Jump to content


Sherry Gutierrez

Member Since 22 Dec 2005
Offline Last Active Aug 28 2008 12:05 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Hacked again?

28 August 2006 - 04:48 AM

Project Honey Pot? Interesting name. (deleted)
Hope nobody finds this historical etymology offensive.


Well Jack, I DO find your post offensive. This is not the Navy, a bar, or your livingroom. It is an educational forum. Young persons interested in the Kennedy assassination read the post here. Women read and post here. Your crude addition was uncalled for and you owe the forum, and especially the women here, an apology.

In Topic: Old Costella errors still hanging around

23 August 2006 - 05:54 PM

dhg: here's a basic question, can you prove [or convince me beyond a reasonable doubt] JFK was hit by one, two, or three 6.5mm FMJ rounds and from where, based on available DP photo's and film? We can go from there....
spg: David, to state you will discuss the issues ONLY if I prove or convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of
(1) the type of projectile used in the Kennedy assassination
(2) the number of projectiles that struck Kennedy
(3) location of shooter(s) in the Kennedy assassination
and that it all be completely "based on available DP photo's and film" is paramount to saying you won't discuss the issues. Who can meet that standard? Whay not just admit you won't discuss the issues?

dgh: when there's valid points of evidentary value I'll chime in with them -- what I see is pure opinion
spg: No, David, you are wrong. In my first post I offered sources to reference the documented information. Then, based upon the information, I offered an expert opinion. That is what experts to - they offer opinions.

dgh: nor will there be a peer review of "blood spatter analysis" -- just unsubstantiated best case single source opinion, period!
spg: David,
(1) my techniques were for analysis published in workbook form where reviewed in
1990 by the International Association for Identification prior to their approval of my being listed as a qualified intructor of this subject.
(2) I taught advance techniques in this subject to my peers during the years of 1990 - 1999; guess that should called "peer review"
(3) and before my first article was published, I had an expert in Canada review it for content.
(4) In 1995 Herbert MacDonnell reviewed by work on the Kennedy assassination and was in agreement with my findings. Now that, my friend is MAJOR "peer review".

So you are wrong, my work is NOT unsubstantiated, not a single source opinion, and has been peer reviewed.

dgh: Sherry, best I can tell you've got 30 minutes of stage time at Lancer, you should be able to condense that down so a simple minded person, seated on a jury, will *get* whats needed for a conviction.
spg: I am not presenting this information during that time slot. And, this can be understood by even simple minded persons. But, only if they read the published information - why won't you do that, David?

Warm regards,

In Topic: Old Costella errors still hanging around

22 August 2006 - 08:05 AM

[quote name='David G. Healy' date='Aug 21 2006, 07:45 PM' post='72765']

So tell us, how'd you do that blood spatter analysis on a 'corrupted', moving crime scene, on what appears a altered, umpteenth generation-40 year old, 8mm film again?

David, I am a court certified expert in this field. I used the same techniques used by all experts in this field. Those techniques and methods of documentation are detailed in my articles which have been available on the web for some time; and discussed at length on this and the JFK Lancer forum. Additionally, perhaps you could refer to the first post I made in this thread.

I noticed in all your post you never really address the issues, you just focus on attempting to discredit the person presenting the information. That is a bad habit, and a poor research technique. (That's what attorneys do in court when they are losing and haven't any hope of discreting the evidence - they attack the expert; guess you know that already though.) I really do wish you would do some outside reading on this subject - there are books at your local library, if you don't trust the information on the internet. Or call a local police agency and ask their forensic personel for information. Then you could address the issues from an informed and educated foundation. Of course, I'm sure there are those who wouldn't like that, they prefer let you be the one ultimately proved wrong.

Please, David, spend some time researching other sources for information concerning bloodspatter analysis.


In Topic: Old Costella errors still hanging around

21 August 2006 - 06:27 AM

The skill of a magician is in getting an audience to focus its attention where he wants it at a specific instant. And the success of magic lies in the ability to create illusions that have the appearance of reality.

David, you are a magician – getting everyone to focus on the messenger instead of the message. Because if they did focus on the message, the magic of Costella would be exposed as an illusion.

In Topic: Old Costella errors still hanging around

20 August 2006 - 05:40 AM

dgh: if you hold a Ph.D. in Physics dissect his presentation and give us the blood splatter expert analysis scientific eqivalent...
SPG: Holding a Ph.D. in one area does not qualify a person to speak as an expert in another. Or perhaps the next surgery you have should be done by an attorney, and judicial courts can allow a professor of physical education to serve as judge, or perhaps you'd like a dentist to serve as the pilot on the next 747 you travel on. Dr. Herbert MacDonnell IS the the bloodspatter expert equilivant of a Ph. D. in bloodspatter analysis and he peer reviewed my analysis in the early 1990s before I spoke at COPA. Oh, I forgot - foreign term ... Peer review is the process of submitting scholarly work to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field. Publications that are not peer reviewed are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields. That's why my work was peer reviewed before publication. And his in this area was peer reviewed by... who?

dgh: if high school students can see the error of Costella's ways,
SPG: why can't you? This is just a small sampling of sites describing middle and high school students being taught bloodspatter analysis. Check this out:

INDIANAPOLIS (AP)—Junior high and high school science classes used to mean dissecting frogs and learning the periodic table. But some teachers—inspired by the popularity of crime scene television shows—want to get younger students interested in science by using DNA and blood spatter instead. http://www.livescien...ents_blood.html

FLANAGAN - Biology teacher Jodi Delheimer will teach the biology topics, such as analyzing DNA samples, while Francis will focus on the physics of forensics, such as calculating bullet trajectory or blood spatter patterns. http://www.pantagrap...news/116591.txt

Rox-CSI is an interdisciplinary project involving high school and junior high school level students. Students participated through their math and science classes. Students in the high school trigonometry class investigated blood spatter evidence. The students modeled blood spatters using simulated blood on a variety of surfaces commonly found at crime scenes. They were able to develop a quantitative understanding of the relationship between the impact angle of a blood droplet striking a surface and the shape of the resulting stain. The students analyzed a group of blood stains in order to determine the approximate position of the victim when the blood exited the body and to determine a sequence of events for the crime. The students collected length and width data for the blood spatters and used this data to determine the impact angles. They then used their results and further trigonometric calculations to determine additional distance and height data used to solve the crime. http://revitalise.nc...php?id=18#Grade


dgh: someone with the approriate credentials drops by and takes Costella's presentation apart, we'll see...
SPG: I am that person, I did take it apart, but you still don't see.

dgh: We're still here Dear..... and your qualified expert in optics and film is.....?
SPG: I am not addresssing optics and film ...

And Costella's qualified expertise in bloodspatter analysis is ..... ? Right, just what I thought; maybe he should have stuck to what he knows.

(David, they are leaving you to defend the indefensible and thereby hanging you out to dry. Check it out for yourself.)