Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A time to receive and give (CE399)  (Read 23304 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #88 on: January 03, 2023, 05:10:36 AM »
Advertisement
The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.

Fair enough. But you cannot know if a person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional even if he did claim to see the bullet for himself. Or all the people who made conclusions about JFK’s wounds (like Specter) without seeing them themselves. So you’re special-pleading again.

Shaw said what he said. If you don’t know the basis, then you don’t know the basis. Period. You don’t get to demand evidence for a claim I didn’t make while offering none for the claim you did make.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2023, 05:12:34 AM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #88 on: January 03, 2023, 05:10:36 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #89 on: January 04, 2023, 01:30:15 AM »
Fair enough. But you cannot know if a person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional even if he did claim to see the bullet for himself. Or all the people who made conclusions about JFK’s wounds (like Specter) without seeing them themselves. So you’re special-pleading again.

Shaw said what he said. If you don’t know the basis, then you don’t know the basis. Period. You don’t get to demand evidence for a claim I didn’t make while offering none for the claim you did make.
What I did is simply mirror the solipsistic benders you revert to after you've run out of arguments.

As for Shaw, you're right. He said what he said. On 11/22 and afterwards. He also didn't say things.

For that matter, Gregory said what he said. He also didn't say things.

And Shires said what he said. And Shires also didn't say things.

And the x-rays show what the x-rays show. And they show what they don't show.

Shaw, who did not treat the thigh wound, said that the bullet had yet to be removed from the leg in his 11/22 press conference. He also said that he didn't examine the thigh wound other than noting where it was.
He never again said that a bullet was left in the thigh when discussing Connally's wounds.

Gregory, who assisted in treating the thigh wound,  said that he examined the thigh wound and ordered x-rays of the thigh along with those of the wrist. He testified that he and Shires were "we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all" in Connally's leg. He never claimed at any other time that a bullet was found in the leg.

Shires, sho was responsible for the great majority of the treatment of the thigh wound, said that the "wound was either a tangential wound or that a larger fragment had penetrated or stopped in the skin and had subsequently fallen out of the entrance wound." That is to say, he didn't find a bullet in Connally's leg.

The x-rays, of course, showed no bullet in the leg.



Most people can figure out what happened, no matter You just don't want to. That's why you ignore everything but "well, Shaw said XXXX at the press conference"


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2023, 02:47:13 PM »
And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #90 on: January 04, 2023, 02:47:13 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2023, 12:36:18 AM »
And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.
I said anyone can figure it out. Not just me. The only ones who can't are the ones who just don't want to. Those people think that ignoring all of the evidence except for one statement, then arbitrarily tack on some random adjective in the hope that they can prove something via willful ignorance and insinuation.

BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?




« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 12:46:03 AM by Mitch Todd »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2023, 06:13:31 PM »
The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

If he appeared before Specter on April 21 bearing the the Edgewood report, or at least results of the firing tests (a position you've already expressed), and Dolce explained what he thought happened, it would falls under either definition. Dolce himself complained that he wasn't allowed to give "final testimony." Dolce's use of the term "final testimony" implies that he thought he had given testimony of some sort at some point prior to Olivier's deposition.


The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

BS. Testimony is taken under oath

But don't take my word for it;

Cornell law school

Testimony is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal procedures. According to Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, testimony taking should be conducted in an open court unless other federal rules apply, like the Federal Rules of Evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony#:~:text=Testimony%20is%20oral%20or%20written,trial%20or%20other%20legal%20procedures.

Law insider

Testimony means statements given by a witness under oath or affirmation.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/testimony

Quote
It was a rhetorical question, Martin.

Yeah, sure...

Quote
My point is that Dolce's description of the meeting doesn't sounds like medical evidence is being screened. More like some confab is going on regarding how to interpret Connally's wounds, and where to go next with it. Something like what is described in Dolce's obit.

Another selfserving opinion.

Quote

The only thing you proved is that you'll try to change the subject when you've argued yourself into a corner.

You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests. Specter didn't like what he heard from Dolce, had the Edgewood report suppressed, then called Olivier to testify instead of Dolce, and Olivier testified contrary to the findings of the report. In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands. And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report. You then shifted gears, and made a fuss about Specter bringing up CE399, but that's a side issue with respect whether Olivier's testimony contradicted the Edgewood report. You then tried to push some argument about how the WCR was worded, but that doesn't change the Edgewood report or what Olivier testified to. It's just a red herring.


The only thing you proved is that you'll try to change the subject when you've argued yourself into a corner.

Hilarious and, of course, not true

You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests.

Lie number 1: I never said anything like that

Specter didn't like what he heard from Dolce, had the Edgewood report suppressed, then called Olivier to testify instead of Dolce, and Olivier testified contrary to the findings of the report.

All true. That's exactly what I have been saying all along and it actually happened. There is no mention of Dolce and/or the Edgewood report in the WC report and Specter did call Olivier to testify.

In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands.

Lie number 2: I never said that Dolce had testing results "in his hand"

And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report.

BS. The report, co-written by Olivier, did not confirm CE399 as the bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. In fact it leaves open the possibility that there were two seperate shots.
In his testimony, however, Olivier stated that CE399 was, in his opinion, the bullet that caused all the wounds in Kennedy and Connally, except for Kennedy's headwound.
If you don't see the contradiction there, you are either blind or utterly dishonest.

Quote
Earlier in this conversation;

MT :But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. [/b]

MW : Where did I say he did?


Quote

Now; 

MT : Right here:

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?

Also,

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.

Note that for things to work out the way you've stated, Specter would have had to have had the report before calling Olivier.


All you have done here is demonstrate clearly that you don't understand what you are reading. Nowhere in those two quotes did I say that Dolce had a report with him on April 21.

Note that for things to work out the way you've stated, Specter would have had to have had the report before calling Olivier.

Why in the world would you say something so stupid? All it would have taken for Specter to decide not to call Dolce and call Olivier et all instead, is Dolce making comments on April 21 that indicated to Specter that he wasn't fully on board with the single bullet theory, like for instance agreeing with Connally. And before you go there; putting Connally on the stand was unavoidable but considerably less risky as he could be called mistaken where as Dolce, as an expert, couldn't. Better not take the risk and leave Dolce out of it all together.

In much the same way as that he didn't take the risk of putting Sibert and O'Neill on the stand or of showing bullet CE399 to Tomlinson despite the fact that itwas already admitted into evidence. He already had Humes being skeptical about CE399 being the bullet that caused all the wounds. Just imagine if Tomlinson failed to identify the bullet, or worse still say that it wasn't the bullet he saw. Add Dolce to that mix and the SBT would have been destroyed.

Quote
The shooting tests weren't complete until May 11. If Olivier testified on May 6, it's really hard to believe that something that could reasonably be called a "draft report" would have existed on the 6th. Olivier did bring photos and some of the test bullets and some x-rays. At one point he says he has to refer to his notes. He never says he has to refer to a report or a draft report. Nor is a report or draft report covering the tests is mentioned in his testimony.

Olivier states in his testimony;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any record which would be more specific on the point of entrance?
Dr. OLIVIER. Our notebook has all.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you refer to your notes, then?
Dr. OLIVIER. The notebook is in the safe in there in the briefcase.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you get the notebook and refer to it so we can be as specific as possible on this point.
Dr. OLIVIER. I have the location of that wound.


He never says he has to refer to a report or a draft report. Nor is a report or draft report covering the tests is mentioned in his testimony.

Semantics. A notebook that "has all" in his briefcase serves the same purpose as a draft report.

Quote
I never claimed that Specter made a decision on the 21st to not have Dolce testify. But in the scenario you presented, that is when Dolce shows up to the VA building and delivers a turd to Specter's punchbowl, which you claim is why Specter didn't call Dolce to testify.

Well to be more precise; that's what Dolce claimed happened. I just have no reason to doubt him.

Quote

Because it was a document that was generated because of the Commission. However, that doesn't prove when it was created.

Both true. So I take it you are no longer making a big thing out of the March 1965 date on the report?


And finally, going over some earlier parts of our conversation, I noticed you never answered this question;


3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,

CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!

Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.

and

Arsenal, 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.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."

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?


Why did you overlook that?

Were Specter and Olivier talking about CE399 as the bullets that caused the wounds in Kennedy and Connally or were they talking about another bullet?
« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 06:15:12 PM by Martin Weidmann »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2023, 06:13:31 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #93 on: January 07, 2023, 01:10:11 AM »
The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

BS. Testimony is taken under oath

But don't take my word for it;

Cornell law school

Testimony is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal procedures. According to Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, testimony taking should be conducted in an open court unless other federal rules apply, like the Federal Rules of Evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony#:~:text=Testimony%20is%20oral%20or%20written,trial%20or%20other%20legal%20procedures.

Law insider

Testimony means statements given by a witness under oath or affirmation.

I'm going to split this out, because it's kind of a pointless distraction at this point. However:

I actually did kinda do a wee little messup, but not in the way that you think. Let's go to the replay official for how his subthread got to this point.

This is the statement of mine that you originally objected to, and your response:

MW: [Dolce] didn't say that he testified at this meeting.

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

MW: BS


And, at this very moment, I did a boo-boo:

MT: The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

I should have said "testify" here, as I did in the original in reply to your own use of "testify". And the two definitions I gave you are from the entry for "testify" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From M-W.

Testify:
intransitive verb:

   1: to make a solemn declaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court)

   2a: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witness
   2b: to serve as evidence or proof

   3: to express a personal conviction

transitive verb

   1a: to bear witness to : ATTEST
   1b: to serve as evidence of : PROVE

   2: to declare under oath before a tribunal or officially constituted public body


So far as concerns the word we were really arguing about, ie, testimony, I am still correct.

For that matter, Merriam-Webster defines Testimony  as:

   1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
   1b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
   1c: an outward sign

   2a: an open acknowledgment
   2b: a public profession of religious experience

   3 [these are entirely religious references, and couldn't be here because it's Friday, and the sun already set, so they can't perform any labor
]

Even the definition of "testimony" here is not exclusively province of a legal matter. So I am correct with "testimony" as well. Why you resorted to using legal dictionaries is a mystery. After all, Dr Dolce was not a lawyer, Dr Olivier was not a lawyer, Dr Dzeimian was not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, either. The only person lawyer I can think of in this tawdry little drama is Arlen Specter, and you don't believe anything he says.

And again, Dolce said he wasn't asked to give "final testimony" which implies that he thought he did testify in some manner at some point prior.

« Last Edit: January 07, 2023, 01:15:14 AM by Mitch Todd »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2023, 04:06:26 AM »
I said anyone can figure it out. Not just me. The only ones who can't are the ones who just don't want to. Those people think that ignoring all of the evidence except for one statement, then arbitrarily tack on some random adjective in the hope that they can prove something via willful ignorance and insinuation.

Translation: “my assumptions are automatically correct, and I’m going to project them to “anyone”, because of my narcissism”.

Quote
BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?

You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #94 on: January 07, 2023, 04:06:26 AM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #95 on: January 07, 2023, 01:55:28 PM »
I'm going to split this out, because it's kind of a pointless distraction at this point. However:

I actually did kinda do a wee little messup, but not in the way that you think. Let's go to the replay official for how his subthread got to this point.

This is the statement of mine that you originally objected to, and your response:

MW: [Dolce] didn't say that he testified at this meeting.

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

MW: BS


And, at this very moment, I did a boo-boo:

MT: The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

I should have said "testify" here, as I did in the original in reply to your own use of "testify". And the two definitions I gave you are from the entry for "testify" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From M-W.

Testify:
intransitive verb:

   1: to make a solemn declaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court)

   2a: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witness
   2b: to serve as evidence or proof

   3: to express a personal conviction

transitive verb

   1a: to bear witness to : ATTEST
   1b: to serve as evidence of : PROVE

   2: to declare under oath before a tribunal or officially constituted public body


So far as concerns the word we were really arguing about, ie, testimony, I am still correct.

For that matter, Merriam-Webster defines Testimony  as:

   1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
   1b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
   1c: an outward sign

   2a: an open acknowledgment
   2b: a public profession of religious experience

   3 [these are entirely religious references, and couldn't be here because it's Friday, and the sun already set, so they can't perform any labor
]

Even the definition of "testimony" here is not exclusively province of a legal matter. So I am correct with "testimony" as well. Why you resorted to using legal dictionaries is a mystery. After all, Dr Dolce was not a lawyer, Dr Olivier was not a lawyer, Dr Dzeimian was not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, either. The only person lawyer I can think of in this tawdry little drama is Arlen Specter, and you don't believe anything he says.

And again, Dolce said he wasn't asked to give "final testimony" which implies that he thought he did testify in some manner at some point prior.

Wow, in one post from "I made a mistake and used the wrong word" to "I am still correct", while completely ignoring that testimony is given under oath. Hilarious.

So desperate to twist and turn in any possible way to "win" an argument. It's pathetic and sad. Is it that you are so narcissistic that you think you are always right, even when you are not?

The bottom line is a simple one; if you tell 100 people that you have testified there won't be anybody who thinks you possibly did so somewhere else but in court and under oath.

Your claim that Dolce testified simply because he had a conversation (that was not recorded in any way) with Specter and his team is simply not true, no matter how many times you say it is.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2023, 02:55:04 PM by Martin Weidmann »