[Ben Holmes]

Quote: "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413, bottom of the first paragraph)" 

This is, of course, completely incorrect. Bugliosi claimed that Carrico had described the throat wound as "ragged" - which is absolutely untrue. He also stated that Dr. Perry had also described the throat wound as ragged.

Now, for someone who'd claimed to have spent 20+ years studying the evidence - IT'S SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO KNOW THAT THE THROAT WOUND WAS ORIGINALLY DESCRIBED AS AN ENTRY WOUND.

Vincent Bugliosi simply lied.

If Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence, yet was unaware of one of the most critical and devastating facts that tends to show a conspiracy, how can he be trusted for anything he says about the case?

Patrick C Wrote:I think that is a very subjective view.

I listed two facts.

#1 - Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence.

#2 - Bugliosi failed to understand a very basic bit of medical evidence.

Which one was "subjective," Patrick?

It shouldn't surprise anyone to learn that Patrick has NEVER answered this question.

And even though it's meant as a rhetorical question ... it still remains unanswered by any believer: If Bugliosi spent over 20 years studying the evidence, yet was unaware of one of the most critical and devastating facts that tends to show a conspiracy, how can he be trusted for anything he says about the case?