ER doctors not good at identifying whether a gunshot is entrance/exit

[Andric Perez]

Read page 55 of the book Forensic Emergency Medicine.

"the first study to compare the interpretations of emergency physicians, trauma surgeons, and neurosurgeons at a level 1 trauma center with those of a forensic pathologist determined that a fatal gunshot wounds were interpreted correctly by the clinical practitioners in only 47.8% of cases."

To put this into perspective, a blind person or a person just guessing would have an equal chance (Chance=50%) as Trauma Room doctors, nurses and neurosurgeons in identifying a gunshot wound as being an entry of exit.

Have we in the CT world exaggerated the significance of Parkland DR. Malcolm Perry's initial assertion that JFK's throat wound was an entrance, since he was probably clueless about this?

Edited March 27, 2014 by Andric Perez

[Daniel Gallup]

I don't think so. Perry was not alone in this assessment. Their comments indicated they were quite familiar with gunshot wounding. I doubt the relevance of the particular study you cite from page 55 of that "first study."

[Andric Perez]

I don't think so. Perry was not alone in this assessment. Their comments indicated they were quite familiar with gunshot wounding. I doubt the relevance of the particular study you cite from page 55 of that "first study."

You appear to have gotten a hold of the research and concluded that the more familiar ER doctors are with gunshot wounds, the more accurate they are in determining whether the bullets are entrance or exit.

Alternatively, you are just guessing that ER doctors' crappy performance is mediated by the familiarity factor (not that we know how "familiar" Perry and the other Parkland doctors and the doctors in the study were).

Edited March 29, 2014 by Andric Perez

[Daniel Gallup]

No, I have just taken the time to read all the Parkland statements about the wound. They were there, and made some rather astonishing comments. You, Andric, are guessing they were mistaken. The burden is on you to explain why all those who saw the wound consistently said it had the appearance of an entry wound. I'm waiting.

[Andric Perez]

No, I have just taken the time to read all the Parkland statements about the wound. They were there, and made some rather astonishing comments. You, Andric, are guessing they were mistaken. The burden is on you to explain why all those who saw the wound consistently said it had the appearance of an entry wound. I'm waiting.

The ball will pass to me after you convince readers that ER doctors are accurate when identifying the nature of wounds. It would not hurt to explain why the experienced Dr. Clark said it was possible that the head wound was an exit to the throat wound. If that comment by Clark seems implausible to you, then the "consistency" of doctors treating he throat wound as an entrance is not a very important topic, after all.

More importantly, you exaggerate the consistency with which doctors allegedly agreed that the throat wound was an entrance. Dr. McClelland told the Warren Commission: "Dr. McCLELLAND - I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound, either an entrance or an exit type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible. "

So while McClelland believed the nature of the throat wound to be quite difficult/impossible to tell, you find it quite obvious.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Andric Perez