A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Martin Weidmann]

Who said that the Warren Commission "hired" Dolce themselves? Dolce listed his position as "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics" while Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision. That is, the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier, and Dolce performed certain tasks under Olivier's command. Given the emphasis that Dolce places on the wrist tests, I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD, and the wrist tests involved amputated human cadaver arms. Olivier and Dziemian were, IIRC DVMs and could not legally work directly with human cadavers.     

1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.

2.) what does the question "when was ce399 entered into evidence by the WC" or "subject ot proof it was the bullet found at Parkland"  have to do with whether Specter had seen any supposed report created by Edgewood? That's just a red herring.

Finally:
MW: Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Let me put it another way: where does the report contradict Olivier's testimony to the Commission, as you claim it does?

I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.

MW: What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website.  I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it!

I said, "you have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it." Note the "and." There is an Edgewood report, but it's dated "March 1965." The Commission had wound up and published it's report many months before. If the report didn't exist before March 1965, then Specter could not have seen it before Olivier's testimony in May 1964, and therefore could not have suppressed it. QED. And you've still given us no reason to believe that Specter suppressed any supposed report in any case.


MW: [Specter] slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report.

The photos and x-rays would have been created before any report was written, by necessity. As such, their existence is independent of any report. While it would be possible for them to be submitted as part of some report, it is also possible that they could be submitted as evidence by themselves, without any report ever being generated. Therefore, Specter's statement is evidence of nothing.  BTW, you saw the date on the Edgewood report, right?


MW: Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men.

So what? In his testimony, Olivier never says that CE399 was the bullet that hit both men, either. ce399 doesn't even com up in Dzeimian's deposition. The Edgewood report parallels the two men's testimony and does not contradict it.


MW:  On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.

The WC published photos of the goat-rib test bullets, and also published photos of the reference bullets (ce572) that Frazier and the FBI fired into a soft capture target just like the second bullet shown in the Edgewood report's 43rd page. If the WC was so concerned about the photos on page 43, they wouldn't have published photos of both the goat rib bullets and the FBI reference bullets, which really show roughly same difference. If they didn't care about publishing those, then they wouldn't have bothered worrying about page 43 in the Edgewood report.


MW: This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.

Dolce only talks about the cadaver wrist tests in his "My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination" letter and in his recorded interview. The goat rib tests go
unmentioned in either source.

You've still generated nothing more than your own presumption that some report existed prior to Olivier's deposition with Specter, an that it was suppressed.

Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision.

"It would appear?

I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD,

"I suspect"?

When you know for sure, get back to me... I couldn't care less how something appears to you or what you suspect.

the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier,

Did they? Did you check the record and the correspondence on the subject? I doubt it! But cite please...

[John Iacoletti]

You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.

Go read the operative record.  The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.

That doesn’t demonstrate that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” about a bullet in Connally’s leg.

[Bill Brown]

That doesn’t demonstrate that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” about a bullet in Connally’s leg.

It demonstrates that your point (posting the footage of Shaw's press conference after performing surgery to Connally's chest) is moot.

[Martin Weidmann]

You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.

Go read the operative record.  The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.

You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

What makes you say that it was an assumption?

[John Iacoletti]

It demonstrates that your point (posting the footage of Shaw's press conference after performing surgery to Connally's chest) is moot.

Not moot at all. It’s a contemporary report of a bullet being in Connally’s leg.

[John Iacoletti]

You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

What makes you say that it was an assumption?

Seems like that is the assumption here.

[Mitch Todd]

Not moot at all. It’s a contemporary report of a bullet being in Connally’s leg.

A report based on what, exactly?

This is how Shaw describes the wound in Connally's thigh when he first saw it: 

Mr. SPECTER - You have described, in a general way, the chest wound. What other wounds, if any, was Governor Connally suffering from at the time you saw him?
Dr. SHAW - I will describe then the wound of the wrist which was obvious. He had a wound of the lower right forearm that I did not accurately examine because I had already talked to Dr. Gregory while I was scrubbing for the operation, told him that this wound would need his attention as soon as we were able to get the chest in a satisfactory condition. There was also, I was told, I didn't see the wound, on the thigh, I was told that there was a small wound on the thigh which I saw later.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh?
Dr. SHAW - He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect of the left thigh.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to examine it sufficiently to ascertain its location on the left thigh?
Dr. SHAW - No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the wound you described on the thigh, Dr. Shaw, was there any point of exit as to that wound?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you----
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask one more question there, how deep was the wound of entry, could you tell at all?
Dr. SHAW - Mr. Dulles, I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I have.

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.

[Mitch Todd]

Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision.

"It would appear?

I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD,

"I suspect"?

When you know for sure, get back to me... I couldn't care less how something appears to you or what you suspect.

the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier,

Did they? Did you check the record and the correspondence on the subject? I doubt it! But cite please...

I've already laid out the reasons why one thing "would appear" a certain way and why I "suspect" another thing to be so. It appears that you can't engage with the arguments I made, and I suspect you would never be able to in any case. All you are able  to do now is push some lame sematic jabs that look more like sour grapes than an attempt to rebut what I've said.