A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

MT: For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

Bull. We don’t know where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg.

What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.

In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another. It’s not testable or falsifiable. You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions.

In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another.

Parsimony, that is, Occam's razor, is a good way to choose between possible explanations. 

And let's go over the basics again:

If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing. I'm still obligated to explain how Shaw could be wrong, then it's easy to believe that Shaw, who's knowledge of the thigh wound at the time went no further than knowing of it's existence, assumed that a bullet hole would lead to a bullet inside that hole. A perfectly understandable conclusion given the circumstances.

If I say that Shaw was right, the evidence I have for it is nothing other than Shaw said it  at the presser. The evidence against consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. And the obligation to explain will have to explain quite a bit. Not only how Shaw was right, but also how Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays could all be wrong. There be dragons. Big, assumption-laden ones. So far, you haven't made any real effort to explain how any of it could come to pass other than mumbling that some nebulous something something something darkside might have happened. You've trotted out some choice items out of the Robert Harris back catalogue, but none of them actually help you here, as noted. In fact, the bit from Connally's autobiography would count as evidence that Shaw is wrong. 


It’s not testable or falsifiable.

Shaw's press conference statement is entirely falsifiable. If it were true, then a bullet would be found in the x-rays of Connally's leg. And Shaw would have found a bullet when he examined and excised the wound. But Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays are all negative. For that matter, if Shaw really did know there was a bullet left in the thigh after he left the OR, then I would expect him to say so in at least one of his several later interviews. But he never says anything like it.


You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions
I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine.

The false equivalency here is equating a guess about why a doctor made a statement with planetary motion theory.

What I said is that the the better solution is the one that requires the least assumption, this time pitting Ptolemy against Kepler in a fifteen-round caged Occamian deathmatch. 

[John Iacoletti]

What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.

No, that would presume (with no reason to presume it) that the information was conveyed to him in the OR and not before.

If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing.

That’s because you also presuming (with no reason to presume it) that there was either a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time or there was never a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time. It doesn’t consider the possibility that both Shaw’s statement and Gregory’s statement could be correct, but at different times.

I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine

No, they are yours. You’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about what must be true if Shaw’s statement was ever correct. Assumptions specifically designed to promote your version of events.

[Mitch Todd]

No, that would presume (with no reason to presume it) that the information was conveyed to him in the OR and not before.

Let's go back to what I said:

For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

This statement is completely agnostic as to when Shaw became aware of the thigh wound and the possibility of a bullet therein, at least so long as he knew before he left the OR after the chest procedure. Of course, if you think differently, you could always provide your reasoning, rather than belching out unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.

That’s because you also presuming (with no reason to presume it) that there was either a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time or there was never a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time. It doesn’t consider the possibility that both Shaw’s statement and Gregory’s statement could be correct, but at different times.

What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR? Nothing. So any scenario you might be dreaming of here requires a whole slew of assumptions to explain what happened, whodunnit, and why we don't know about it. in short, FAIL.

A few things you might want to consider:

Gregory arrived in the OR not long after Shaw. Shires arrived in the OR when  "the chest wound had been debrided and was being closed [...] and the arm and leg wounds were being prepared for surgery. There are no gaps between Shaw's, Gregory's and Shires' presences.

Operating rooms are, by sanitational necessity, austere spaces. It's not hard to spot a foreign object that's fallen onto the table or onto the floor. They are also, by the same necessity, cleaned often and thoroughly. The only place in the OR where you might expect to lose something is in the patient's body. The chances that a bullet would roll around on the floor undetected is close enough to nil to be discounted unless evidence of this comes to light. And that evidence is also nil.

In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.

MT: I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine

No, they are yours. You’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about what must be true if Shaw’s statement was ever correct. Assumptions specifically designed to promote your version of events.

If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR, but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over, then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence. And there isn't any evidence that it went down this way. You're left with assumption stacked upon assumption all the way down, like turtles. I'm just reminding you of this. And you don't like it one bit.

[John Iacoletti]

Let's go back to what I said:

For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

This statement is completely agnostic as to when Shaw became aware of the thigh wound and the possibility of a bullet therein, at least so long as he knew before he left the OR after the chest procedure. Of course, if you think differently, you could always provide your reasoning, rather than belching out unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.

That's what you're doing.  Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR? 

What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR?

Why couldn't it have come out or been removed prior to Connally's presence in the OR?

In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.

Uh.....isn't that exactly what the narrative says was the case with CE399?

If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR,

Nope, that was one of your assumptions.

but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over,

That too.

then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence.

Which is exactly what you did with your speculation that Shaw reported a bullet in the leg merely because he "saw one hole".  There's no evidence for that.

[Mitch Todd]

That's what you're doing.  Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR? 

I've never argued that Shaw couldn't have become aware of the bullet wound (which is all the claimed to have seen himself) in Connally's thigh before Connally entered the OR.

Why couldn't it have come out or been removed prior to Connally's presence in the OR?

If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning. Do you not know what you've been arguing?

MT: In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.

Uh.....isn't that exactly what the narrative says was the case with CE399?

Nope. I've yet to find a take on the SBT/CE399 that said that the bullet penetrated all the way into the thigh.

MT: If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR

Nope, that was one of your assumptions.

If there was a  bullet in Connally's thigh when Shaw left the OR, then it had to have been there when Connally entered the OR. Unless you want to argue that Shaw installed the bullet into the thigh himself, you have to assume that the bullet was in the thigh when the Governor was pushed into the OR, if you wan to argue that Shaw was right at the press conference. Do you not know what you've previously been arguing?

MT: but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over,

That too.

If you assert that Shaw and Gregory were both correct, then you have to assume that the bullet was in the thigh when Shaw was in the OR, but had mysteriously vanished by the time  Gregory had x-rays made.

Which is exactly what you did with your speculation that Shaw reported a bullet in the leg merely because he "saw one hole".  There's no evidence for that.

Shaw's only seeing one hole is a matter of record, not a speculation nor an assumption. That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg. The only way this corpus of (non) statements works with Shaw's original press conference statements, the x-rays, and the testimony and interviews of Shires and Gregory is for Shaw to have been wrong about the bullet that afternoon. The simplest and most reasonable way to explain the discrepancy is to say that Shaw saw the one wound in Connally's thigh and assumed that it still had a bullet inside.

[John Iacoletti]

I've never argued that Shaw couldn't have become aware of the bullet wound (which is all the claimed to have seen himself) in Connally's thigh before Connally entered the OR.

I didn’t say bullet wound, I said bullet.

If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning. Do you not know what you've been arguing?

No, you’ve been arguing that Shaw’s report of a bullet in the leg was merely an assumption.

Nope. I've yet to find a take on the SBT/CE399 that said that the bullet penetrated all the way into the thigh.

Now, I’m not sure if you really know what you’re arguing. Why does Shaw’s bullet have to be “all the way in” (whatever that means)?

If there was a  bullet in Connally's thigh when Shaw left the OR, then it had to have been there when Connally entered the OR.

Just because Shaw mentioned the bullet after he left the OR, doesn’t mean that the bullet was still there when Shaw left the OR. Remember, he didn’t examine the wound in the OR.

Shaw's only seeing one hole is a matter of record, not a speculation nor an assumption.

It’s an assumption that this is the reason he reported that a bullet remained in Connally’s leg.

That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg.

You know what else he never claimed in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63? That he had reported a bullet remaining in the governors leg merely on the basis that he saw a single hole.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn’t say bullet wound, I said bullet.

You said "Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR?" This question presupposes something that hasn't been established. I figured that you were maybe back to trying to insinuate something that you haven't been able to prove, so I stated the question in terms of what has bee established in my reply.

MT: If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning

No, you’ve been arguing that Shaw’s report of a bullet in the leg was merely an assumption.

I've been arguing from the beginning that Shaw was wrong. The assumption bit is the explanation of how he could be wrong. This is what I originally wrote:

Shaw did not treat the wound. Shaw never even claimed that he really examined the wound. Nor did he ever claim to have seen an x-ray showing a bullet in the thigh. For that matter, no one else claimed that a bullet was found in the wound, or that bullet could be seen in the x-rays taken of the Governor's thigh.

From his own testimony, all Shaw would have known at the time was that there was one, and only one, wound in the thigh. It's no stretch to think that Shaw concluded that a projectile had entered the thigh through the wound and remained in the leg, based on what little he knew. But he knew little about it, as he admitted.

You can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.

The bit about Shaw assuming that a bullet was still in the thigh takes up all of one sentence in three paragraphs. The rest explains that Shaw wasn't in position to actually know if there was still a bullet in Connally's thigh, and that Shires and the x-rays tell a different story than what we got from Shaw's press conference.

Now, I’m not sure if you really know what you’re arguing. Why does Shaw’s bullet have to be “all the way in” (whatever that means)?

You don't know what "all the way in" means? My my!

In this case, it means that the bullet is embedded completely within the body. Had part of it been sticking out, Shaw (and/or someone else) would have said so at some point.

Just because Shaw mentioned the bullet after he left the OR, doesn’t mean that the bullet was still there when Shaw left the OR. Remember, he didn’t examine the wound in the OR.

He *did* examine the wound in the OR. He testified that when he was in TR2, he "observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound."

It’s an assumption that this is the reason he reported that a bullet remained in Connally’s leg.

It's a single assumption that neatly ties together Shaw's statement with the evidence given by Gregory, Shires, and Parkland's radiology department without requiring any additional baggage. This is something that none of the inchoate alternative explanations that you've tentatively wiggled forward can accomplish.                                           

MT: That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg.

You know what else he never claimed in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63? That he had reported a bullet remaining in the governors leg merely on the basis that he saw a single hole.

Sour grapes, Mr Iacoletti. Sour grapes that do not change the lack of any subsequent attempt by Shaw to defend his press conference statement.