[Ben Holmes]

(03-31-2017, 10:58 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 10:53 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 10:45 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  VB was referring to the wound to the internal trachea which was ragged

No... not possible.

This was in reference to the determination of an entry wound or an exit wound.

That can ONLY BE DETERMINED FROM THE WOUND IN THE SKIN.

You cannot produce any description of the tracheal wounding that would lead someone to understand which direction the bullet was traveling.
 

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Carrico was referring to the wound on the surface of the skin which was more symmetrical, possibly due to Kennedy's necktie pulling the skin tight, producing a neater looking wound.

This is the ONLY wound that could be used to determine trajectory. And indeed, it's SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE to study this case for more than 20 years and not understand that the APPEARANCE of the throat wound was evidence for an entry wound. BUGLIOSI COULD NOT HAVE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

Yet he blatantly lied about it... claiming that Carrico & Perry had described this wound as "ragged."
 

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Dr. Baden surmised this at the HSCA hearings. Simple solution, nothing nefarious - Bugliosi knew the intense scrutiny his book would receive - to publish a lie in that situation would have been the act of a rank amateur - this is a silly, paranoid charge - boring.

Then you'll be happy to cite ANY FORENSIC TEXT AT ALL that describes using an INTERNAL injury to determine the direction of a bullet.

But ... of course... you won't.

You can't.
 

(03-31-2017, 10:27 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Read his statement you posted above - you may disagree, but no dishonesty was involved - to side with a huckster like Mark Lane and castigate a man with Bugliosi's reputation reveals obvious, illogical, hysterical bias. Read the medical reports regarding the trachea - "ragged"

It's interesting to recall that you've previously denigrated Mark Lane, yet continue to refuse to provide any evidence for it.

I've challenged you to provide a quote from "Rush To Judgment" - the page number, then a cite to the evidence that he was lying about - and you've thus far refused to do so.

I'm now challenging you to produce a cite to any forensics that routinely uses INTERNAL injuries to determine the course of a bullet.

Or, of course, you could also cite from Reclaiming History where he was explaining the throat wound's appearance as an entry wound.

But my prediction - you won't.

So, a trained, experienced forensic expert cannot  observe internal injuries to determine missile direction? Nonsense.

But my prediction - you won't. (And didn't...)

Didn't feel like it - it's just not that important - I'm just yanking your chain here....

But my prediction - you won't. (And cannot...)