Jump to content
The Education Forum

And it continues in the NY Times


Cory Santos
 Share

Recommended Posts

How does the bevilling and abrasion collar at the neck "definatively" prove LHO shot JFK?  See, this is a dr. making a legal conclusion.

He can say in his opinion it proves the shot came from the back but he leaps to say it proves LHO did it.  Now he needs to prove LHO fired the shot.  Two separate conclusions.  Regardless, the story keeps going.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/books/review/letters-to-the-editor.html

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of crapola.

What wound in the neck?  That wound was moved five times overall:

1. Boswell and Burkley, SIbert O'Neill report, which matches the shirt and jacket

2. Warren Report final draft, moved it up about four inches

3. Jerry Ford, moves it up another inch and half into the base of the neck

4. Ramsey Clark Panel moves it back  to where the WC had it before Ford changed it

5. HSCA moves it down more, to align with the autopsy photos

Dennis Breo leaves out the fact he was one of the parties sued by Crenshaw for lying about him not being in the ER room in Dallas.

It turned out that editor Lundberg hired a sports writer to write the articles about the JFK assassination!  That is what Breo was before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/books/review/letters-to-the-editor.html

Not sure just which fallacy of logic is being violated in this article, but Mr. Breo is certainly comfortable stating his opinion, garnered 30 years after the assassination, as fact.  In addition to the various changes in wound position that Jim D. lists for us, there is the fact that the body traveled 1600 miles between the events at Parkland Hospital and the autopsy at Bethesda.  That fact alone has caused gaping holes to exist as to what actually happened. Earl Rose, who was rudely prevented from keeping JFK's body in Dallas for autopsy, was right to assert that the autopsy should have been done in Dallas.  The fact that it was not is just one indicator that points toward a cover-up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cory Santos says: How does the bevilling and abrasion collar at the neck "definativekly" prove LHO shot JFK?  See, this is a dr. making a legal conclusion.

It doesn't.  That's just the same kind of pseudo-logic that Prof. Ken Rahn used to try to use with me.  This is nothing more than his opinion, stated many years after the event.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

Cory Santos says: How does the bevilling and abrasion collar at the neck "definativekly" prove LHO shot JFK?  See, this is a dr. making a legal conclusion.

It doesn't.  That's just the same kind of pseudo-logic that Prof. Ken Rahn used to try to use with me.  This is nothing more than his opinion, stated many years after the event.  

First forgive my spelling.

Second,  let me clarify, in law, a doctor can provide her medical opinion. Generally,  this is the doctor's medical conclusion.  However, a doctor cannot overstep and make a legal conclusion.  There is a difference.  

Here, whether you agree with him or not he can give a medical opinion that the body evidence shows a shot came from behind.  But concluding LHO fired the shot is different.  

I agree with you it does not prove what he says it does.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Who said Breo was a doctor?

 

He is not

Jim nice catch.  I put this up late at night.  So he cannot give a medical opinion nor a legal opinion.  This proves two things.  One, the opinion lacks merit and two, I need to stop posting late at night when I am half awake.  Lol.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

First forgive my spelling.

Second,  let me clarify, in law, a doctor can provide her medical opinion. Generally,  this is the doctor's medical conclusion.  However, a doctor cannot overstep and make a legal conclusion.  There is a difference.  

Here, whether you agree with him or not he can give a medical opinion that the body evidence shows a shot came from behind.  But concluding LHO fired the shot is different.  

I agree with you it does not prove what he says it does.

As Jimmie D also said, Breo is a journalist and not a doctor.  Even so, he is stating his opinion as fact, which it is not.  That is a form of railroading. There is no cogent argument.  

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...