Jump to content
The Education Forum

Blood Spatter


Recommended Posts

http://www.bloodspatter.com/BPATutorial.htm

Forensics is far from a settled discipline. Controversy has raged over the reliability of fingerprints and even DNA.

When it comes to blood pattern analysis, a case in Indiana is stirring strong debate.

Camm claimed that he discovered the bodies after the murders and that tiny blood stains on his shirt were from brushing against his daughter.

Prosecutors, however, said the blood marks were spattered from the impact of the gunshot.

Ten forensic witnesses testified on that point -- five for the state, five for the defense. They were in complete disagreement over whether the blood was an impact pattern from a gunshot, or a transfer pattern from contact.

As shows like "CSI" have made crime investigation popular, more people have entered the field, with glaring differences in expertise. Some are working after just a one-week course in a specialty like blood pattern analysis. Others have Ph.D.s in the sciences and a lifetime of experience.

As a consequence, bloodstain analysts are debating what qualifications establish someone as an expert in the field.

Currently, anyone with a 40-hour training course in blood pattern analysis can be established as an expert to give court testimony. By contrast, in Canada, analysts are required to undergo advanced training and become an understudy for a year before qualifying as an expert.

Blood pattern analysis can be a very dangerous science in the hands of the inexperienced," he said.

As an example, he cited the case of Sion Jenkins in England, who served seven years in prison for a crime that Slemko testified he could not have committed.

The prosecution witness, with limited training, testified that blood on Jenkins was impact spatter and meant Jenkins was at the murder scene, but Slemko concluded it was expirated, or breathed, blood from Jenkins attempting to help the victim. The defendant was acquitted and freed after serving seven years on his original conviction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How ridiculous of you to start a thread like this. You have no forensic blood spatter expertise, so what do you do ... you single out a case that has nothing to do with the issue of exploding debris that occurs when a bullet slams into the brain matter. There are some simple basic laws of science that cannot be disputed and Sherry, who by the way has a far more detailed resume than a mere 40 hours of training, has reported to us how those rules of physics apply to blood spatter science. I am still waiting to hear you come up with one expert who has seen her work and dispute what she has written. Instead ... all you have done is try to cloud the issue with propaganda. In fact, I have noticed that you tend to start a lot of threads that really could and should have been limited to just one thread. I am only waiting for you to post some new threads that say something like 'blood spatter science ... I have no expertise in it but feel that I know more than those that do' - 'blood spatter science ... can we get around it by avoiding it' - 'blood spatter science ... only applies to those who are smart enough to understand it'. Let me know if you need more alike topics so to propagandize your agenda.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='Bill Miller' post='141246' date='Mar 20 2008, 01:40 PM'

I have no expertise in it but...

finally, something that rings true

David, you should install a 10 second delay in your responses so to at least give you a chance to listen to how stupid they sound before posting them. In the past I have cited Zavada and Groden both because they know more about Kodachrome II film that you and I do put together. So didn't that ring true to you??? And didn't it ring true when I quoted you as saying in the same thread that you 'believe the Zapruder film to be altered' and where you said that you 'have seen no proof of alteration' .... yes, I believe I did and it was also true. So saying that Sherry is the blood spatter expert over any of us is no different IMO. Now when are you going to post something true like you knowing little about the evidence of the JFK assassination??? LOL!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ridiculous of you to start a thread like this. You have no forensic blood spatter expertise, so what do you do ... you single out a case that has nothing to do with the issue of exploding debris that occurs when a bullet slams into the brain matter. There are some simple basic laws of science that cannot be disputed and Sherry, who by the way has a far more detailed resume than a mere 40 hours of training, has reported to us how those rules of physics apply to blood spatter science. I am still waiting to hear you come up with one expert who has seen her work and dispute what she has written. Instead ... all you have done is try to cloud the issue with propaganda. In fact, I have noticed that you tend to start a lot of threads that really could and should have been limited to just one thread. I am only waiting for you to post some new threads that say something like 'blood spatter science ... I have no expertise in it but feel that I know more than those that do' - 'blood spatter science ... can we get around it by avoiding it' - 'blood spatter science ... only applies to those who are smart enough to understand it'. Let me know if you need more alike topics so to propagandize your agenda.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/084...rimesceneinvest

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...20J.M.%20DiMaio

Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_to...high-speed.html

High-speed bullets damage organs in ways different from what we usually think. Here is an extended passage from one of the U.S.’s foremost authorities on the subject, Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985)

"Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

Note how the bullet interacts with the head in two stages. In the first stage, the bullet passes rapidly through, leaving an expanding temporary cavity in its wake. The separate events of this first stage are (1) the bullet enters the skull by drilling a small entrance hole; (2) some brain matter is ejected backward out this hole (tail splash); (3) the bullet, beginning to tumble, passes through the brain; and (4) the bullet leaves the skull by blasting a large exit hole. Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

In the second stage (after the bullet has left the skull), brain matter continues moving radially outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, which can reach 100 to 200 atmospheres. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings, the largest of which will usually be the exit wound or an expanded version of it, with its size depending on how large the internal pressures became. As brain matter is ejected through the enlarged exit wound, it exerts a recoil force in the opposite direction, or backward. If this force is strong enough relative to other forces being experienced by the head at that time (which is well after the hit), the head may actually move backward (the so-called "jet effect"). If the recoil force is small relative to those other forces (such as neuromuscular reactions), the head may more in some other direction, with its motion being only modified by the jet effect.

Thus we expect a bursting head to show at least two separate movements. The first must be in the direction of the bullet, the second probably opposite to it. (Specifics of any movements beyond the first are difficult or impossible to predict, however.) In fact, JFK’s head did move twice—first briefly forward (the "snap"), then backward (the "lurch"). The quick forward motion proves that the killing shot came from the rear. The rearward motion was likely some combination of jet effect and a neuromuscular stiffening of the back muscles, which together straightened him up and threw him backward.

Could the rearward lurch have been the result of a second bullet, from the front, as implied in JFK? No, for several reasons: (1) There was only one set of wounds to the head, a tiny entrance wound in the rear and a larger exit wound on the right side/rear. (2) There is only one pattern of lead fragments in the head—a cone fanning out from the rear entrance wound to the side exit wound. (3) There was no second diffuse cloud of tissue and large fragments, as created by the first hit. (4) There was no damage to the left hemisphere of JFK’s brain, as would be required by a shot coming from the knoll, which was really to JFK’s right rather than to his front. (5) The rearward lurch was an entirely different kind of movement from the forward snap. The lurch began in the right shoulder and arm and involved the head only later. It did not look at all like the snap. (6) Because the lurch involved the whole upper torso, it required more energy than the snap. Many weapons did not have enough energy. Thus JFK’s head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear."

Certainly would appear that this guy knows what he is speaking of.

At least to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

name='Bill Miller' post='141246' date='Mar 20 2008, 01:40 PM'

I have no expertise in it but...

finally, something that rings true

David, you should install a 10 second delay in your responses so to at least give you a chance to listen to how stupid they sound before posting them. In the past I have cited Zavada and Groden both because they know more about Kodachrome II film that you and I do put together. So didn't that ring true to you??? And didn't it ring true when I quoted you as saying in the same thread that you 'believe the Zapruder film to be altered' and where you said that you 'have seen no proof of alteration' .... yes, I believe I did and it was also true. So saying that Sherry is the blood spatter expert over any of us is no different IMO. Now when are you going to post something true like you knowing little about the evidence of the JFK assassination??? LOL!!!!

Follow the bouncing ball Bill Miller..... I had my shot at Sherry (while you held her coat) 2 years ago, I see nothing different, nonsense in fact -- let's no forget that "bloodstain" quote -- What bloodstain might that be in the Zapruder film?

And I believe Tom Purvis has a few comments for you! Why don't you just get Sherry over here, she's helping in Lancer management isn't she? She's the pro, eh? As you said, "your not qualified...". I doubt she needs your suffocating support...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How ridiculous of you to start a thread like this. You have no forensic blood spatter expertise, so what do you do ... you single out a case that has nothing to do with the issue of exploding debris that occurs when a bullet slams into the brain matter. There are some simple basic laws of science that cannot be disputed and Sherry, who by the way has a far more detailed resume than a mere 40 hours of training, has reported to us how those rules of physics apply to blood spatter science. I am still waiting to hear you come up with one expert who has seen her work and dispute what she has written. Instead ... all you have done is try to cloud the issue with propaganda. In fact, I have noticed that you tend to start a lot of threads that really could and should have been limited to just one thread. I am only waiting for you to post some new threads that say something like 'blood spatter science ... I have no expertise in it but feel that I know more than those that do' - 'blood spatter science ... can we get around it by avoiding it' - 'blood spatter science ... only applies to those who are smart enough to understand it'. Let me know if you need more alike topics so to propagandize your agenda.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/084...rimesceneinvest

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-h...20J.M.%20DiMaio

Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_to...high-speed.html

High-speed bullets damage organs in ways different from what we usually think. Here is an extended passage from one of the U.S.’s foremost authorities on the subject, Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio, Chief Medical Examiner and Director of the Regional Crime Laboratory, County of Bexar, San Antonio, Texas (from his Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985)

"Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

Note how the bullet interacts with the head in two stages. In the first stage, the bullet passes rapidly through, leaving an expanding temporary cavity in its wake. The separate events of this first stage are (1) the bullet enters the skull by drilling a small entrance hole; (2) some brain matter is ejected backward out this hole (tail splash); (3) the bullet, beginning to tumble, passes through the brain; and (4) the bullet leaves the skull by blasting a large exit hole. Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

In the second stage (after the bullet has left the skull), brain matter continues moving radially outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, which can reach 100 to 200 atmospheres. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings, the largest of which will usually be the exit wound or an expanded version of it, with its size depending on how large the internal pressures became. As brain matter is ejected through the enlarged exit wound, it exerts a recoil force in the opposite direction, or backward. If this force is strong enough relative to other forces being experienced by the head at that time (which is well after the hit), the head may actually move backward (the so-called "jet effect"). If the recoil force is small relative to those other forces (such as neuromuscular reactions), the head may more in some other direction, with its motion being only modified by the jet effect.

Thus we expect a bursting head to show at least two separate movements. The first must be in the direction of the bullet, the second probably opposite to it. (Specifics of any movements beyond the first are difficult or impossible to predict, however.) In fact, JFK’s head did move twice—first briefly forward (the "snap"), then backward (the "lurch"). The quick forward motion proves that the killing shot came from the rear. The rearward motion was likely some combination of jet effect and a neuromuscular stiffening of the back muscles, which together straightened him up and threw him backward.

Could the rearward lurch have been the result of a second bullet, from the front, as implied in JFK? No, for several reasons: (1) There was only one set of wounds to the head, a tiny entrance wound in the rear and a larger exit wound on the right side/rear. (2) There is only one pattern of lead fragments in the head—a cone fanning out from the rear entrance wound to the side exit wound. (3) There was no second diffuse cloud of tissue and large fragments, as created by the first hit. (4) There was no damage to the left hemisphere of JFK’s brain, as would be required by a shot coming from the knoll, which was really to JFK’s right rather than to his front. (5) The rearward lurch was an entirely different kind of movement from the forward snap. The lurch began in the right shoulder and arm and involved the head only later. It did not look at all like the snap. (6) Because the lurch involved the whole upper torso, it required more energy than the snap. Many weapons did not have enough energy. Thus JFK’s head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear."

Certainly would appear that this guy knows what he is speaking of.

At least to me!

All quiet in the Miller Camp?

Let me again assist you Bill!

I am still waiting to hear you come up with one expert

Now! Most would consider Dr. DiMaio as a bonafide and certified EXPERT in the field.

Especially since, as they say, "he wrote the book".

all you have done is try to cloud the issue with propaganda.

On the other hand, some would consider that more in line with confusing you with the facts.

you single out a case that has nothing to do with the issue of exploding debris that occurs when a bullet slams into the brain matter.

First off, the bullet must impact the scalp, secondly, the skull, then it can get to the brain matter.

Also:

"Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot", which in this internet days, anyone could have found and read if they were actually interested in research as well as a PROFESSIONAL second opinion.

I am only waiting for you to post some new threads that say something like 'blood spatter science

"SPUTTER" (2) "to utter words hastily or explosively in excitement or confusion"

appeared to be the much better topic. I believe the operative wourd would be "confusion"

If I wanted to talk about the "Science" of Blood Spatter/Splatter analysis, then we would be discussing Dr. DiMaio's book on the subject matter.

I have no expertise in it

And, from all appearance, you have not even bothered to attempt to read and understand it for yourself.

Had you done so, then you would know that what you proclaim is in direct contradiction to what one of the foremost experts in the field states on the subject matter.

'blood spatter science ... only applies to those who are smart enough to understand it'.

In that regards, we can finally agree on something!

Now, exactly who was it that posted Dr. DiMaio's statements here for all to see?

Reading, as well as reading comprehension are the key elements in the learning process.

Let me know if you need more alike topics so to propagandize your agenda.

Feel free to interject such easily disputed nonsense at any time you feel froggy. I always enjoy getting a good laugh at those who have never even bothered to read up on their subject matter, yet are going to attempt to "educate" me on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still having difficulty with the english language I see!

The "science" of blood spatter is a recognized field of forensic sciences, which, when used in conjunction with the forensic; ballistic; patholigical; and other physical evidence, and utilized in accordance with the applicable laws of physical sciences, is an excellent tool.

Blood Spatter determination by looking at the Z-film to determine directionality of bullets fired, happens to be "junk science".

Did you get and understand that Bill, or does it need to be put into a film so that perhaps you can grasp it?

I am starting to think that you have never read a single word on blood spatter science. I am not talking about trying to see droplets of blood all over the car, but the release of matter upon the impact of a bullet. The Nix film captured the point of impact just ahead of the Zapruder camera and it is the initial release of matter that Sherry points out that is quite telling as to the direction that the shot came. As I recall, she showed high-speed photography detailing the pattern seen upon impact both going in and out of an object. So far you have not cited one expert who disagrees with her analysis. The fact is - you can't! The fact is that you know exactly what I am saying and is why you haven't posted a single reference to an expert in blood spatter science that disagrees with the principles of physics that Sherry explains in detail.

All I asked of you was an explanation and all I have seen so far is propaganda that has been void of data addressing the issue. You remind me of this person who once said to me that the book called 'The Divinci Code' had debunked the Bible. I asked if they had even read the Bible and they answered back, "No". If you ever talk to a Henry Lee or even Sherry and you go after them on how blood spatter science is bunk, then feel free to post the details of that discussion. Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight."I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions"

(Al Carrier)

Now, let me figure this out. Carrier, a purportedlly highly qualilfied crime fighter, had a hand gun.

The criminal, had a knife!

Carrier has managed to get stabbed by the perpetrator, on three different occassions, while he was in possession of a gun!

Thus, it would appear that Carrier might best consider bringing a gun and a knife, as those with the knives appear to be doing relatively well.

you go after them on how blood spatter science is bunk,You do have difficulty with the english language, don't you?

Did they not have Special Ed/ ED classes when you were in school.

Please have somone read and explain the following to you:

The "science" of blood spatter is a recognized field of forensic sciences, which, when used in conjunction with the forensic; ballistic; patholigical; and other physical evidence, and utilized in accordance with the applicable laws of physical sciences, is an excellent tool.

Next up, which pretty well speaks for itself:

Blood Spatter determination by looking at the Z-film to determine directionality of bullets fired, happens to be "junk science".

Now, exactly how many times does one have to state something before you begin to understand it?

The Nix film captured the point of impact just ahead of the Zapruder camera and it is the initial release of matter that Sherry points out that is quite telling as to the direction that the shot came.

BS!

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_to...high-speed.html

Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

note: In event that you are having difficulty with the highly complex term "forward momentum", then perhaps you should look up a 5th grader or two for assistance.

All I asked of you was an explanation

Dr. DiMaio's explanation of exactly what is seen in the Z-film too complex for you?

Sorry, but I ceased to teach on the 4th grade level long ago after the draft was ended.

all I have seen so far is propaganda that has been void of data addressing the issue.

O.I.C.!

Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

The Title too exceeded your abililty to understand that Dr. DiMaio's information was specifically addressing the Z313 impact to the head of JFK.

So far you have not cited one expert who disagrees with her analysis.

Well, from my limited understanding of the english language:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Thus JFK’s head was hit by only one bullet, from the rear."

"Could the rearward lurch have been the result of a second bullet, from the front, as implied in JFK? No, for several reasons"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That most certainly, from my limited reading comprehension ability, appears to be a direct contradiction (disagreement) with the findings which you are attempting to hock on this forum.

This is now so perplexing! Who does one believe?

1. Somone who has utilized some psuedo-scientific method of deriving an answer which suits their needs/agenda?

2. A recognized EXPERT who is also an MD, who has also taken into consideration the other essential elements of information necessary to derive a reliable conclusion, and an individual who literally "wrote the book" on evaluation of blood spatter as a scientific approach to resolution of gunshot wound injuries.

I will have to sleep on that for a long, long time. OK, nap is over, guess who I will go with?

Lastly, might I recommend that you go down to some local slaughter house and take your favorite gun.

Shoot a few hogs and/or cows in the head, as we used to do around here all the time, and you just may actually learn a thing or two, since you apparantly can not derive what is and is not BS by the written word.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, since I can read as well as comprehend quite readily (even at this advanced age), then I do not have to rely on what others tell me and/or what I may mistakenly conceive as being fact from watching the Z-film.

(Tom)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What has been raised as an issue of brain matter exploding into the air is something that can and is seen on the assassination films. What you are doing is trying to sell an idea that a second rock was thrown into the pond and no ripples on the water occurred ... and I'm not buying it. Sherry teaches blood spatter science to people like Wecht. So whether I spoke to one or two experts ... you have not cited a single one that disagrees with the physics that Sherry points out pertaining to the impact of a bullet slamming into brain matter. Ignorance is no defense IMO.

(Bill)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ignorance is no defense IMO

As brother Jesse Jackson is known to utilize: "Common Ground" has been reached in that one can be assured that I am in full agreement with the above statement.

Now:

Dr. DiMaio states absolutely that the indications, as seen in the Z-film of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK, have absollutely nothing to do with a shot fired from the front.

And, since Dr. DiMaio happens to be an absolute EXPERT in this area, then rest assured that I will go with his understanding of the subject matter.

Now: Someone else, who's erronous hypothesis is the matter of discussion here, makes claims which directly contradict (go against/disagree with) Dr. DiMaio's evaluation of the evidence.

And yet:

http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/page03.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bullet interacts with the head in several stages (17).

1. The bullet enters the skull by forming a small entrance hole.

2. Some blood and brain matter is ejected backward out this small hole as backspatter.

3. The bullet, which may expand, fragment or tumble, then passes through the brain.

4. This bullet passage creates both a permanent cavity and a temporary expanding cavity.

5. The bullet leaves the skull by creating a larger irregularly shaped exit hole.

6. After the bullet has left the skull, blood and brain matter continues moving outward from the path of the bullet until the head bursts from the accumulated pressure, creating an even larger and more irregularly shaped exit wound.

7. Brain matter is ejected out all available openings as forward spatter, the largest of which is usually the expanded exit wound, with its final size depending on how large the internal pressures became.

http://jfklancerforum.com/sherryg/references.html

REFERENCES:

17. Gunshot Wounds : Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques by Vincent J. M. Di Maio

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certainly appears as one of those lack of oxy-moron's to me.

My old professors would have eaten my lunch had I come up with some unsupported hypothesis, and thereafter utilized as reference to support said hypothesis, the works of an individual who's written textbook as well as published opinions were in direct contradiction and agreement with what my hypothesis stated.

Therefore, I am in full agreement that "Ignorance is no defense IMO"

Kind of like stating: All scientific evidence states that the earth is an oval sphere. Therefore the earth is square!

And, what is even worse, is actually believing it without checking it out for onself.

--------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Implications for the physics of JFK’s head shot

Note how the bullet interacts with the head in two stages. In the first stage, the bullet passes rapidly through, leaving an expanding temporary cavity in its wake. The separate events of this first stage are (1) the bullet enters the skull by drilling a small entrance hole; (2) some brain matter is ejected backward out this hole (tail splash); (3) the bullet, beginning to tumble, passes through the brain; and (4) the bullet leaves the skull by blasting a large exit hole. Note how each of these four events transfers forward momentum from the bullet to the head (the first movement of the head).

The large blasted out hole is exactly what the 26 medical personnel said they saw at Parkland hospital and is why the autopsy photos were done in such a way as not to show this occurrence. They were so much aware of these avusled bones that they had even discussed the possibility that a bullet had entered the throat and deflected upwards exiting out the back of the President's head.

Dennis David told me that they are taught at Bethesda that when a bullet enters the head and it fractures the skull (in the way the bone plate came off JFK's head) that the entrance wound will be found along the outer edge of the fractured bone. Of course we can't look at the large overturned bone plate in the autopsy photos and rely on anything because what is shown as the bone plate in the existing autopsy photos is smaller than the bone plate seen in the Zapruder film.

Anyway, the good doctor seems to have said the same thing as Sherry has and I have not seen where he says anything that conflicts with what Sherry illustrates in her examination of the Zapruder film. Each on of the examples that she shows has the bullet entering an object with the initial release of pressure and debri having a wider spread pattern upon impact with a smaller faster moving pattern of debris traveling in the direction the bullet was going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the bouncing ball Bill Miller..... I had my shot at Sherry (while you held her coat) 2 years ago, I see nothing different, nonsense in fact -- let's no forget that "bloodstain" quote -- What bloodstain might that be in the Zapruder film?

Oh David ... more propaganda??? How about you detailing this so-called 'shot' that you had at Sherry ... I am most interested in hearing what transpired. The bloodstain qute was Tom's comment .... was it not?

I look forward to hearing all about you and Sherry's 'shot' at each other ... don't hold back any details.

By the way, David ... you have a rich history of supporting the idea that JFK was killed by a shot from the front and that anyone who thought differently was a 'lone nutter' wsho should be ignored. Do you realize that Tom holds the opposite opinion as you do or are you trolling to fast to digest what's been said.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight."I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions"

(Al Carrier)

Now, let me figure this out. Carrier, a purportedlly highly qualilfied crime fighter, had a hand gun.

The criminal, had a knife!

Carrier has managed to get stabbed by the perpetrator, on three different occassions, while he was in possession of a gun!

Thus, it would appear that Carrier might best consider bringing a gun and a knife, as those with the knives appear to be doing relatively well.

I seem to recall you posting back at that time, thus you know the message and how there was more to the incidents that Al described, but just like with the JFK case, you tell only a part of the story so to mislead the reader. I must tell you that while this hurts your position when constantly using such a modus-operandi ... I certainly appreciate it! It's not my intention to argue with you, but rather to expose what you're attempting to do. It is comments like that you made about Carrier that helps me do this.

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until then you are doing what Al Carrier (25 year police officer) called 'bringing a knife to a gun fight."I have been stabbed in the line of duty while being paid by taxpayers on three separate occasions"

(Al Carrier)

Now, let me figure this out. Carrier, a purportedlly highly qualilfied crime fighter, had a hand gun.

The criminal, had a knife!

Carrier has managed to get stabbed by the perpetrator, on three different occassions, while he was in possession of a gun!

Thus, it would appear that Carrier might best consider bringing a gun and a knife, as those with the knives appear to be doing relatively well.

I seem to recall you posting back at that time, thus you know the message and how there was more to the incidents that Al described, but just like with the JFK case, you tell only a part of the story so to mislead the reader. I must tell you that while this hurts your position when constantly using such a modus-operandi ... I certainly appreciate it! It's not my intention to argue with you, but rather to expose what you're attempting to do. It is comments like that you made about Carrier that helps me do this.

Thanks again!

LMAO c'mon trying to deflect attention away from yourself onto Carrier is farcical ... Your in a tough spot right now, you've ventured onto unfamilair grounds and its showing, BIG time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...