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 oathBut 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 insiderTestimony means statements given by a witness under oath or affirmation.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/testimonyIt was a rhetorical question, Martin.
Yeah, sure...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 Person 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.
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?
