[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:"Neither is it based on conjecture."

Perry did not have the means nor time to determine if the anterior neck wound was an entry. He made what was effectively an educated guess which he later regretted. You have seen his TV interviews.

The wound could have been either entry or exit or words to that effect.

This was AFTER the massive intimidation of the Parkland doctors... The EARLIEST opinion was that the throat wound was an entry wound. Henry Sienzant even went so far as to blatantly lie on this point - claiming that they'd stated it could have been either an entry or exit at the Parkland Press Conference.

But this simply isn't true.

The Parkland doctors were "convinced" that their opinion was incorrect on the basis of an Autopsy Report THAT NEVER DISSECTED OR EVEN KNEW ABOUT the throat wound during the autopsy.

That's a fact.

One that you cannot get around.

Quote:Only by the wildest of imagination can the opinions of medical doctors on a medical issue be labeled "conjecture". Indeed! Why would anyone make up the fact that the earliest opinion based totally and only on what the doctors saw was mere "conjecture?"

Absolutely true.

Patrick C Wrote:The doctors did not examine the entry wound to determine the precise nature of the wound ref shot direction. Perry is on record as stating he never thought about obliterating an existing wound - he just did the trach as required.

The prosectors never knew about the bullet wound in the throat. Shot direction can also be determined by the appearance of the wound.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck would not agree with you on the location of the large head wound. So what?

Patrick C Wrote:Sorry you are talking double Dutch there, I have no clue what you mean. I accept that the head wound is where the autopsy report puts it over which there is no disagreement. Bullet entry yes - that seems to be less clear.

It's quite simple. You made an argument that I disagreed with other critics:

Patrick C Wrote:Tony Summers would not agree with you, nor would Henry Hurt and nor would Mary Ferrell to name but three heavy weight researchers.

I merely pointed out that this isn't unusual at all - and indeed, YOU are 'guilty' of the same thing - against far more credible and knowledgeable witnesses.

If you'll quote the entire post you're responding to - it would have been obvious what I meant.