-Carcano[edit: found on 6th floor of Depository building]--in evidence.
[edit: copper-jacketed 6.5 mm bullet found at Parkland--in evidence.]
"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,"
map of Dealy Plaza showing locations of Depository building and Presidential limo--in evidence.
"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"
autopsy report--in evidence.
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."
previous testimony--in evidence.
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.
It's almost word-for-word from Kennedy's autopsy report--in evidence.
[edit: So tell us,
turbonium, exactly what "facts not in evidence" are on the list?]
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.
Uh,
turbonium, exactly how does a member's making revisions to a draft of a commission's final report constitute a crime?? I can't wait to hear this one.
That fact makes the subsequent details of the scenario more than just unfounded assumptions - they have no basis in fact and are simply false.
That "fact" was invented by you, in order to attempt to handwave away the doctors' testimony, and to attempt to muddy the waters.
Even disregarding Ford's admission of altering the evidence...
Sigh--evidently more deliberate obtuseness. Ford did
not alter the evidence--he altered the wording of the report.
...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.
What is your evidence for this??
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.
No. You are merely throwing out a red herring to attempt to change the subject because you can't answer my questions or provide any real evidence for a conspiracy. And in any case, the wording Ford used agrees with the autopsy report.
[edit: I completed this post very late, and initially neglected to move the list of evidence to where I intended to place it in the text. Also, I have corrected several punctuation and formatting errors. I have deleted nothing, and anything added is so indicated.]