Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
In other words, what you are claiming is that because a majority of the doctors initially speculated, based on cursory examination in a high-stress situation, and based on extremely incomplete information, that it was an entry wound, therefore it is virtually impossible that it could have actually been an exit wound.
I am claiming it was solidly established that it was an entry wound.
Dr. Charles Crenshaw..."
|
You can't use Dr. Crenshaw's testimony as evidence without addressing the objections McAdams has raised. See my post #258.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Dr. Peters:...we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat..
(WC testimony - emphasis mine)
|
You use Dr. Peters' Warren Commission testimony as evidence because it supports your case, but you claim that Dr. Perry's and Dr. Carrico's Warren Commission testimony that the wound could have been either an entry wound or an exit wound is irrelevant. See my post #248.
Quote:
You are further claiming that all of the following information is irrelevant:
a) Dr. Perry's later statement that his opinion "was just a guess,"
His "guess" was what he stated as a qualified expert with experience in gunshot wounds. He also performed the tracheotomy, and therefore had seen the wound prior to any incisions.
|
You are attempting to imply, by handwaving, that an expert can be presumed to be able to guess with near 100% certainty based on highly incomplete information.
Direct question,
turbonium: Please explain how this implied claim of near-perfect guess accuracy squares with Dr. Perry's Warren Commission testimony that he "was unable to determine [whether it was an entry wound or an exit wound] since [he] did not ascertain the exact trajectory of the missile," and his statement that the autopsy report was "quite consistent" with his findings and opinions and "explained very nicely the facts and circumstances as [he and his colleagues] observed them at the time." See my post #248 for the relevant testimony.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
b) Dr. McClelland's statement that their speculation was uncertain
From his WC testimony...
The neck wound, when I first arrived, was at this time converted into a tracheotomy incision. The skin incision had been made by Dr. Perry, and he told me—although I did not see that—that he had made the incision through a very small, perhaps less than one quarter inch in diameter wound in the neck.
|
I was referring to his statement that
all the doctors' "educated guesses" about gunshot wounds were uncertain, which you have failed to address. Further, Dr. Crenshaw claimed that he arrived with Dr. McClelland, and Dr. McClelland confirmed this (see my post #258). So how can you accept Dr. Crenshaw's testimony while simultaneously rejecting Dr. McClelland's?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
c) Dr. Jenkins' statement that he initially thought the wound was an exit wound,
Dr. Jenkins said the back wound was "...very shallow...it didn't enter the peritoneal (chest) cavity." So even if he initially thought the throat wound was an exit wound, he knew it wasn't an exit wound of the bullet that entered the back!
|
Good work,
turbonium--the
quote above is not from Dr.
Marion Jenkins of Parkland Hospital; it is purported to be from JFK autopsy technician
James Jenkins.
You have previously quoted James Jenkins' statements in support of your "shallow back wound" mantra, so I'm rather perplexed that you could have missed this.
Quote:
d) Dr. Akin's statement that he initially thought the wound could have been either an entry wound or an exit wound
Akin didn't see the wound before the tracheotomy. He also stated he had little experience in identifying exit wounds, but was familiar with entry wounds.
|
Again, you accept Dr. Crenshaw's testimony, but you reject Dr. Akin's testimony on the grounds that he didn't see the unaltered wound. Also, the fact that Dr. Akin had seen more entry wounds than exit wounds does not invalidate his opinion; it merely means his opinon carries less weight. And such weight as it does carry is against your assertion that the throat wound was "solidly established" as an entry wound at Parkland.
Quote:
e) Several Parkland doctors' later statements, based on much more complete information, that it could have been either an entry or an exit wound
What statements are you referring to?
|
Dr. Perry's and Dr. Carrico's, to name two, in their Warren Commission testimony. See my post #248.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
f) Several Parkland doctors' statements that in the case of a 6.5x55 mm shot from the Depository building, it would have been an exit wound
In the case of..." an unfounded hypothesis, you mean?
|
As I have demonstrated (and, as usual, you have ignored), the hypothesis was not unfounded. You have failed to identify a single fact or assumption in Specter's question that could not have been resonably inferred from some piece of Commission evidence or previous testimony.
Additionally, as I pointed out, the question shows that the doctors felt that the throat wound could have been an exit wound in certain circumstances. Do you dispute this? If you do not, then please explain how they could have been absolutely certain, just from looking at it, that it was an entrance wound?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
Another point - according to your logic, the throat wound could have been an exit or entry wound, so the back wound could have been either an entry or exit wound.
|
Yet again, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the burden of proof in this case. As I have shown, you have claimed, in effect, that the Single Bullet Theory is at best virtually impossible. Therefore, any unrefuted demonstration that it is even
remotely possible destroys your claim. A demonstration that the back wound
might be an exit wound does not help your case, because that does not tend to prove that the SBT is "virtually impossible." In order to help your case, you would need to show that the back wound is
almost certainly an exit wound.
Quote:
g) the study showing that emergency physicians frequently confuse entry and exit wounds.
Irrelevant. I can cite a study that shows they rarely confuse entry and exit wounds.
|
Wow, you got me,
turbonium. I don't know
what I was thinking when I wrote that. After all, how could a study showing that emergency physicians frequently confuse entry and exit wounds
possibly be relevant to the issue of whether or not the doctors at Parkland correctly identified the throat wound as an entry wound? Thanks for setting me straight on that.
As for this other study, please do cite it, by all means.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by turbonium
The relevant issues are: who was present at Parkland, what their prior experience in gunshot wounds was, and what they described as seeing at the time.
|
You have ignored two equally relevant issues, and I suspect you will continue to do so, because they destroy your case. First, as Dr. McClelland mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony, and as supported by the JAMA study, gunshot wound identifications by emergency physicians are frequently uncertain. Second, and related, more information that just a cursory examination is frequently required to determine accurately whether a gunshot wound is an entry wound or an exit wound. As has been demonstrated, an exit wound can sometimes appear very similar to an entrance wound; as has also been demonstrated, a 6.5x55 mm round fired from above and behind Kennedy could have made such an exit wound. But you can't admit to either of those facts, because, as noted, they destroy your argument.
Quote:
Initially the Commission members felt that Oswald didn't need an attorney, because he obviously wouldn't be testifying, and obviously was no longer in any legal jeopardy.
But they did reverse that decision. Why? The link I provided (which I certainly did read) explains...
However, it soon became apparent that the whole venture was instinct with accusation, try as one might to be neutral, impartial or merely "fact-finding."
The article concludes with an important point...
But the commissioners seem to have found that under American traditions "investigation" by them cannot serve as a satisfactory predicate for pinning guilt on even the most wretched of men. Ruby's trigger finger robbed Oswald of life—and history of justice and truth.
(Emphasis mine)
|
Although these quotes provide a convienent vehicle for you to cast aspersions on the Warren Commission's work and findings, they are irrelevant to your original attempt to question my statement that the Warren Commission was a nonjudicial proceeding.
To recap:
I originally stated something to the effect that because the Warren Commission was not a trial, attorney Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald.
turbonium then questioned why this policy was subsequently reversed if it wasn't really a trial.
I categorized this as a fallacy of affirming the consequent, and gave as an example the fact that witnesses have the right to counsel even in nonjudicial proceedings.
To put this in the form of a logical argument:
If the Warren Commission had been a judicial proceeding, then Mark Lane would have been permitted to represent Oswald before the Commission.
Mark Lane was not permitted to represent Oswald before the Commission.
Therefore, the Warren Commission was not a judicial proceeding.
(Note: there are other reasons why it was not a judicial proceeding--this was just an example that I had offered.)
turbonium questioned this by observing that Oswald did have a lawyer appointed several weeks later.
The logical fallacy of
affirming the consequent occurs because the fact that Oswald was later allowed to have a lawyer does not necessarily imply that the Warren Commission was a judicial proceeding.