Albert Doyle Wrote:[B][B][B]Martin has only reinforced the evidence for Pitzer's murder by being unable to refute it with this reckless doubt. [/B][/B][/B]
Albert, your entire response is ridiculous and not worthy of serious acknowledgement. The above passage sums up the problem with your approach.
You blithely dismiss the conclusions of two world renowned forensic specialists whilst producing no additional evidence that shows Pitzer was murdered and yet some how I'm supposed to refute it.
Since you obviously have a hard on for me, engaging you in any further discussion would be a serious waste of time.
David Josephs Wrote: Gunn: Could you describe in a general waywhat the autopsy room looked like? HUMES: Routinely, at the end of a week, wewould retain the organs from the autopsies of the week. In fact, not only didwe review them there, but there was aclosed-circuit television. They went to Andrews Air Force Base, NIH, and itwas a closed-circuit instruction program.
Humes goes on to tell us that he wishes there was CCTV broadcasting that night… this is the same man who revises the time he first sees JFK from just before 8pm back to 6:45… no CHANCE he is not being truthful about the CCTV that night...
David,
Thanks for pointing that out for me and for a thoughtful response in general.
I will take your points on board and get back to you at some point. Right now, I'm busy working on stuff for the CTKA website.
Albert Doyle Wrote:[B][B][B]Martin has only reinforced the evidence for Pitzer's murder by being unable to refute it with this reckless doubt. [/B][/B]
Albert, your entire response is ridiculous and not worthy of serious acknowledgement. The above passage sums up the problem with your approach.
You blithely dismiss the conclusions of two world renowned forensic specialists whilst producing no additional evidence that shows Pitzer was murdered and yet some how I'm supposed to refute it.
Since you obviously have a hard on for me, engaging you in any further discussion would be a serious waste of time.
No, I don't think that appeal to authority is enough to hang a case on. David Josephs also entered some abstract arguments against your case that you haven't answered. You are just re-entering the same argument that Wecht and MacDonnell are automatically correct in their evaluation because of their credentials even though they only looked at photos and never showed any sign of considering the alternate evidence. Sorry, I don't think I'm the one who is "blithely dismissing" here. There's serious gunshot science forensic evidence David presented that raises serious questions about the suicide evidence. Those questions have merit and deserve a better response than this. To be honest with you I think you just can't answer the points. What is ridiculous here is the suggestion, that with all the evidence, the head of the Bethesda A/V department, Pitzer, who was called in that evening for the most important autopsy in Bethesda history, somehow wasn't involved in its filming. Sorry, but I think Martin has it backwards and is only defiantly arguing against the obvious. Appealing to a good poster and bad poster division is no replacement for honest answers to valid points.
David Josephs Wrote: Gunn: Could you describe in a general waywhat the autopsy room looked like? HUMES: Routinely, at the end of a week, wewould retain the organs from the autopsies of the week. In fact, not only didwe review them there, but there was aclosed-circuit television. They went to Andrews Air Force Base, NIH, and itwas a closed-circuit instruction program.
Humes goes on to tell us that he wishes there was CCTV broadcasting that night… this is the same man who revises the time he first sees JFK from just before 8pm back to 6:45… no CHANCE he is not being truthful about the CCTV that night...
David,
Thanks for pointing that out for me and for a thoughtful response in general.
I will take your points on board and get back to you at some point. Right now, I'm busy working on stuff for the CTKA website.
Cheers, Martin
You're quite welcome... A little extra paranoia in this case does a body good... there will be coincidences of course... yet history and time has shown these coincidences to be well thought out in advance.
I would of course like more corroboration... all good things in all good time
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
He had my back against Fetzer and Nelson and has always given the professor a good kicking. However, there's a lot of kooky extreme stuff coming out from Albert nowadays. Perhaps I should have taken notice when he discussed with me wanting to interview Jim Di about the death of Jimi Hendrix. You see he'd dug up a clip of Jim talking about it in a show. Now, Jim said he regretted doing that piece. The reason being Jim was talking in general terms about the so called "theories" about his death. However, the editing was such it made Jim out to look like an avid believer in Hendrix murder... this is not true. Now Albert wax's lyrical about Peter Janney, and is surprised by his fandom from Fetzer.
Yet, the other day I also saw Albert quote JVB. Now he is obsessing about Pitzer. I like you Albert, but like Marty I cannot take you or your comments seriously mate. Which is a shame.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
He had my back against Fetzer and Nelson and has always given the professor a good kicking. However, there's a lot of kooky extreme stuff coming out from Albert nowadays. Perhaps I should have taken notice when he discussed with me wanting to interview Jim Di about the death of Jimi Hendrix. You see he'd dug up a clip of Jim talking about it in a show. Now, Jim said he regretted doing that piece. The reason being Jim was talking in general terms about the so called "theories" about his death. However, the editing was such it made Jim out to look like an avid believer in Hendrix murder... this is not true. Now Albert wax's lyrical about Peter Janney, and is surprised by his fandom from Fetzer.
Yet, the other day I also saw Albert quote JVB. Now he is obsessing about Pitzer. I like you Albert, but like Marty I cannot take you or your comments seriously mate. Which is a shame.
So you're not just taking a condescending position because you can't answer what I wrote? You wouldn't be the first. I think Marty also cut and ran at the first excuse.
Don't get me wrong, CTKA criticism is excellent and shows a high level of scrutiny of assassination claims. Yes, by keeping them honest you are forcing researchers and authors to be able to back their claims and therefore increase the quality of assassination information. In my position I stay back from that as much as I can and learn, however from the sidelines I do see some mistakes and some going too far. I somewhat disagree with the winner take all "annihilation" style practiced by some CTKA actors. I'm sorry Seamus, but in the passage above you do a lot of bouncing back and forth and denouncing but in the end you haven't really said anything. I think you would have been better off trying to prove your accusations of "kooky extreme stuff" vs what I wrote directly. The floor's yours. There's nothing stopping you. Unless of course you're just plain unable to answer and backing off to vague denouncement.
You're making a big mistake on the Hendrix stuff. That's all I can say for now. But you are obviously clueless from what you write. Again, don't get me wrong. I admire and respect DiEugenio and just wrote a praising 5 star review about 'Destiny Betrayed'. However there's an achilles heel associated with CTKA that both you and Jim, along with Lisa, expose in your 'annihilating' criticisms of people like Janney. Just like with Hendrix I think you are making a gigantic mistake with Janney. And we all know Nelson and Morrow have some serious flaws, however, once again, there is some useful information in what they write that is valid. It's a difficult tightrope, which is why I don't attack you as quickly as you attack me. But on the other hand you don't want to throw the baby away with the bathwater. And in the Hendrix case you've cast the golden child out and chugged the bathwater.
Seriously Seamus, with Janney I see a very real case and active exposing of a CIA jackal in Mitchell. The Hendrix stuff is a gimme with anyone who has researched it. I'd kill to have someone of the talent of DiEugenio working with me on that case. I think you are not being mindful of your own credibility and cast stones too quickly, which can't be good for CTKA credibility. Again, I would also caution to not bank too carelessly on the Hay methodology, especially on a visibly parochial basis. The annihilation/buddy method might gain you skeptic reward but only at the expense of precious truth that will come back at you in ways you might not be aware of and at the cost of your credibility as well as CTKA's. I've been trying to figure out this strange reverse tendency coming out of CTKA and can only conclude it is trying to create journalistic sensation in order to incur top status as an assassination source. I think this is a terrible mistake because in the long run cases like Mary Meyer will only prove the opposite. In my opinion CTKA makes itself look petty and foolish by attacking some of the most bizarre cases of CIA intrigue associated with the assassination, and mostly because of its own intransigence and, frankly, lack of high detection skills equal to those it is pursuing. I hate to see CTKA go that way because it is a foremost source, however it will only damage its purpose if it attacks very real victims of the Kennedy conspiracy. All human institutions are prone to the corruption of power. I think CTKA is experiencing a weird form of that in runaway criticism to the point of pedantics and not knowing when to hold back in front of real cases. Sometimes gratuitous doubt is the easy path in front of highly complex conspiracies and methods. Personally I feel CTKA sometimes needs a strong position on a conspiracy matter and errs on the doubting side when perhaps it fails to detect real patterns of intrigue. Janney and Hendrix are perfect examples.
I also disagree with your statement about DiEugenio and Hendrix. Sorry, but from what you write I can tell you don't have a strong grasp of the case. In a previous post I linked Jim's You-Tube showing his comment about the obvious tell-tale signs of covert involvement in Hendrix's death. Jim's statement was 100% accurate and backed by the facts of the case. If you view what Jim says in the You-Tube video it's pretty clear his remark ran from beginning to end in one definitive statement that couldn't be edited or misinterpreted. Frankly Seamus, I think you're swaggering the facts here and playing games. I would be grieved if Jim switched sides on the Hendrix murder because it would be another example of him foolishly going on the wrong side of history. If you bothered to read what I wrote in the Hendrix thread I've proven the forensics for murder. It can't be any other way, unless of course you apply the Hay methodology. I would advise you, there are things you don't know that will come out that will completely repudiate your position here. You would be wise to be very careful.
Oh yeah, all I said was Judyth Baker had a version of the Clinton trip. I didn't say everything she said was true. No need to Fetzer me just cause I mentioned Baker.
Check the 46 minute mark for DiEugenio on Hendrix:
I'm going to email Dr. Cyril Wecht to see if I can get any further comment from him on the Pitzer case.
You wrote: "Step one of this evidence is whether the autopsy reveals the telltale signs of suicide... close contact marks on the skin at the entry point and powder burns on the hand which fired the pistol..."
The second part of that, "close contact marks", appears to me was answered by MacDonnell when he noted the "muzzle imprint of the front sight" and the "charring of tissue" demonstrated that it was a "contact wound".
So I will ask Dr. Wecht if any significance should be attached to the apparent lack of "powder burns on the hand which fired the pistol".
I'll let you know if and when I hear anything back.
In the mean time, here's what I believe to be an illuminating passage from pages 371 to 374 of Vincent DiMaio's textbook, Gunshot Wounds [second edition]:
Suicides Due to Handguns
The location of the self-inflicted wound varies depending on the type ofthe weapon, the sex of the victim, and whether the victim is right-or left-handed. In individuals who shoot themselves with handguns, the most common sites for the entrance wound are the head (81%), thechest (17%), and the abdomen (2%), in that order. There is some difference by sex in that a smaller percentage of women (72%) shoot themselves in the head than do men (83.5%).
When individuals shoot themselves, they do not necessarily hold the weapon the same way they would if they were firing the weapon at a target.Commonly, they will hold a handgun with the fingers wrapped around the back of the butt, using the thumb to depress the trigger, firing the weapon. In gunshot wounds under the chin, they may hold the weapon "correctly", but bend their forearm upwards and backwards such that the gun is upside down when they fire it.
Some individuals will steady a gun against the body, by grasping the barrel with the non-firing hand. In the case of contact wounds of the head, and less commonly the trunk, soot may be deposited on the thumb, index finger, and connecting web of skin of the steadying hand due to blowback of gases from the muzzle. In the case of a revolver, soot may be deposited on the palm from cylinder gap. The location of the soot on the palm is influenced by the barrel length and where the gun is held. With two-inch barrel weapons, the soot is in the midpalm; with four-inch barrels, toward the ulnar aspect of the palm. In rare instances, the blast of gases from the cylinder gap is so strong as to lacerate the skin of the palm. In two cases seen by the author, the individual committing suicide wore a glove on the hand used to grasp the cylinder, apparently so as not to burn their hand. Even if there is no visible powder or soot deposition on the hand, analysis for primer residues is often positive.
Occasionally, an individual steadying the barrel with their non-firing hand, inadvertently places part of the hand over the muzzle. This has lead to individuals shooting themself through the hand. In one case, the muzzle was held tightly against the palm of the hand, which was against the forehead. On discharge, the emerging hot gases, soot and powder perforated the palm producing a wound of the forehead that had all the characteristics of a primary contact wound.
In the head, the most common site for a handgun entrance wound is the temple. Although most right-handed individuals shoot themselves in the right temple and left-handed individuals in the left temple, this pattern is not absolute. In a study by Stone of 125 right-handed individuals whoshot themselves in the temple, seven (5.6%) shot themselves in the left temple.
With handguns, after the temple, the most common sites in the head, indecreasing order of occurrence, are the mouth, the underside of the chin, and the forehead. There are people, however, who will be different and shoot themselves on the top of the head, in the ear, in the eye, etc. The author has seen a number of unquestionable cases of suicide in which individuals have shot themselves in the back of the head. These have occurred not only with handguns but also with rifles and shotguns. In another unusual case, the entrance wound was on the side of the chest, in the mid-axillary line. Thus, the fact that a wound is in an unusual location does not necessarily mean that it cannot be self-inflicted, though it is wise to always start with the presumption that such a case is a homicide.
I'm going to email Dr. Cyril Wecht to see if I can get any further comment from him on the Pitzer case.
You wrote: "Step one of this evidence is whether the autopsy reveals the telltale signs of suicide... close contact marks on the skin at the entry point and powder burns on the hand which fired the pistol..."
The second part of that, "close contact marks", appears to me was answered by MacDonnell when he noted the "muzzle imprint of the front sight" and the "charring of tissue" demonstrated that it was a "contact wound".
So I will ask Dr. Wecht if any significance should be attached to the apparent lack of "powder burns on the hand which fired the pistol".
I'll let you know if and when I hear anything back.
Best to you, Martin.
Be very interesting to see what comes back...
I am a bit concerned though Martin.... While MacDonnell reviewed IMAGES, the tests run and the body examined at autopsy produced the opposite conclusion.
This is from "Murder of Suicide" by A.E.
So given we have an AT THE TIME OF DEATH conclusion compared to an old man looking at old photos with a vested interest in supporting the "suicide" conclusion...
Was Cyril at this autopsy?
Were the images as reliable as the JFK autopsy?
are the various pieces of circumstantial evidence starting to make you at least question the suicide conclusion?
y'know, just asking... :-)
Cheers
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5509[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
If you care to examine the intelligent back and forth between Hay and Josephs. Then note the lack of frustration both have in telling the other something without repeating themselves. Then one can see why interactions with you are fraught with problems.
Jimi Hendrix may or may not have been murdered. Jim Di has offered no clear opinions. However, in that piece he was portrayed as being a Hendrix conspiracy zealot. After I explain this problem you launch into a tirade about Hendrix. ::headbang:: I actually have to agree with Charles and Greg about you. I am not going to go as overboard as they did. However, I shall be kindly blocking you. I encourage others to do so as well.::
Best of luck.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
: