From: gjjmail1202@gmail.com   
      
   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 )   
      
   > > > 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.   
      
   > > > 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.   
       
   > 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.   
   I'm treating Dr. Perry's observation as reliable because it is corroborated by   
   his colleagues in the ER.   
   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.   
       
   > 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 ?   
      
   Dr. Perry's saga is all dealt with here and it blows away your argument   
   entirely:   
   www.gil-jesus.com/wound-of-entry   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)