04-12-2013, 10:00 PM
David Josephs Wrote:Martin Hay Wrote:David Josephs Wrote: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...
What on earth makes you say MacDonnell had a "vested interest" in this case one way or the other? FYI MacDonnell was the expert who testified on behalf of James Earl Ray's defense at his 1974 Habeas Corpus hearing and strongly criticised the official case.
David Josephs Wrote:are the various pieces of circumstantial evidence starting to make you at least question the suicide conclusion?
y'know, just asking... :-)
Cheers
DJ
Afraid not, David. I'm as certain that there was no pre-autopsy alteration as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. So Pitzer couldn't have had any secret film and Dennis David must be wrong.
I wil have to revisit why I posted that Martin... I remember having a distinct impression about MacD at the time... for now I will redact that comment until I find what made me feel that way...
Yet Martin, you do not address what I wrote: These FOUR ITEMS that suggest suicide are really not that indicative of suicide at all and can just as easily be accomplished via murder
while the most important remains the conflict between the 40 years later review of the info and the autopsy results at the time...
Can you take a minute and address these critical FOUR POINTS. especially #2... thanks.
=====
With regards to no pre-autopsy alteration.... we talking Pitzer or JFK?
If JFK then we will have to either continue an existing thread or start a new one.... That's a discussion I'd like to have with you.
David,
The pictures show that the entry wound WAS a close contact wound - Wecht and MacDonnell agree on this. Apparently the guys who performed the autopsy didn't recognize it as such. The apparent reason for this being that they were not forensic pathologists. According to the 11/2/66 FBI interview of deputy medical examiner for Montgomery County, Dr. John Ball, who was called to the scene to examine the body, "he observed muzzle marks around the wound and powder burns."
That passage I posted from Vincent DiMaio's textbook says that in close contact suicide wounds there may be powder or soot deposition on the hand and, according to Eaglesham:
"William Pitzer's left hand had a heavy deposit of soot on the palm and his right hand had a heavy deposit of soot on the backs of the fingers. This suggests that he held and fired the revolver with his right hand, and steadied it with his left hand held over the barrel. Soot and gunshot residue would thus be propelled into the wound or would be blocked by the palm of the left hand as it escaped from around the barrel, some of which would be deflected over the backs of the fingers of the right hand. The autopsy report states that microscope examination of sections from the margin of the entrance wound 'reveal...prominent collections of a dark brown to black granular material presumably representing nitrates.' This statement is indicative of lack of experience on the part of the autopsy doctors; nitrate is not coloured brown on black -- soot is -- and presence of nitrate in the wound would be indicative of a close-contact shot, at odds with other comments they made."
As to the pre-autopsy on JFK theory, you obviously don't remember but you and I have been down that road before and I've no desire to go back there again right now.