From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 5:05:03 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Saturday, November 25, 2023 at 12:45:58 AM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:31:13 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:    
   > > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 7:28:20 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:    
   > > > > On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > > > > You are getting pathetic, Gil. You just can't deal with this   
   inconvenient fact. So here we go:    
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > I'm going out on a limb and assume you know Humes, Boswell, and   
   Finck performed the original autopsy.    
   > > > > Did they examine the throat wound ?    
   > > Yes.   
   > Bullshit. They examined the tracheostomy. They never saw a bullet wound. The   
   tracheostomy wasn't a wound, it was a medical procedure.    
   >    
   > "AS A RESULT OF THESE TELEPHONE CALLS, Dr. Humes concluded that the missile   
   that had entered the upper back had transversed the body and exited in the   
   anterior portion of the neck, although HE HAD NOT OBSERVED THE REMAINS OF ANY   
   SUCH HOLE DURING HIS    
   EXAMINATION OF THE BODY". ( 7 HSCA 16 )    
   > He didn't have the phone call with Perry until the morning of Saturday,   
   November 23rd, long after the body had left. ( 2 H 362 )   
   Why does it matter when Humes had Perry confirm the tracheotomy had been   
   performed over the exit wound?   
      
   > > > > Because they never saw the throat wound    
   > > Untrue, the autopsists examined that wound, but the true nature of that   
   wound was disguised by the fact that Malcolm Perry performed a tracheostomy   
   through the bullet wound. As Perry admitted, time was of the essence in   
   treating the President. He saw    
   the bullet wound with blood bubbly out, and knowing the President needed an   
   airway, made an incision right through the existing bullet wound. But the   
   doctors saw that wound.   
   > Already dealt with above.   
      
   The did not see the exit wound in its original state. By determining where the   
   tissue damage had occurred they had prima    
   fascia evidence that the bullet had traveled toward where the tracheotomy   
   incision had been made. That led them to    
   suspect the bullet had exited the throat and the tracheotomy had disguised the   
   exit wound. That would be the reason for the   
   call to Perry.   
      
   > > > > Dr. Perry knew the second he looked at it that it was a wound of   
   entrance.    
   > > Yes, he reached that *opinion*. It was his *opinion* when interviewed that   
   day.    
   > >    
   > > However, he is not qualified to render said opinion, he wasn't the   
   autopsist, nor did he attend the autopsy. Nor did he see the x-rays and   
   photographs taken at the autopsy before reaching his *opinion*. Did Perry ever   
   conduct an autopsy? He is not an    
   expert witness on this matter. The autopsists and HSCA Pathology Panel are the   
   experts.   
   > Dr. Perry never saw an entrance wound before ?    
   > What's your source for that ?    
   > And your expert autopsists never saw the bullet wound in the throat.    
   > Some experts.   
      
   I'm sure Perry saw entrance wounds before. What he didn't have was training to   
   determine whether a wound is an entrance   
   or an exit. You don't make that determination by the size and shape of the   
   wound because a FMJ bullet doesn't deform when   
   passing through soft tissue and will make a small exit wound, similar in size   
   and shape to an entrance wound.   
       
   > > But you're treating Perry as both an unimpeachable expert witness and a   
   perjuror whose testimony shouldn't be trusted. You need to make up your mind.   
   > No, I'm treating Dr. Perry as a man with experience in gunshot wounds who   
   knew an entrance wound when he saw one and who was forced by the Secret   
   Service to lie about what he saw.    
      
   What is your evidence that the Secret Service forced Perry to lie about what   
   he saw?   
      
   > I'm treating Dr. Perry's observation as reliable because it is corroborated   
   by his colleagues in the ER.    
      
   Which of those colleagues was trained in forensic pathology. There is a reason   
   that field requires special training. Normal   
   medical school training does not provide the knowledge necessary to determine   
   exit wounds from entrance wounds. There   
   is a reason that courts have trained forensic pathologists testify in court   
   about the nature of gunshot wounds. When I was a   
   juror in a gunshot murder case, a forensic pathologist began his testimony by   
   briefly reciting his credentials. He told us about   
   the training he had received and an approximate number of times he had   
   testified in court.    
       
   > You, on the other hand, have produced no witnesses in the ER who saw the   
   wound prior to the tracheostomy and described the wound as a wound of exit.   
      
   Why would we? None of them had the training to determine such a thing.   
      
   > > As Humes only learned about the bullet wound in the front of the neck in a   
   phone call to Perry,   
   > And yet, according to you, they examined the throat wound.    
   > Some experts.    
   > If they never saw the bullet wound in the neck, and they never measured it   
   to see if it was larger than the entrance wound in the back, how did they come   
   to the conclusion that it was a wound of exit ?    
      
   By connecting the dots. The saw where the bullet entered and saw the damage to   
   the pleura, the strap muscles, and the    
   trachea. The latter two had been noticed by Perry after he made the incision.   
   He also noticed the presence of free blood   
   in the area of the lungs and pleura.   
      
   Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe it in detail, the procedures which were   
   followed in the efforts to save the President's life?   
   Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the   
   tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in   
   the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying   
   trachea.   
   I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to   
   the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and   
   the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at   
   the level of the    
   external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was   
   necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access   
   to the trachea. At this point, I recall, Dr. Jones right on my left was   
   placing a catheter into a vein    
   in the-left arm because he handed me a necessary instrument which I needed in   
   the performance of the procedure.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)