On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Miles Scull]

Oh, please!!! How 'bout this???

Why don't you tell us what was going on here, if anything, Miles? You had posted this a long while ago, and I am eager to get your comments on it, as well as your take on the artist.

Maybe you could start a new thread on this.

Kathy

Kathy! Missed you. Where have you been these days?

Is this the first time you have posted a graphic or photo or image to the forum?

I know that you follow Dankbaar's forum. I do not, so I do not know as much as you do about James Files.

What are trying to ask here?

I'm happy to answer.

Just don't catch your drift.

In my opinion the assassins were Hermino Diaz & Eladio del Vallee.

One of these two pros employed a rifle or an XP-100 at 33 feet from the fence corner.

Those weapons will produce some aftermath smoke from power burn, but only in quantity of, say, the volume of an american football or, max, a rugby ball. That smoke is not dense & quickly disperses after a very few feet of drifting.

1963 was not 1863 at Gettysburg:------>

With a modern rifle, the smoke is propelled violently out of the muzzle forward as a jetting stream for several feet, until the smoke loses intense trust out several feet from the barrel extended over the fence. Then the smoke would continue forward several more feet until it would slow & begin to ride on the wind where Holland would have seen it drift out from under the trees & so drift away to the SE, rapidly dissipating. The volume & massive quantity of suspended particulates of the huge smoke cloud allegedly seen in the Wiegman film is far, far to great to have been caused by a single rifle shot.

That's only my opinion, though.

Let's hear what you opinion is.

What do YOU think?

Edited September 29, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Alan Healy]

I'm saying that the only way Thompson got Holland to appear in the exact same spot as the "hat" in Moorman5, is because he either moved Holland or he moved the camera so that it would line up.

Very much like Turner did to Arnold only not as extreem as that.

So Hatman's smoke was invisible to Moorman but Badgeman's was so dense it could block out everything behind it?

Explained to whos satisfaction? Not mine or anyone elses, only yours I think.

This is just my opinion, but I believe you are merely speculating as to anyone moving somebody so they would line up.

And in the latter comment - you are again assuming that what is seen with Badge Man is smoke, but I do not believe that to be the case. There was never a second plume of smoke said to be seen on the knoll coming over the concrete wall by any witnesses. The other thing is that what you are calling smoke from Badge Man's gun looks like the dispersal of a muzzle flash to me, thus these are apples being compared to oranges IMO.

Bill Miller

Yes I was speculating. I wasn't there when Thompson took that photo & I've never asked him about it either.

I was saying that even if he did move Holland or the camera a few feet east or west(which is how I believe he got them to line up to within an inch) who cares?

I think I found someone who does care despite him just repeating what I said that no one would.

As for BM, ok you think it's a flash rather than smoke okay.

FWIW it looks like smoke to me but we can all speculate no problem.

Also, if we are to believe that the smoke that Holland observed headed straight out from under the trees in the direction of the street(not down to that level but in that direction) like he says & points to in RTJ, then there is no reason to believe that smoke generated by BM(if any) would of headed in another direction(ie. the wall). No, it would travel along the fence & even maybe behind it somewhat.

Btw, please tell me how Nix's camera was at the same height as Bowers' eyes.

You keep repeating it but I don't see any data that would substantuate this rather outlandish claim of yours.

[Alan Healy]

BTW, is this a car parked adjacent to the other on the right? See the pointing arrows.

Miles,

I am not so sure that the Weigman "cluster"(I'll call it that) is that big to be ruled out on its size alone.

I think it's within, what one might call "a reasonable amount" of smoke that we would expect from a rifle but I'm no expert.

If you say it's too big, that makes me think but, the exaggerations distract from your point a little IMO(although the humour is apprecated by me).

Also on "the other car",

if you go back a page or two you'll see a wide shot from Nix I posted, focused on the fenceline.

What your pointing to is the bush I think & what is behind that is anyone's guess.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Sep 28 2007, 06:35 AM' post='120312']

Of the 13 doctors and nurses in Dallas who witnessed the president's body all described the throat wound as one of entrance.

Your statement is false on its face and uncharacteristically irresponsible.

Ashton:

I stand corrected on that number (13). This was from something I read a very long time ago, written by a respected researcher (Vince Salandria). Additionally however, Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark said in the press conference 11/22/63 that the throat wound was of entrance. Dr. Charles Crenshaw did as well, in his book Conspiracy of Silence. Further, Dr Ronald Jones referred to this wound as "very small and clean- cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient". So that is no "zero doctors" but four. (And someone who is expert on the medical evidence could likely augment this list.)

I could not read the link you provided (too small and when I clicked to enlarge it did not happen, so I cannot comment on the WC testimony you posted.)

Then there are all the witnesses who heard shots from in front and saw a puff of smoke. Then there is motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis, riding behind the motorcade who was splattered with the president's brains and blood. This could not have occurred from a rear shot. I completely agree that only those who saw the wound prior to Perry's trach. can give a valid opinion re. entrance vs exit.

I am not wedded to any particular "theory", except the FACT that this was as coup d'etat, something I believe we agree on.

Dawn

Further on Parkland hospital docs- email today from from David Lifton:

Its all laid out in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence (re the throat wound); and Chapter 2 (as I recall) re the head wounding.

There’s no more complete treatise than that.

Nothing is a myth. The Dallas doctors, with one exception, all believed that (a) the throat wound was an entry and ( the wound at the back of the head was an exit.

Dawn

[Alan Healy]

Moorman, nor Nix were at the right angle to the sun for the light to pass through the smoke and illuminate it like it did from the angle Wiegman's and Zapruder's camera had.

If you have any data to support this claim of yours above, then please post it or direct me to something that does.

You weren't just guessing because Nix & Moorman don't show the still alleged smoke in Wiegman were you?

If so, then why can't I state that since Nix & Moorman show no smoke, that means there was none there & what we see in the trees in Wiegman is just an illusion?

FWIW, I don't see those swirls in Zapruder yet. I still need to look at it closer though, not had time yet.

[note] Just in case you want to pick nats out of what I'm saying, I'll make it clear for you.

I haven't made my mind up about the cluster in Wiegman.

If it's smoke or not or where it originated from if it is, I don't know yet.

I can use my imagination, don't get confused if you see me talking about two different explainations, some people call it being reasonable. I am doing my best to remain neutral, for Holland's sake more than anything.

[Bill Miller]

First of all, a professional sniper does not carry a freshly oiled rifle on an ops. He cleans & dries it with wads & solvents (Ever used AV gas?), of course, just exactly because he is looking for & preparing for a CLEAN, PRECISE, OPTIMUM shot & opportunity optimization for success. Do you know anything at all about rifles? No.

Miles, people also come from miles around just to hear me talk about all the years spent on the firing range at the local Legion Hall when I was a kid. I use to watch the guys shooting traps put off clouds of blue smoke and I watched it drift for 100's of feet when there was no air stirring. When there was a breeze ... I watched how the plume would dissapate and break up, not to mention the swirls that came along with it when the plume hit the air currents. This happened a lot, especially with freshly oiled barrels and guys packing their own loads. The same went for the rifle range.

So Miles, why don't you take two seconds to tell this forum all you know as to what a sniper or an assassin would do ... especially when its already documented that several witnesses said they saw that plume of smoke that you want to tell us wouldn't happen if a professional assassin was shooting at the President!

You xxxxx your head off so much that you say things that are contradictory of past remarks you made. In one place you'll post in favor of a ludicrous claim someone has made that you believe a shooter fired from the fence and you'll go as far as to place arrows on a picture of the knoll to show people where you believe the smoke came from. Next, you will say that a professional assassin wouldn't use a rifle that smokes ... so which is it Miles - were you trolling in the past when you said smoke came from the fence in the area of the Duncan shooter or is it your position that a trained assassin wouldn't use a gun that smoked??? Your double talk has grown tiresome and it really makes you look like an @$$ to those who are looking for a sincere effort on the members here to discuss these topics rationally.

No, he does not shoot a blunderbuss, which would have generated this massive cloud.

If you are saying that a single rifle, carefully prepared for a vital mission by a trained assassin sniper, would have, by a single discaharge, prodused this HUGE CLOUD at this DISTANCE from the fence:

More idiotic pictures to post so to waste forum space ... are you saying that the smoke you were pushing in the Duncan shooter thread wasn't from a trained sniper???

Bill Miller

Hi B.,

As usual you've come up trumps! I mean if there's a photo to the point you've got it.

I added some arrows:

Here's some smoke (red arrows):

The smoke is drifting NW to SE on the wind. Therefore, from Sam's perch atop the underpass

the smoke would seem to emanate from midget man's spot, when in fact it came from about

33 feet from the fence corner. Thus, when Sam ran to the end of the fence & then back to the

small trampled muddy area at the fence, Sam mistakenly assumed that this area was the origin

of the smoke & by further extrapolation the point of the firing of the shot & by further extrapolation

the position of the sniper.

A simple, honest, understandable error & a forgivable error.

M

Pasted from <http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10251&st=330

Edited September 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Moorman, nor Nix were at the right angle to the sun for the light to pass through the smoke and illuminate it like it did from the angle Wiegman's and Zapruder's camera had.

If you have any data to support this claim of yours above, then please post it or direct me to something that does.

You weren't just guessing because Nix & Moorman don't show the still alleged smoke in Wiegman were you?

If so, then why can't I state that since Nix & Moorman show no smoke, that means there was none there & what we see in the trees in Wiegman is just an illusion?

FWIW, I don't see those swirls in Zapruder yet. I still need to look at it closer though, not had time yet.

[note] Just in case you want to pick nats out of what I'm saying, I'll make it clear for you.

I haven't made my mind up about the cluster in Wiegman.

If it's smoke or not or where it originated from if it is, I don't know yet.

I can use my imagination, don't get confused if you see me talking about two different explainations, some people call it being reasonable. I am doing my best to remain neutral, for Holland's sake more than anything.

Alan,

Civil War:

Note "SMOKELESS" on a 1960s-vintage cartridges box (.222):

By the 1960s smokeless powder was perfected & used as cartridge charge.

Why?

Well, if you are a sniper (or a hunter or a infantry man) under cover, the last thing you want is self-targeting discharge smoke (or muzzle flash) for enemy or game discovery of your position.

Just one quick example, here is an M-16 shooting rapid fire:

Hardly any smoke.

Same in 1963.

A professional sniper in 1963 would have hand loaded his own cartridges, or had it done for him & then test fired & zero slighted. Do you want to miss?

The huge smoke cloud in Wiegman is preposterous. Was a musket used? -

That's why it's leaf cluster.

And, of course, there all those OTHER reasons why it's not smoke, but leaf cluster.

It's a joke.

Of course, there was smoke.

But not in Wiegman.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Miles Scull]

First of all, a professional sniper does not carry a freshly oiled rifle on an ops. He cleans & dries it with wads & solvents (Ever used AV gas?), of course, just exactly because he is looking for & preparing for a CLEAN, PRECISE, OPTIMUM shot & opportunity optimization for success. Do you know anything at all about rifles? No.

Miles, people also come from miles around just to hear me talk about all the years spent on the firing range at the local Legion Hall when I was a kid. I use to watch the guys shooting traps

Did you say traps? Do you think a sniper uses a shotgun?

put off clouds of blue smoke and I watched it drift for 100's of feet when there was no air stirring. When there was a breeze ... I watched how the plume would dissapate and break up, not to mention the swirls that came along with it when the plume hit the air currents. This happened a lot, especially with freshly oiled barrels and guys packing their own loads.

A sniper does NOT oil his barrel for an op. He uses smokeless powder charges.

The same went for the rifle range.

What? You're kidding. I hope no one was hurt.

No, he does not shoot a blunderbuss, which would have generated this massive cloud.

If you are saying that a single rifle, carefully prepared for a vital mission by a trained assassin sniper, would have, by a single discaharge, prodused this HUGE CLOUD at this DISTANCE from the fence:

Bill Miller[/b]

No more bop the bozo, please.

Thanks

Edited July 18, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Bill Miller]

Alan,

Civil War:

Note "SMOKELESS" on a 1960s-vintage cartridges box (.222):

Miles, you really have attention issues. You have posted several times in the past about the witnesses seeing smoke. You placed arrows on Knoll pics to show where that smoke came from. Now like someone with a split personality problem ... you want to state the opposite as to your past position. I'll say this again in case you were washing down a dozen doughnuts at the time and missed it ... when the HSCA did their test firings from the fence - the rifle used also smoked .... guess they didn't use the same shells as you posted about.

Well, if you are a sniper (or a hunter or a infantry man) under cover, the last thing you want is self-targeting discharge smoke (or muzzle flash) for enemy or game discovery of your position.

Just one quick example, here is an M-16 shooting rapid fire:

Hardly any smoke.

Same in 1963.

Same Holland talking about what he saw on 11/22/63:

Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)

There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot. I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots.

A professional sniper in 1963 would have hand loaded his own cartridges, or had it done for him & then test fired & zero slighted. Do you want to miss?

Really Miles ... to accept your position is to assume then that these professional snipers meant to shoot JFK in the throat, meant to shoot Connally in the armpit, meant to spark a shot off the street, meant to hit the chrome strip above the drivers area, and meant to hit the curb down by the underpass next to James Tague. It was this poorly aimed shots that show that what you said is pure nonsense.

Here is another post you did saying just the opposite of your current post ...

From Miles: Hudson's report that the smoke was 15 feet to the right of the tree is accounted for by the fact that the wind

was blowing from NW to SE; thus, toward Hudson with time elapse to consider. (The Cronkite color is available.)

As you can see Sam's view of the picket fence corner is somewhat obscured by the intervening foliage.

This cloaking of the corner would have been more pronounced on Nov. 22, 1963. Thus, it would have

been difficult for Sam to accurately gage the smoke's distance from the corner of the fence. Sam gives a

range of 20 to 30 feet. Only later, after Sam had threaded his way through the sea of cars & after he had

arrived at the trampled muddy area, did Sam begin to associate the smoke's position with the muddy foot

print area. But, reasoning that the muddy footprints were made by a non-shooter at 10 to 15 feet from the

corner (not 20 to 30 feet!), then Sam's original estimate of 20 to 30 feet for the smoke makes sense for a

shooter at 33 feet. In this construction, for example, midget man could have been a spotter as midget man

could have seen umbrella man's signal as a sniper at 33 feet could not have done. This is the explanation.

Pasted from <http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10251&st=315>

Bill Miller

Edited September 29, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Here is another post you did saying just the opposite of your current post ...

Any researcher of integrity not only can but will change his analysis when receiving more data that warrants it, or when finding new relationships in existing data.

Of course I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is anything that could be leveled toward you.

Ashton Gray

[Bill Miller]

Here is another post you did saying just the opposite of your current post ...

Any researcher of integrity not only can but will change his analysis when receiving more data that warrants it, or when finding new relationships in existing data.

Of course I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is anything that could be leveled toward you.

Ashton Gray

With all due respect, A.G. ... if you go back and read the thread(s) in question ... there is nothing new Miles has offered to account for a position change. Miles has yet to state that he doesn't believe a shot came from the RR yard. In fact, he recently made the statement that he still believed a shot came from the RR yard and that Bowers just didn't see the person(s) responsible for it.

Bill Miller

[Bernice Moore]

Moorman, nor Nix were at the right angle to the sun for the light to pass through the smoke and illuminate it like it did from the angle Wiegman's and Zapruder's camera had.

If you have any data to support this claim of yours above, then please post it or direct me to something that does.

You weren't just guessing because Nix & Moorman don't show the still alleged smoke in Wiegman were you?

If so, then why can't I state that since Nix & Moorman show no smoke, that means there was none there & what we see in the trees in Wiegman is just an illusion?

FWIW, I don't see those swirls in Zapruder yet. I still need to look at it closer though, not had time yet.

[note] Just in case you want to pick nats out of what I'm saying, I'll make it clear for you.

I haven't made my mind up about the cluster in Wiegman.

If it's smoke or not or where it originated from if it is, I don't know yet.

I can use my imagination, don't get confused if you see me talking about two different explainations, some people call it being reasonable. I am doing my best to remain neutral, for Holland's sake more than anything.

*******************

Alan :

In the Nix frame I posted....have a look at this boxed in yellow on the left...Smoke ?? and if so it would be drifting and dissipating

in the wind ...??

Sam said...

" Right under these trees, right at that exact spot , about ten or fifteen feet from this corner, the corner of the fence here,

back this way, right under this clump of trees, right under this tree this, particular tree ......It's that exact spot there.....

That's where it was.....just like somebody had thrown a firecracker...... and left a little puff of smoke there: it was just laying

there....... It was a white smoke: it wasn't black smoke or like a black powder. It was like a puff of a cigarette, but it was about

nine feet off the ground......... It would be just about in line with, or maybe just a little bit higher than that fence, but by the time it

got out underneath the tree, well it would be about eight or nine feet...( the ground slopes off sharply in front of the fence)..

Taped interview......Nov. 20, 1966...." SSID."..p.158..

*************

Miles :

""An FBI report ( CE 3133 ) states that the alleged assassination rifle was fired both in direct sunlight and in full shade, at the

Commission's request, to determine whether any flame was visible. No flame was seen, but " a small amount of white smoke

was visible......""....AATF...Meagher..p..19..

Now this would not have been at the fence, but it does show that white smoke appeared from, the rifle said

to be the alleged assassins ..for one..

**************************

One other witness that is usually forgotten was Frank Reilly, he testified that the shots seemed to " come out of those trees....

on the north side of Elm Street, at the corner up there ...where all those trees are....at that park where all the shrubs is up there...

up the slope...""....( 6 H 230)..

************

Dawn:

The information related by the Doctors of Parkland that were called and testified, is within, the WC....and some do and did state the fact that they felt the throat wound was an entrance ......of course we also have to keep in mind, that many important questions

were not asked......deliberately, therefore their information, has been lost ...if not interviewed before the powers that be got ahold of some. that is.

It is just that in the WC etc etc, Liebeler along with the Specters

input, in the final analysis, do not in any way relate to those facts, being within such.....

it is buried along with so much.....not included in the final summation in otherwards..

They only related to what they deemed pointed to a lone assassin.

.......But it is there within..for anyone who has a willing spirit to do the search...

B.........

Edited September 30, 2007 by Bernice Moore

[Bill Miller]

FWIW, In the previous post showing a yellow outline shaped box where smoke might be seen .... In all fairness - it probably isn't smoke, but just some other artifact. The reason I say this is because if one looks over to the top left side of the same image where it reads "Attached image(s)" ... just under the letters 'm, a, g' is the same type of light bluish color amongst the foliage.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Yes I was speculating. I wasn't there when Thompson took that photo & I've never asked him about it either.

I knew this when you said it.

As for BM, ok you think it's a flash rather than smoke okay.

FWIW it looks like smoke to me but we can all speculate no problem.

I will respect your opinion although I have no idea as to what you have relied upon to validate it. For me, I defer to the Jack Ruby clip showing the shooting of Oswald. Jack's gun shows a muzzle blast of light out the end of it and it dispersed itself immediately as it left the tip of the barrel. A rifle shoots with the blast being forced down a long tube that we call the gun barrel. Blow a hit of smoke out your mouth and see what happens ... does it not come out in a narrow stream and then widens out as its propulsion rate slows down ... it does every time I have ever witnessed it. This is a big observation in my book and is one of the chief reasons that I believe that what we see immediately in front of Badge Man is a muzzle flash.

Also, if we are to believe that the smoke that Holland observed headed straight out from under the trees in the direction of the street(not down to that level but in that direction) like he says & points to in RTJ, then there is no reason to believe that smoke generated by BM(if any) would of headed in another direction(ie. the wall). No, it would travel along the fence & even maybe behind it somewhat.

The shooter Holland speaks about was not shooting towards the street ... if he was, then he was possibly aiming at the Franzen's. No, a shooter would have been aiming up the street in a southeasterly direction towards the car The wind was blowing in a similar direction. The smoke would have been propelled out of the end of the barrel towards the approaching Limo, then as it moved through the foliage of the trees, it then would have started to be broken apart as it left the protection of tree(s) and hit the air that obviously had gotten under Hill and Moorman's coats and peeled them open at the time of the kill shot to JFK.

Btw, please tell me how Nix's camera was at the same height as Bowers' eyes.

You keep repeating it but I don't see any data that would substantuate this rather outlandish claim of yours.

Bowers was said to be elevated about 14 feet into the air. The fence was 5' tall. If Nix was eye level with the fence, then he could not have seen over the top of it to see a car sitting behind it. From across the plaza had Nix been able to see the side windows of a car it would have taken at least 3 more feet in elevation to allow him to see over the top of the fence. To see something as low as a car tire from that distance, Nix would need IMO to be elevated at least another 3 more feet, making that a total 11 feet in elevation to the fence. I think my estimate is conservative and that 11 to 14 feet in elevation may be closer to that Nix achieved as he stood up near the top of Main Street.

Bill Miller

Edited September 30, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

Dawn, I am taking your points somewhat out of order so I can supply you with a number of links to different versions of the document I earlier posted. I also have taken the liberty of fixing the quotes so readers can have a chance of following who said what to whom.

I could not read the link you provided (too small and when I clicked to enlarge it did not happen, so I cannot comment on the WC testimony you posted.)

I believe you (and anyone else interested in the facts) should have access to it, so I'm now supplying it in a host of formats.

First, here is a link directly to the .gif file, which should open at full size in it's own browser window.

Here is a link to a PDF file of the same chart

If none of that works for you, this is link to a web page with the same chart as an html table.

And if anyone would like their own copy in Excel format, this link theoretically will download it to your default download location.

And if all of that fails, you must be either on an Etch-a-Sketch or Windows.

Of the 13 doctors and nurses in Dallas who witnessed the president's body all described the throat wound as one of entrance.

Your statement is false on its face and uncharacteristically irresponsible.

Ashton:

I stand corrected on that number (13). This was from something I read a very long time ago, written by a respected researcher (Vince Salandria).

Whoever it came from, it's no less false, and I don't know how one achieves or maintains a reputation as "a respected researcher" issuing such gross perversions of fact, but thank you for correcting your own record and for identifying the source of the super-sized whopper.

Additionally however, Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark said in the press conference 11/22/63 that the throat wound was of entrance.

Well, right off the bat we have another distortion, which has a double twist: In the first place, Clark did not say at the press conference that the throat wound was of entrance, and the double twist on this distortion—which you'll easily find by reference to the chart I have suppled in many formats—is that Clark stated under oath that he did not see the throat wound. Therefore he has no foundation for any opinion whatsoever. This is dispositive, Dawn: any opinion Clark ever rendered on whether it was an entrance or exit wound has no more validity than the opinion of Mamie Glutz, seated on the third bar stool from the pool table at a dark dive in Hoboken, New Jersey at the time of the event.

So scratch Clark from your list.

You're preaching to the choir when you say that Malcolm Perry—who destroyed all the evidence of the throat wound—planted the idea of it being an entrance wound at the press conference. I covered this earlier this year in another thread. Then he softened it in the same press conference and said it "appeared" to have been an entrance wound. Then under oath, as the chart shows, he testified that it was consistent with an exit wound under certain circumstances, and was consistent with an entrance wound under other circumstances. Flip, flop. Perry made it a big "maybe," after he had made damned sure in the trauma room that no one would ever find out what kind of wound it was. (And please take careful note of this: I have not, and do not, stipulate that the wound Perry carved through was a gunshot wound at all. I am discussing Perry's statements and actions.)

So, no: there is no unambiguous declaration under oath by Perry that the throat wound was a bullet entrance wound, and under oath he weaseled on his press conference statement.

Let's please cooperate in keeping the record straight.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw did as well, in his book Conspiracy of Silence.

Then why the hell didn't he say so under oath?

Here's what was said under oath in re: Crenshaw: McClelland said under oath, as reflected in the chart, that Perry's incision had obliterated the throat wound by the time he, McClelland, arrived in the trauma room. McClelland further said under oath (not reflected in the chart, but I invite you to verify it) that Crenshaw was not in the trauma room when he, McClelland, arrived, Crenshaw and others arriving "subsequently or about the same time." Of course there is no testimony under oath from Crenshaw, so he is not reflected in the chart. Would you care to account for Crenshaw's alleged superior knowledge of the throat wound, when the evidence of record is that Crenshaw didn't arrive until after the tracheostomy incision?

I'd certainly like to hear it.

If not, scritch-scratch goes Crenshaw off the list.

Further, Dr Ronald Jones referred to this wound as "very small and clean-cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient".

And isn't it a pity that Dr. Jenkins directly contradicted Jones, saying "I thought this was a wound of exit because it was not a clean wound."

Here is what Jones first said under oath on the subject of the throat wound:

DR. JONES: The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. There appeared to be no powder burn present, although this could have been masked by the amount of blood that was on the head and neck, although there was no obvious, amount of powder present. There appeared to be a very minimal amount of disruption of interruption of the surrounding skin. There appeared to be relatively smooth edges around the wound, and

if this occurred as a result of a missile,

you would have probably thought it was a missile of very low velocity and probably could have been compatible with a bone fragment of either--probably exiting from the neck, but it was a very small, smooth wound.

It was in his initial report—which he made after Perry's statement at the press conference—that he wrote (in the passive case) it was "thought to be a bullet entrance wound." Upon questioning about that, he made the statement you quote. I'm very familiar with the record.

But, hell, I'll even give you Jones. Mark your Excel worksheet accordingly and update the totals. (By the way, I genuinely hate to bring this up, but Jones is the doctor who flat-out lied under oath about the steroids in an attempt to hide Burkley's early presence in Trauma Room One. But if you want an impeached witness, let no one say I'm not a giver: here—you take him. Please.)

So that is no "zero doctors" but four.

A-hem. Pardon me: that would be one: Jones. And you are welcome to him.

And with that, I will have to meet you in a second message, below, to continue our discussion, or else the board complains that I have overspent its niggardly allotment of quotations.

See you below...

Ashton

Edited September 30, 2007 by Ashton Gray