[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:PC "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."

Perry stated later that he regretted making what was after all a rash judgement...you can't be certain of that wound being an entry in the trauma room situation. Any reliable surgeon would tell you that.

Perry was not bullied. There was no frontal entry to be bullied about.

So the neck wound as an entry for me is a NON STARTER....always has been. It is truly a big a red herring as the Phantom GK Gunman.......

Why on earth you guys can't position some sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario is utterly astonishing.

Again you rely on later statements by Perry - rather than his first un-influenced statements.

Instead of letting the evidence show you what happened, you start with the WCR's theory, and try to force the evidence to fit. When we have early and quite unimpeachable evidence for a frontal shot - it's no wonder that you demand that everyone only look for a "sensible simple rear sourced shot scenario"

No thankyou... I'll stick with the evidence.