A time to receive and give (CE399)

[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"

[Mitch Todd]

This is something other than what he said:

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

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. Or maybe Descartes' clever demon is messing with the plumbing of reality again. You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll. 

Anyway, if you want to assert that Shaw heard it from some other source, you need to provide evidence for such a thing. So far, we ain't even heard crickets from you regarding this.

[Martin Weidmann]

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. Or maybe Descartes' clever demon is messing with the plumbing of reality again. You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll. 

Anyway, if you want to assert that Shaw heard it from some other source, you need to provide evidence for such a thing. So far, we ain't even heard crickets from you regarding this.

Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.

This is really where you want to go?

So, by this same logic, we can't rely anything the WC concluded based on one source, without corroboration, or no source at all?

[Mitch Todd]

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 used a poor choice of words.

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.

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

Where did I say I think that?

It was a rhetorical question, Martin.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Where did I say he did?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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

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

[Mitch Todd]

Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.

This is really where you want to go?

So, by this same logic, we can't rely anything the WC concluded based on one source, without corroboration, or no source at all?

You left out the concluding sentence in the paragraph, which is important and bears directly on the art you quoted: "You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll."