Bill Clinton made $75 million from speeches

[uke2se]

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

LOL!

(Sorry...)

 

[Hans]

Double LOL and the predicted path of this threads continues........onwards................

 

[000063]

Assuming that you looked at photos of the wound, would you then consider your opinion about the cause of the wound to be of equal significance/weight to that a highly experienced forensic pathologist?

Examination > looking at a photo.

In other words, do you believe in the concept of experts?

Appeal to authority.

Or, to express my question another way … would you think you know enough about medicine to overrule your doctors if your doctors told you that you had a serious disease and needed treatment?

Apples/oranges. Would you trust more a doctor who looked at a photo of you, or one that performed an actual physical in-person checkup? Because you keep asserting the photo doctor over the checkup doctor

That's false. The opinion of highly trained and experienced forensic pathologists, after looking at photos and x-rays of a wound, is evidence. It's expert testimony. They can testify in court about they saw and believe.
And these pathologists said they saw features in the wound and x-rays that made them think this might be a bullet wound.

I've highlighted the qualifiers.

The only way to prove it, one way or the other, was to open up Brown's skull and take a look.

My forensic experience comes largely from watching CSI and reading Cathy Reichs novels, but I'm pretty sure it's possible to identify a bullet hole without skull-opening.

They all, in the end, said that should have happened. But they were prevented from doing that on orders from the WhiteHouse, JCS and Commerce Department (according to a sworn statement from the pathologist who did the examination).

Because it would be a waste of resources.

That's false again.

Colonel Cogswell … "Open him up. This man needs an autopsy."

Colonel Cogswell … "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'"

Dr. Fackler (not a pathologists but former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco) … "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else."

Dr. Fackler … "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding."

Lt Col. Hause … "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole." "I made the presumption the reason (Gormley) concluded it wasn't a gunshot wound, (and) therefore there was no need to go further, was that he [Gormley] looked at the X-rays." "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP."

Coroner Cyril Wecht … "It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown. I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

Coroner Cyril Wecht … "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out." (Wecht did not rule out the possibility that a piece of the aircraft could have caused the hole, but agreed with Cogswell that such a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane.)

Maj. Thomas Parsons … concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted.

Colonel Gormley … Eventually admitted in a deposition that the hole in the crown of Ron Brown's head looked like an entrance wound from a gunshot, and that it was a "red flag" for a forensic pathologist which should have triggered a further inquiry. Admitted that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they "agreed that [the hole in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound, at least an entrance gunshot wound."

So, basically, you have nothing but argument from ignorance.

Look at them. You don't even have to be a forensic pathologist to see that the bone plug is offset from the wound and not on the surface of the hole as Gormley claimed in the official report. You don't have to be an expert to see that the hole is a perfect circle or see the specks of metallic density material

Which is not the same as metal.

Planes are, in fact, made of metal. If, by some strange chance, a metal part of the plane made the hole that looked like a bullet hole, it might fragment after penetration. Also, why would the conspirators even release this info? Why not just fake a regular ol' plane crash? Pressure loss from some hole somewhere, lack of oxygen, blackout, crash. Or have the engine exhaust somehow feed "accidentally" into the cabin in imperceptible but lethal amounts. Or just crash the plane over the ocean. Why shoot him in the head, and then coerce the coroner to conceal the evidence, then release the X-rays that "prove" the official story wrong?

inside the skull in the x-ray that the pathologists mentioned. You don't have to be an expert to see brain matter in the hole, again contrary to what Gormley claimed in the official report.

Well you know what they say, ignorance is bliss.

Enough with the passive-aggressive insults.

 

[Hans]

I've said it before and I'll probably need to say it a lot more but

BAC believes that if he believes something someone else believes this makes it a 'fact'.

Yah know 000063 if they had done an autopsy and didn't find any gunshot would BAC have believed it? NOPE

If they dug him up and took a look and found nothing, would BAC believe it? NOPE he say they hid the real skull - but then if this was a massive conspiracy why didn't they cremate the body?? One wonders about these sloppy conspirators!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And these pathologists said they saw features in the wound and x-rays that made them think this might be a bullet wound. The only way to prove it, one way or the other, was to open up Brown's skull and take a look.

Umm... If there's no exit wound the x-ray would have revealed the bullet. Unless, of course, you'd like to suggest that the bullet was quietly removed some time before the autopsy.

 

[Upchurch]

Umm... If there's no exit wound the x-ray would have revealed the bullet. Unless, of course, you'd like to suggest that the bullet was quietly removed some time before the autopsy.

Dude, the bullet was made of ice and it melted. Don't you watch cop shows on TV?

 

[000063]

I think I saw that episode of Father Dowling. And Mythbusters.

Myth busted, BTW.

 

[BeAChooser]

This conspiracy relies on hearsay, conjecture, and lies.

LOL!

CPO Janoski was a eyewitness to the examination of Brown's body.

She took the pictures of the wound and x-rays.

She heard the statements of Major Sentell.

That's not hearsay, conjecture or lies.

Lies like calling a letter of resignation a suicide note.

LOL!

If you wish to insist that was resignation letter, go ahead. But, again, even if it were the draft of a resignation letter, multiple handwriting experts (even the one used by the government to authenticate the note originally) said it's a forgery. Are you just going to go on ignoring that, Biscuit?

Lies like calling an indentation in the skull a bullet wound.

No, calling the HOLE seen in this

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/browng03.gif

an "indentation" is a lie.

 

[tsig]

LOL!

CPO Janoski was a eyewitness to the examination of Brown's body.

She took the pictures of the wound and x-rays.

She heard the statements of Major Sentell.

That's not hearsay, conjecture or lies.



LOL!

If you wish to insist that was resignation letter, go ahead. But, again, even if it were the draft of a resignation letter, multiple handwriting experts (even the one used by the government to authenticate the note originally) said it's a forgery. Are you just going to go on ignoring that, Biscuit?



No, calling the HOLE seen in this

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/browng03.gif

an "indentation" is a lie.

Looks like a spear wound.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I think I saw that episode of Father Dowling. And Mythbusters.

Myth busted, BTW.

Mythbusters didn't try frozen gelatin or collagen.

 

[BeAChooser]

Not to mention the conspiracy relies on the members of the victims family pretty much falling into line over their murdered husbands/fathers with just a few small bribes and the like.

This assertion has been discussed previously. You folks have just ignored what's been posted in response.

First of all, at the time of Brown's death, his son (Michael) and his wife had already been indicted for very serious crimes related to those Ron was about to be indicted on. They were only awaiting trial. And there were more crimes being discovered all the time. For example, only days before the death, witnesses were subpoenaed focusing on Brown's dealings with Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources (DER). Former DER president Stewart Price told a grand jury under oath that he gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships with the expectation that the money would be routed to Ron Brown in order to "fix" a big lawsuit for DER. So you can see, Michael was almost as big a crook as his dad.

Yet, after Brown's death, Michael only got a slap on the wrist (was allowed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor election-law violation … http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/finance/ncfin073.htm ) and received no jail time whatsoever. Ron Brown's wife, Alma, got a complete pass on the crimes for which she was indicted at the time. So you see, perhaps an offer of freedom from Clinton's DOJ was part of the inducement for the family to remain silent? That's not a "small bribe" at all.

Furthermore, the Brown family has made out well since the death.

First, the family got a huge monetary payout as family *victims* of the crash. They received more than $14 million dollars, in fact. At least that's the amount publically disclosed. Who knows how much money arrived under the table by the brown paper bag method the Clinton administration was so fond of using. And, of course, the $14 million payment was made with the stipulation that the family would drop all lawsuits and thus stop all investigations. Like the other families of the victims agreed to do.

And then Michael (the convicted criminal) went to work immediately for the democratic party. And he has worked for them ever since. In fact, not to long ago, he ran for DC Mayor with their support (amazingly, in it's coverage of his mayoral announcement, the Washington Post didn't even mention his election fraud conviction or any of the other alleged crimes he committed) and now he's an at-large D.C. councilman who still plays on his dad's reputation to advance his career. And the Washington Post is still carrying his water (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/washington_post_misses_real_ro.html ).

Alma Brown has also been living off Ron's *spotless* rolleyes reputation ever since he died. She established the Ron H Brown Foundation and to this day heavily promotes her late husband's *legacy* and, indeed, lives off it (http://www.commerce.gov/news/secret...-ron-brown-recognition-ceremony-and-reception ). She was named to serve as honorary co-chairperson of Bill Clinton's reelection campaign in 1996. Bet that was a paid position. And Bill also helped in preserving Ron's *legacy* by personally establishing the Ron Brown Award, which is given yearly for corporate leadership and responsibility rolleyes. You could say Alma has made big bucks off her late husband's death and perhaps the last thing she'd want is to see it tarnished by the truth.

And you call that "a few small bribes", kb?

Now there was one family member that claimed to have asked questions when the military whistleblowers went public. Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced. But then she said that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. But remember, CPO Janoski has testified UNDER OATH that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound. And Gormley admitted finally that he didn't look for an exit wound. So whoever that pathologist was that the Brown family consulted, assuming they even consulted one (he/she was never named), that pathologist either simply accepted the government's original claim that there was no exit wound, or investigated, found out the truth, and then lied to the family. She claimed the pathologist also claimed there were no metal fragments. But then if you believe what named pathologists have said, and believe your own eyes after looking at the photo of the head x-rays, that has to be a lie too. You don't happen to know the name of that pathologist she consulted, do you, kb?

By the way, Tracy has also benefited from her father's *unblemished* reputation. She wrote a book extolling her dad's life: http://www.ronbrownfoundation.org/ . It was during promotion of that book that she revealed the claims about the family having consulted a pathologist (http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/13/02523 ). But curiously, the book doesn't mention any of those facts or any others noted in this thread. Curiously, she still seems to be in the dark, despite having admitted she first discovered the photos of the wound and x-rays on the internet (guess the government never got around to showing the family those).

After graduating from law school, she first served as a Deputy District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles putting numerous criminals in jail. Too bad he couldn't put a bit of her prosecutorial expertise to work on her dad's case. And then she went to work as a Senior Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission. Now isn't that ironic given that one of the things her dad was guilty of selling was seats on trade missions?

And then perhaps there are other reasons for the Brown family to remain silent … even now. Who would they go to at the time? Janet Reno? Who would they go to now? And if Ron was murdered, along with 32 others, they were dealing with some pretty serious people. Wouldn't you agree? Perhaps simply out of fear for their own lives, they didn't push matters. And now it's too late.

Like I've said, there are plenty of reasonable ways to explain why this group or that group didn't pursue the Brown matter, but you folks seem to be having great difficulty explaining the actual evidence in the case. Like the note.

 

[BeAChooser]

I remember the only places I ever heard about this CT from back in the 90s was the 700 Club and Point of View. I remember on POV they would sell videos about these CT's along with a really wacky one in which children would be kidnapped for Satanic sacrifices, which was somehow also connected to Bill Clinton.

Argument-type Ten from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 . Come on, ffm, you can do better than that.

 

[Hans]

Mythbusters didn't try frozen gelatin or collagen.

...or nylon or maybe they use a high pressure cylinder to punch a hole, or maybe a rubber mace with a steel punch just the right size...

LOL

I wonder where they found an assassin who could have done that on a crowded plane, not be noticed and was willing to go down with the plane - assuming the crash was part of the evil plan....

 

[kookbreaker]

This assertion has been discussed previously. You folks have just ignored what's been posted in response.

I didn't ignore it. Hell I'd highlight it. Its a perfect example of how the conspiracist mindset has to work to twist the world to fit their views. Its also the classic 'I'm the only honest man' mindset at work as well. Its the same mindset as Dylan Avery claiming one victim's father happily sent his kid to his death to serve the Bush administration, or Ramona Africa spitting venom at Maureen Faulkner for not finding the 'real killer' in the Mumia case.

 

[Biscuit]

Yeah, look at that last line.

It doesn't say "I'm resigning".

In fact, nowhere in the note does it say "I'm resigning" or anything equivalent.

He says he isn't cut out for the job! Thats the same thing as I quit or I resign. Jeez!

You issued a challenge to discuss the "suicide note" and I have shown there there is no "suicide note". The only reason CT call it a suicide note is to make it more sensational. Intellectual honesty demands that one call that a letter of resignation. If you would like to continue to discuss please call it such.

In which of the official investigations did experts declare it a forgery. Please link to the document.

I can't find a single source that shows Col. William Gormley retracted his description of the wound on Brown's head as a indentation.

 

[Biscuit]

In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an
apparent gunshot wound." However, he also said, "Whether it's a bullet or
something else, we don't know."

After conducting an external examination of Brown's
body, Air Force Col. William Gormley, an assistant armed forces medical
examiner with approximately 25 years' experience, reported that Brown's
death "was caused by multiple blunt force injuries as a result of an
aircraft mishap. The manner of death is accidental."

Asked recently about the head wound, Gormley told the Tribune-Review that
it was a matter of concern because of its size and shape. But he said his
examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it
didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The
institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the
examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a
gunshot.

Oh god it just gets worse!!!

here ya go

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Assuming that you looked at photos of the wound, would you then consider your opinion about the cause of the wound to be of equal significance/weight to that a highly experienced forensic pathologist?

Examination > looking at a photo.

Non-sequitor. You didn't address the question. Are you having some problem doing that?

Quote:
In other words, do you believe in the concept of experts?

Appeal to authority.

As noted in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ),

Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section. Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority". This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.

But that doesn't apply here. The forensic pathologists in question were recognized as some of the best in the country or the military, when it came to gunshot. They did have the relevant expertise and knowledge.

The other type of fallacy is to assert that the conclusion of the expert "must" be true. And I'm not doing that either. I'm simply saying what the pathologists themselves stated … that the evidence suggests the strong possibility of a bullet wound … so Brown should have been autopsied.

In fact, as noted here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.

… snip …

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

… snip …

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

… snip …

4. The person in question is not significantly biased.

… snip …

5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

… snip …

6. The authority in question must be identified.

… snip …

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. … snip …

… snip …

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

And the military photographer and all of the pathologists whose authority I'm appealing to in this case meet all six of those conditions. They are all individuals with extensive training and experience when it comes to evaluating bullet wounds and aircraft accidents. They are all making claims within their area of expertise. There is adequate agreement among them (indeed, only Colonel Dickerson is now claiming Brown died by blunt force trauma and I can prove he's repeatedly lied in this case). None of the pathologists has been shown to be biased (indeed, I've shown that some of them are democrats). The area of expertise is a legitimate discipline. And they are all identified by name.

In short, 000063, you don't know what you are talking about when you throw out the phrase "appeal to authority" as if it's a bad thing.

Quote:
Or, to express my question another way … would you think you know enough about medicine to overrule your doctors if your doctors told you that you had a serious disease and needed treatment?

Apples/oranges. Would you trust more a doctor who looked at a photo of you, or one that performed an actual physical in-person checkup?

Doctors look at test results and x-rays all the time and then tell you what disease you have and what treatment you need. If you think all you need is for the doctor to lay eyes and hands on you to diagnose serious ailments …

Quote:
That's false. The opinion of highly trained and experienced forensic pathologists, after looking at photos and x-rays of a wound, is evidence. It's expert testimony. They can testify in court about they saw and believe. And these pathologists said they saw features in the wound and x-rays that made them think this might be a bullet wound.

I've highlighted the qualifiers.

So what? I've never suggested there is definitely a bullet wound. Only that the experts said that was distinct possibility. That there are other facts in the case that might point to motive, means and opportunity for a murder. And that Brown's body should still get the autopsy it was deserved to lay this controversy to rest. Are you afraid of exhuming his body and taking a look? Hmmmm?

Quote:
The only way to prove it, one way or the other, was to open up Brown's skull and take a look.

My forensic experience comes largely from watching CSI and reading Cathy Reichs novels, but I'm pretty sure it's possible to identify a bullet hole without skull-opening.

Pretty sure? So you are placing your *expertise* above all the named pathologists?

Quote:
They all, in the end, said that should have happened. But they were prevented from doing that on orders from the WhiteHouse, JCS and Commerce Department (according to a sworn statement from the pathologist who did the examination).

Because it would be a waste of resources.

Well that must be your *expert* opinion, because no one in government, the military or the DOJ said that was the reason for not autopsying Brown's body. And what resources would they have been *wasted* anyway? Could you be more specific?

So, basically, you have nothing but argument from ignorance.

LOL! So that's what you call expert opinion?

Quote:
Look at them. You don't even have to be a forensic pathologist to see that the bone plug is offset from the wound and not on the surface of the hole as Gormley claimed in the official report. You don't have to be an expert to see that the hole is a perfect circle or see the specks of metallic density material

Which is not the same as metal.

Now wait? I thought you just got done assuring us there are ways to identify a bullet hole without opening the skull? Are you telling us in your *expert* opinion rolleyes that trained pathologists can't identify material of "metallic density" in an x-ray? And distinguishe it from … say … bone?

Planes are, in fact, made of metal.

So what? Your side of this debate is claiming that there was NO penetration of the skull.

If, by some strange chance, a metal part of the plane made the hole that looked like a bullet hole, it might fragment after penetration.

Possible, but then the forensic pathologist at the crash site didn't find a metal part with the right shape and many of experts expressed the view that it would be very difficult for debris to make the type of wound that they saw in person, or in the photos. All in all, they could not rule out a gunshot wound. And, by law, if there were any indications of foul play in the death of a Secretary level government official, the FBI was supposed to be called in to investigate. They weren't. Yet pathologists saying "that's looks like a bullet wound" at the examination of the body without resolution that it wasn't, certainly would seem to quality as meeting the requirements of that law. Particularly in an individual being investigated for numerous crimes who was telling the special prosecutor he'd be willing to turn make a deal (which would have possibly implicated many important people).

Also, why would the conspirators even release this info?

Release what info? The photos and pathologists' statements? Haven't you been paying any attention to the discussion in this thread and past threads? This wasn't a willing disclosure of the government. This was revealed by military whistleblowers, some of whom had their careers destroyed by the government. The government in fact made every attempt to keep a lid on this once it became public. They issued gag orders against all the pathologists and the photographer (while allowing their pet pathologist, Gormley, to talk to the press). They seized all the original photos and files that Cogswell/Janoski had on the topic (including Cogswell's talk on "Mistakes In Forensic Pathology"). Only the fact that photos had already been released to the public is the reason I can link those photos to you on this thread.

Why not just fake a regular ol' plane crash? Pressure loss from some hole somewhere, lack of oxygen, blackout, crash. Or have the engine exhaust somehow feed "accidentally" into the cabin in imperceptible but lethal amounts. Or just crash the plane over the ocean.

Still having trouble dealing with the actual evidence?

Argument-type Six from http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7372259&postcount=163 .

Why shoot him in the head, and then coerce the coroner to conceal the evidence, then release the X-rays that "prove" the official story wrong?

Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about.

Shall I tell you how this whole thing came to light?

CPO Janoski in a sworn affidavit said that six months after Brown's death, she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, the naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation.

After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses.

On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

On December 9, 1997, Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. After he talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include all AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch.

But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate.

On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute.

On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of ALL its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie.

On January 13, 1998, in violation of the gag order, Kathleen Janoski went public. She did this, according to her, for self protection and out of concern for the careers of Cogswell, Hause, and Parsons. Since then she has been interviewed repeatedly and has provided a sworn affidavit regarding what happened (as noted above).

So why don't you learn a bit more about the case before weighing in with your *expertise*?

 

[BeAChooser]

I've said it before and I'll probably need to say it a lot more but

Still hiding from actually discussing this with me, Hans? Still hiding from answering the simple questions I asked? I'm curious why you are so interested in this issue when you are unwilling to debate it? Come on, Hans, come debate the so-called suicide note.

 

[BeAChooser]

If there's no exit wound the x-ray would have revealed the bullet. Unless, of course, you'd like to suggest that the bullet was quietly removed some time before the autopsy.

First, who said there was no exit wound? The pathologist who examined the body has admitted he didn't look for one. Why look when his "official" conclusion at the time was that there was no penetration of the skull ... only an indentation?

So if there was an exit wound (because there was penetration of the skull), it simply might not have been found. There might not have still been a bullet in the body.

Also, x-rays aren't foolproof ... especially when the pathologist is mucking around with them to remove signs of lead snowstorms. Nor do they completely cover every portion of a body where a bullet could end up.

And finally, why after all the discussion above, do you suggest there was an autopsy. Are you not paying attention, Cl1mh4224rd?