From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:42:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 9:09:36 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > It was never measured, dumbass.   
   > Then how do you know it was an exit wound, dumbass ?    
      
   Because that is what every qualified forensic pathologist who has seen the   
   medical evidence has concluded. Unlike you,   
   I'm not dumb enough to think I can reach a better conclusion than they have.    
      
   > How do you get off saying it's an exit wound without even knowing if it's   
   larger than the entrance wound ?    
   >    
   I do know enough to know that's not how forensic examiners distinguish an exit   
   wound from an entrance. The wounds    
   have differing characteristics. The forensic examiners could not examine the   
   throat wound since it had been obliterated but   
   they did determine that the back wound was definitely an entrance. The   
   internal organs had been eviscerated (removed)   
   from the thoracic cavity and they saw the photos of the tissue damage leading   
   from that back wound to the throat wound.   
   That allowed them to conclude conclusively the throat wound was the exit for   
   the bullet that entered the back. This is    
   another example of competent people using reasoning to reach correct   
   conclusions, a process that is foreign to you.    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)