Why would I want to quibble with somebody who is already quiblling about how "essentially correct" his position is, just after having basically confirmed that the statements he previously atributed to me were not correct?
He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in
Who said anything about Dolce testifying?
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."
In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.
Sounds like?
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 it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.
Who said that Dolce testified on April 21, 1964?
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."
You keep forgetting that Dolce's letter to the HSCA was written in 1976 and most likely did not provide all the information.
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.
If you are only selectively answering a part of what I actually said, your answer is of no value or credibility at all. In fact, the report offers two possibilities; Connally was hit by a bullet that first went through Kennedy (that could only be CE399) or he was hit by a separate shot. Of course Specter's question was vague by design, but Olivier's answer wasn't. He believed that bullet CE399 caused Connally's wrist wound.
In doing so, whether you like it or not, he basically confirmed by implication that CE399 was indeed the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And that's exactly what it says in Chapter 3 of the WC report;
Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.
which, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, you selectively ignored.
So, I'll ask you again; What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?
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.
So, you now agree that the report on the Mary Ferrell site is the actual report, despite the March 1965 date on it?
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.
And Dolce did not meet with the Connallys. They were just there as well. He actually met with the investigating team of the WC, which seems an odd thing to do if he had no information to share. Or are you suggesting they just had a coffee together and talked about the weather?
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?
