Michael Hogan Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/new...al/14569655.htm No comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Akhtar Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/new...al/14569655.htmNo comment I have one.What a load of b*******! I get so fed up of reading the old the entry wound really was an exit wound argument. Im currently reading Gerald Mcknight's book Breach of Trust and he has an excellent chapter on the autopsy and discusses the throat wound in great detail. How long did this 'pathologist' study the case? I I love the way people like this and Mark Furhmann etc come along, study the case for two minutes and the media plasters them everywhere triumphantly proclaiming the case has been solved because these so called 'experts' say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Spitz was a member of the HSCA medical panel, and a former assistant of Russell Fisher, who headed the 1967 Clark Panel. "Spitz was also a long-time friend of Humes, and when Humes retired from the Navy, it was Spitz who threw a party for him" (James DiEugenio in The Assassinations, p. 72). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Ron Ecker Posted Yesterday, 02:14 PM Spitz was a member of the HSCA medical panel, and a former assistant of Russell Fisher, who headed the 1967 Clark Panel. "Spitz was also a long-time friend of Humes, and when Humes retired from the Navy, it was Spitz who threw a party for him" (James DiEugenio in The Assassinations, p. 72). This helps explain how he comes to his conclusion regarding the issue, as the witness testimony and much of the medical evidence supports the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Ron Ecker Posted Yesterday, 02:14 PM Spitz was a member of the HSCA medical panel, and a former assistant of Russell Fisher, who headed the 1967 Clark Panel. "Spitz was also a long-time friend of Humes, and when Humes retired from the Navy, it was Spitz who threw a party for him" (James DiEugenio in The Assassinations, p. 72). This helps explain how he comes to his conclusion regarding the issue, as the witness testimony and much of the medical evidence supports the opposite. Spitz was a member of the Rockefeller Commission Panel and the HSCA Panel. He also co-wrote one of the bibles of Forensic Pathology, Medicolegal Investigation of Death, with the Clark Panel's Fisher. If he was a friend of Humes' it wasn't a good friend, as he was one of the main advocates of the cowlick entry, the bane of Humes' existence. In Medicolegal Investigation of Death, Spitz and Fisher argue that one way to tell a bullet entrance on the skull from a bullet exit on the skull is to measure which defect has the missing scalp. The entrance has the missing scalp. In light of the Kennedy Autopsy Report's claim that a noticeable amount of scalp was missing by the large defect on top of the head, the HSCA weaseled out of it by stating that the autopsists were probably wrong. This ignored that Dr. Clark in Parkland also reported a significant amount of missing scalp by the large defect. This sequence of events is one of the many reasons I concluded the large defect is an entrance defect, for a tangential wound. Edited May 17, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now