A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

MT: Which statement is "definitive"?

“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

"I didn't examine the wound of the thigh" and "I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location" are just as definitive as “The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

In reality, "definitive" is just a tag that you arbitrarily added in a lame attempt to give Shaw's press conference statement an authority that you can't establish with supporting evidence and argument. Because you have no supporting evidence or arguments.

[John Iacoletti]

"I didn't examine the wound of the thigh" and "I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location" are just as definitive as “The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive.

“Definitive” is a tag that’s appropriate. He didn’t qualify his 11/22 statement in any way. The info came from somewhere, even if it was secondhand. If direct examination is necessary for knowledge, then we can throw out the single-bullet fantasy along with mostly everything else about the wounds.

[Martin Weidmann]

You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

Do you even believe this BS yourself?

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

Meaningless. The person who wrote the obituary may simply have been misinformed or used a poor choice of words.

Again, Dolce wrote:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

Reviewing X-rays is gathering information.

Reviewing the Zapruder film is gathering information.

Listening to Connally talk about his injuries is gathering information.

And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?

And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Where did I say I think that?

Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?

Dolce didn't say, so how would I know? Are you now going to say that just because Dolce did not say, it didn't happen?

Again, you did. You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

It may be an incomplete record, but this is not license to insert whatever random fantasy you can concoct. We have to go with what he said.

But it seems to be a license for you to foolishly call talking to investigators testifying.

I keep ignoring it because it's an inchoate red herring. You have yet to show how any of this changes the current conversation.  Let's go back to what you've previously written that forms the point of departure for the current entanglement as a refresher:

MW: From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.

[...]

MW: Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

[...]

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?

[...]

MW: I merely stated as a matter of fact that the WC hired Dolce and that his experiments did not support the SBT, which is why Specter buried his report.

But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington. Nor did Olivier and Dzeimian issue testimony contradicted by the report they wrote. Dolce's beef with the Edgewood report is based solely on Dolce's own interpretation of the wrist tests and only the wrist tests. This whole angle that you've pursued is so full of errors that you might as well just abandon it.

Your selectively quoting from what I have written doesn't alter the fact that I actually did make my point and you just prefer to ignore it and misrepresent it by focusing on other parts of what I said.

But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report.

Where did I say he did?

The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington.

So what? There may well have been preliminary drafts that were available earlier. Olivier, Dziemian and Light all testified on May 6, 1964. How could they do that if there were no test results known?

And nobody said that Specter decided not to call Dolce on April 21, 1964. Dolce merely stated that he wasn't called to testify. There is no information about when exactly Specter made that decision.

I always said it was the actual report. I also noted that the report is dated March 1965, and details a set of tests that were performed between April 27, 1964 and May 11 1964. That is, tests that did not begin until several after Dolce's encounter in the VA Building. You have yourself noted that the report is base on work that began in April and concluded in October. Therefore, the earliest the report would have been issued is still a month after the WCR has been published.

So, how did the report end up in the Warren Commission's archive and as classified document in the National Archive?

Let's go back to Dolce's letter:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

If Dolce was talking to Connally, then he definitely met with Connally, ipso facto. Where did you get the idea that it was any different?

You are correct. I should have said that Dolce didn't necessarily go to Washington on April 21, 1964 for the sole purpose of meeting Connally.

[Mitch Todd]

Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive.

“Definitive” is a tag that’s appropriate. He didn’t qualify his 11/22 statement in any way. The info came from somewhere, even if it was secondhand. If direct examination is necessary for knowledge, then we can throw out the single-bullet fantasy along with mostly everything else about the wounds.

"Definitive" is simply an adjective arbitrarily assigned to Shaw's words in a backhanded attempt to give those words an authority they lack. That's all it is.

[John Iacoletti]

And yet his words are light years more authoritative than Mitch Todd’s desperate attempt to make them mean something other than what he said.

[Mitch Todd]

And yet his words are light years more authoritative than Mitch Todd’s desperate attempt to make them mean something other than what he said.

I never said that anything he said meant anything other than what he said. Including the part where he said he didn't examine the thigh wound beyond noting where it was, and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh. You seem to skip that part for some strange reason.

[John Iacoletti]

This is something other than what he said:

"and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh"