Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[John Iacoletti]

Your boy would fry, son

Sadly, these crap one-liners are the only thing Chapman has got.  Anything to avoid actually talking about the evidence.

[Bill Chapman]

Sadly, these crap one-liners are the only thing Chapman has got.  Anything to avoid actually talking about the evidence.

Crybaby

You lot are silly and highly mockable

I've come to my conclusion
No need to seek your approval

This case is a slam dunk
Your boy would fry, son

 

[John Iacoletti]

Crybaby

You lot are silly and highly mockable

I've come to my conclusion
No need to seek your approval

This case is a slam dunk
Your boy would fry, son

I'm not crying, nor is he my boy, or me your son.  Condescension doesn't make your claims any more compelling.

It's easy to come to a conclusion.  Justifying it is a different matter.  If the answer is "faith", then why don't you just say so?

Here's another question you will avoid like the plague: 

what about this case makes it a "slam dunk"?

[John Iacoletti]

The CT mantra

Empty posturing is your mantra.

[Bernd Werner]

Doctors who saw the wound pre-tracheotomy said it was an entrance wound. Their reasoning: The shock

wave from a rifle bullet would have created more damage and left a much larger exit wound in the front of

JFK's throat.

Unfortunately these doctors had no experience with wound ballistics, so there reasoning was just the guess of laymen.

[John Iacoletti]

Which is at best a wild speculation by Sibert an O'Neill, or is there any evidence supporting this path?

Do you think Sibert and O'Neill just made this up?  Or were they reporting what they heard the autopsy doctors saying?

[John Iacoletti]

I know, that there was no analysis of the bullet path of the non lethal wound. If this path was not analysed, no definite assertion about the angle of the entering bullet could be made.

Then why did the autopsy doctors make that assertion?