Split Thread Ron Brown's head wound

[BeAChooser]

Show me an "expert" who says that there is an xray that shows a .45 slug in his head. Then we will discuss what they said. There are some minute white speckles in one small area of an x-ray that are consistant with many things associated with the x-ray process. You seem happy to accept that a .45 slug turns into a minute number of tiny specks. No mushroomed deformed slug...not a single fragment bigger than a grain of dust....nothing.

First, let's not let your musings confuse the audience. As far as I know, you are not a forensic pathologist. And I'm the only one here actually quoting forensic pathologists (or any other experts). And no autopsy was done (that's the problem) so no one can say with certainty what the inside of Brown's head actually looked like or be sure that there wasn't a bullet or exit wound somewhere. We should exhume Brown's body and look.

Now here are some the "experts" you asked for:

*********

"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938

"Even if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you got something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told the Tribune-Review.

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."

... snip ...

"Essentially ... Brown had a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which is essentially the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound," Cogswell added.

... snip ...

"I talked to Col. Gormley and he told me there is a .45(-inch) inwardly beveling, perfectly circular hole in the top of (Brown's) head," Cogswell said.

... snip ...

"Open him up. This man needs an autopsy," Cogswell said he told Gormley. "This whole thing stinks."

... snip ...

Cogswell also felt it would be very difficult for any rod or similar item to pierce the skull then exit, leaving a perfect hole as it did. His suspicions grew upon his return to the United States when he spoke to AFIP colleagues who had stayed at Dover. He also reviewed the photographic and X-ray evidence. "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.'" he said.

... snip ...

Her photos would later become part of Cogswell's slide program. He tells his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows the defect at the top of the head, and something perhaps more sinister. Inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."

... snip ...

The Tribune-Review obtained copies of those images as well as detailed photos of Brown's body and the circular wound. All were shown to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco.

While acknowledging he is not a pathologist, Fackler said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round," Fackler said with a chuckle. "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."

Fackler said he could not rule it a gunshot without a full autopsy and better X-rays. He said the supposed metal fragments on the first X-ray were not conclusive because they were very small, an autopsy had not been conducted to locate them, and a side X-ray was overexposed, giving little detail of the head. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding," he said.

**************

"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206

A second Armed Forces medical examiner has stepped forward to publicly confirm key statements made by a colleague about the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause (pronounced "hoss"), a deputy armed forces medical examiner, told the Tribune-Review he personally examined a suspicious head wound on Brown's corpse while it was being examined at Dover Air Force Base, Del. He said several allegations made by Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell in a Tribune-Review article last week are true. Hause also expressed criticism of the military's treatment of Cogswell in the wake of that article.

... snip ...

Cogswell was not present at Dover when the wound was examined, but Hause was. According to Hause, his examination table was only two tables away from the one on which Brown's body was laid out. "A commotion" erupted, he said, when someone said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." Hause said he left his examination table to view the wound. He remembers saying, "Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

He said the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole."

... snip ...

Hause agreed that "by any professional standard" an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown's body, but said he understood that "political and administrative" factors made it difficult for one to be conducted. Even so, he suggested that Gormley should have consulted with superiors to get authority, or if that was impossible, sought permission from the next of kin. After viewing the wound, Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further. "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 looked at the X-rays" and found no evidence of a bullet, Hause explained.

... snip ...

Additionally, Cogswell and another expert consulted by the Tribune-Review said a side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head.

... snip ...

According to Hause, all that remains of the head X-rays are photographic slide images in the possession of Cogswell and copies of images possessed by the Tribune-Review. Hause said the disturbing facts raised by Cogswell, including the missing X-rays, have not drawn an appropriate reaction from AFIP officials. "It looks like the AFIP is starting its usual procedure of, upon receiving bad news, immediately shooting the messenger," Hause commented in reference to administrative actions taken against Cogswell in recent days.

... snip ...

On Friday, Hause said a commotion developed in the office when a military police officer showed up and asked Cogswell to accompany him to Cogswell's home to retrieve all slides and photos in his possession relating to AFIP cases. "One of the things I'm wondering is why all the attention is focused on Cogswell, who never had the original X-rays," Hause said.

************

"Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921

One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists says there was "more than enough" evidence to suggest possible homicide in the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and an autopsy should have been conducted on his body.

Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht reached these conclusions after reviewing photographs of Brown's body, photo images of X-rays of Brown's head and body, and the report of the forensic pathologist for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who examined the corpse.

... snip ...

Wecht scoffs at skeptics who dismiss the possibility of Brown being found with a bullet after a plane crash. "It's happened," Wecht said. "It's in the literature. It's rare, but it can happen, and evidence of a possible gunshot should not be ignored." After reviewing the evidence, Wecht reached several broad conclusions.

"It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown," Wecht said. "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied," Wecht continued. He noted that it's standard procedure to conduct autopsies on all victims in a plane crash. Forget about Brown being a cabinet member, or being under investigation," Wecht added. "He was in a plane crash. That alone should have meant he was autopsied."

... snip ...

Wecht, who is also a lawyer, agrees with Cogswell. "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 said. "The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy," the coroner continued.

... snip ...

"I'm troubled," Wecht added. "They did a tremendous disfavor to the families by not conducting autopsies." For one thing, he noted, survivors may have been left with weaker legal claims for damages.

As for the wound itself, Wecht said, "Anytime you have a circular, symmetrical hole, a pathologist knows that one of the distinct mechanisms for making such a defect is a bullet. "It's not the only one (but) you have to consider it," he added. "The answer lies in the autopsy."

... snip ...

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. Wecht, like Cogswell, said the possibility of a bullet should have immediately been ruled out by opening the skull and looking for a bullet track through the brain.

After analyzing a photograph of the wound, Wecht also identified tiny fracture lines in the skull that he said "would not be inconsistent with a gunshot wound."

... snip ...

Most bothersome, Wecht said, was his identification of almost a half-dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole. These "do suggest metallic fragments," he said. "Little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone," he explained.

These flecks should have been collected for further analysis, Wecht said, though he noted they aren't by themselves proof of a gunshot. "It just makes it more consistent with one," he said. If the metal is from a bullet, he believes the array of fragments in the scalp would indicate a shot was fired before the crash.

Wecht said a review of a photographic image of the first frontal X-ray of Brown's head may show, as Cogswell first suggested, "what we say in the jargon of forensic pathology is a lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet.

... snip ...

Wecht jested that disappearance of the X-rays, which Gormley says would support his conclusions, fit what he calls Wecht's Law: "The frequency of lost X-rays, hospital records, documents, autopsy materials and other materials in a medical-legal investigation is directly in proportion to the complexity, controversy and external challenges" to a given case. In reality, Wecht said, "you'll find it is very, very rare" to have X-rays missing from a case file.

**************

"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000

One of the officers, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, for the first time spoke publicly on the matter Saturday. The forensic pathologist joined two other AFIP medical examiners in disputing government claims about Brown's death after an Air Force jet carrying him and 34 others crashed in Croatia on April 3, 1996.

... snip ...

On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell's claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel "unanimously backed" the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot.

The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that "there is no doubt in anybody's mind" that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot.

Citing AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, Fletcher reported that "the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental ..." Fletcher's report also indicated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley's findings.

Contradicting these claims are Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP's internal review. Both officers 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. None was.

"Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie," Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims.

Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on.

... snip ...

Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun.

... snip ...

According to Hause, Spencer asked if he agreed with Gormley's findings. Hause responded that the death was "probably" accidental, but that there was insufficient evidence to say Brown died of blunt force injuries as a result of the plane crash.

Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP."

Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true."

*****************

"Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306

The head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's forensic photography unit, like three senior officials before her, has come forward to publicly claim that the military improperly handled the investigation of the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, a 22-year Navy veteran, also says she was told missing evidence of a possible homicide had been purposely destroyed. Janoski, the senior enlisted person at AFIP's Rockville, Md., offices, was present when Brown's body was examined by military pathologists at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.

... snip ...

Janoski said she was stunned that AFIP's inquiry focused on the actions of Cogswell when she felt the real issue was AFIP's handling of Brown's death. "The investigation is nothing more than a witch hunt. (AFIP) should be investigating what happened to the missing head X-rays. No one at AFIP seems to care that Brown did not receive an autopsy," Janoski said.

... snip ...

"Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound," Janoski recalls exclaiming.

... snip ...

(BAC - Colonel William) Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.

... snip ...

Janoski alleges Sentell told her the original X-rays of Brown's head had been replaced in the case file. Janoski said she remembers that Sentell specifically told her "the first head X-ray that showed a `lead snowstorm' was destroyed, and a second X-ray, that was less dense, was taken."

Janoski said she had to ask "What are you talking about?" in reference to Sentell's phrase "lead snowstorm." According to Janoski, Sentell explained that a lead snowstorm is the description of a pattern of metal fragments that appears on an X-ray after a bullet has disintegrated inside a body.

... snip ...

One of the pathologists involved questions the timing of AFIP's explanation. "I find it interesting that this explanation about the film cartridge defect came after Lt. Col. Cogswell made his allegations, and not at the time we were at Dover," said Hause. Hause, who made these comments to the Tribune-Review before a gag order had been placed on AFIP staff, said he does not recall ever being told there was a problem with the X-rays.

***********

"Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704

GRANT: We do have here on the line, Chief Petty Officer, United States Navy and chief of forensic photography with Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Kathleen Janoski. And she alleges that there has been a cover-up in the investigation of Ron Brown. Ms. Janoski, I welcome you to the Bob Grant program via the telephone. I understand that you have received some threats of one type or another. That there's been some pressure brought to bear to have you cease and desist from speaking out. Is that true?

JANOSKI: Yes that is. Essentially what's happening is that I'm being punished as a whistleblower because I went on record with The Pittsburgh Tribune Review back in January. I used to be chief of forensic photography but I was kicked out of my office with essentially 32 hours notice and forced to walk away from a quarter million dollar inventory that I'm still assigned responsibility for.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: It's actually the Army and the Air Force Colonel who's in charge of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. What it is - there's four of us altogether, (Lt. Col. Steve) Cogswell, (Lt. Col. David) Hause, myself and (Air Force Major Thomas) Parsons. And we all went on the record saying that Ron Brown had what appeared to be an apparent gunshot wound to the head - and that Ron Brown needed an autopsy, which he did not receive.

... snip ...

JANOSKI: Well, actually it wasn't a mark. It was a hole in his skull. It was perfectly round, inwardly beveling and it's diameter was .45 inches. And it had punctured the skull. Brain was showing. And that's essentially what we said: that Ron Brown had a wound that appeared consistent with an apparent gunshot wound and that he needed an autopsy. (Janoski has FBI training in gunshot wound analysis). And because of that we're essentially being punished by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

... snip ...

GRANT: You also made an allegation that x-rays were destroyed to hide evidence of a possible bullet wound.

JANOSKI: Well, what happened was - we have a Naval criminal investigative agent who's assigned to our office. And about six months after the crash she told me that the first set of x-rays were deliberately destroyed because they showed a "lead snowstorm". And a second set of x-rays were taken and they were deliberately made less dense to try to diminish or eradicate that "lead snowstorm". A Naval criminal investigative agent assigned to my office told me this.

GRANT: Now initially you had declined to be interviewed but you changed your mind shortly before a gag order was issued and you came forward, you said, because the AFIP had failed to properly investigate possible wrongdoing by it's own officials in the Brown case. And because of the way the military treated two AFIP pathologists. We have talked to Lt. Col Steve Cogswell and Lt. Col. David Hause. Now, I understand that after they both went public, bad things happened to them.

JANOSKI: Yes, yes. We were all supposed to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in February. We had our tickets, we had our reservations, we'd paid our registration fees. And right before we were supposed to leave, the director of AFIP canceled our orders immediately. Also, Dr. Cogswell was forbidden to lecture, forbidden to go on trips. Cogswell, Hause and Parsons were no longer permitted to do any autopsies. And also Dr. Cogswell was kicked out of his office at the same time I was. And he's been re-assigned, they re-assigned him to oral pathology. So they have a medical examiner working with a bunch of dentists right now. He's very ill-equipped to work in that area. So essentially what they're doing is something that's typical in punishing a whistleblower. They're setting him up for failure.

************

The following excerpt is from a document submitted by Judicial Watch to a court in a lawsuit. This document refers to various "exhibits", including SWORN testimony by the photographer, as well as a TV interview of Colonel Gormley where he was reported in various sources to have changed his story.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm

"Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, the Chief of the Forensic Photography Division at OAFME and a twenty-two year veteran of the United States Navy ("USN"), was assigned to photograph Ron Brown's remains during Colonel Gormley examination. She has offered an affidavit of her observations of the examination of Secretary Brown conducted by Colonel Gormley and subsequent events. ... snip ... Chief Janoski also testifies that, based on her training and experience, Colonel Gormley did not conduct a thorough examination of Secretary Brown's remains for further evidence of a gunshot wound, as she had seen doctors do in other cases when visible evidence suggested such an injury. ... snip ... Colonel Gormley has offered inconsistent and changing explanations for his omissions. First, he stated that the wound in Secretary Brown's skull, which he examined after it was pointed out to him by Chief Janoski, was not a bullet wound because it did not penetrate the skull and because the brain was not visible. See Exhibit 15. He has subsequently admitted that a photograph of the wound, as well as photographs of Secretary Brown's X-rays, showed that the skull was penetrated and that Secretary Brown's brain was visible. Transcript of Television Interview with Colonel William Gormley, Black Entertainment Television, December 11, 1997, attached as Exhibit 18 at 18. He also has admitted 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. Exhibit 18 at 19. In fact, and even more damning, Colonel Gormley now admits 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."

**************

Now, FOOL, do you care to offer any "expert" names and quotes to support your side of this debate? Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

Can anyone link me to these x-rays?

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg

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

I am, however, a radiologist, and thus (with images of adequate quality, which may not be available) I can render an opinion on whether opacities on an x-ray are bullet fragments or something else.

Oh goodie, another claimed internet expert. Let's believe you and ignore what ALL the forensic pathologists who were there and did see the original x-rays had to say about it.

Well in your analysis, please note that all we have available are pictures of the x-rays, taken by Janoski in order to test her camera as the originals were on a light panel in the examination room at Dover. She only remembered she had done that when Major Sentell later told her (according to Janoski's sworn affidavit) that a second set of x-rays were taken by Gormley because the first showed a "lead snowstorm". The original x-ray and photos of the head are gone, removed from a lock safe that only a few people had access (none of them being the whistleblowers).

Even so, the x-ray (and wound photos) clearly show the bone of the skull penetrated the brain and that brain, not bone, is what was visible in the wound. This directly contradicts Gormley's original claim (the one still repeated in the official report and on which he said he based his conclusion that Brown died of blunt force trauma) that there was no penetration of the brain and only bone was visible in the wound. It wasn't until Gormley was presented on live TV with these photos that Janoski took that Gormley changed his story and then claimed he had been "mistaken" and that the wound actually was a "red flag" that should have warranted an autopsy. Even later he admitted that he'd been ordered by the White House and JCS not to autopsy Brown's body. Hmmmmm.

Well back to the topic. Holbrooke. What really was his role in sending Brown on the ill fated flight? He deep was he involved in this, since we have sworn testimony from a confident of Brown that Brown wasn't slated to be on the flight until after he told Clinton he was going to turn state's evidence in Chinagate. Hmmmmm.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No DR, you have not done that and that is clear to any rational person reading any of the threads where the Ron Brown issue has been discussed. Neither you or anyone else on this forum has EVER explained the facts I just asked you about. You are a liar. Now you can prove me wrong by linking to a specific post where you or someone did offer a rational explanation of those facts. I'll bet you don't.

The facts are on display in the CT forum. Those interested know how to find it. Importing it here is a waste of bandwidth. I'll let the audience decide what was of value in that thread, if they choose to go and dredge up your pathalogical obsession with pathologists.

Your draggging the Brown CT into the appointment of Holbrooke to another diplomatic post a dozen years later is garbage.

How about you get into the current decade?

Holbrooke may or may not be able to pull a rabit out of the hat. My bet is against, I don't think he's that good. He was somewhat lucky in terms of timing on the last go. Worse, in the Muslim world, he's the front man for a female Secretary of State. I don't think that plays well in places like Riyadh, though it might, just might, in Pakistan given they did have a lady as PM.

But things have turned a bit reactionary there, so no, Hillary is a liability as Sec State in Obama's overtures in the Muslim world, purely based on her gender.

I wonder if he cares about that.

ETA:

BAC, you are acting like a coward and a troll. You don't want to discuss Holbrooke, do you?

You start a thread about Holbrooke, but go out of your way to use it as a pretext for dredging up the plane crash, which event you got owned on by a guy named beachnut on the CT forum. Beachnut knew in person one of the people in that plane crew.

So, you either get back to discussing Holbrooke, and what is happening now, or you admit you are a filthy troll.

Which is it? Have you got a sack or not?

This forum is not the CT forum. It is the politics forum. Your raising Holbrooke as a politics issue is very valid, given Obama having appointed yet another Clintonista to a position of some importance.

Get with the program.

DR

 

[CurtC]

Tl;dr

 

[BeAChooser]

I'll let the audience decide what was of value in that thread, if they choose to go and dredge up your pathalogical obsession with pathologists.

And your pathological non-obsession with the actual experts in that case?

Your draggging the Brown CT into the appointment of Holbrooke to another diplomatic post a dozen years later is garbage.

I merely cited a fact ... that Holbrooke took credit for Ron Brown being on the flight that crashed. Nolanda Hill testified under oath that Brown wasn't slated to be on the doomed flight prior to Brown telling Clinton he was going to turn state's evidence in Chinagate and the Campaign Finance scandals. Shouldn't that be reconciled with this claim by Holbrooke?

How about you get into the current decade?

There is no statute of limitation on murder.

BAC, you are acting like a coward and a troll. You don't want to discuss Holbrooke, do you?

I wasn't the one focusing the discussion on Brown at every turn. It was Holbrooke's defenders who seem obsessed with discussing Brown. I merely answered the questions I was asked about it and corrected misinformation about the case they wanted to promulgate.

You start a thread about Holbrooke, but go out of your way to use it as a pretext for dredging up the plane crash, which event you got owned on by a guy named beachnut on the CT forum. Beachnut knew in person one of the people in that plane crew.

I hardly was "owned" by beachnut. You grossly misrepresent that exchange and leave out a few important details. What beachnut did was plagerize text and photos from what I believe was www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". And much of that material I showed was flawed. And then beachnut ran when I suggested that he was dishonoring his CLAIMED pilot "friend" by allowing him to be smeared as a bad pilot. When I asked him if as a CLAIMED "friend" of the family he had ever told the family that they were lied to in the AIB report. When I asked him whether as a CLAIMED "friend" he ever told the family that military pathologists and a military photographer suspected foul play. When I asked how his CLAIMED "friend's" family felt about being lied to by the acting Secretary of the Air Force, who sent a letter I proved was filled with lies. For those who'd like to verify this, just go here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 or here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2905050 . And all of this has been pointed out previously TO YOU with no response from you.

The truth is that all beachnut (and YOU) ever did was regurgitate the "official story" ... which I showed in those threads is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts. Lies by omission, if nothing else. And you fail to mention that YOU also claimed to have a friend who was on the scene at the crash site (some "guy" named Gary). You claimed the Brown case came up in conversation, you showed him the silliness, and he did a "face palm." But like beachnut, when I asked for details of what Gary told you, you ran. But I'm still interested. If you want to post what Gary told you, I'm all ears. I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies by him. Care to test me? Hey, why not have him join this thread and speak directly to me. Do you or he have a sack or not?

 

[dudalb]

I guess BAC serves a purpose as example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

 

[DavidJames]

I guess BAC serves a purpose as example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

 

[BeAChooser]

I guess BAC serves a purpose as example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

I guess you serve as an example of someone who doesn't want to discuss the facts ... be the topic Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Chinagate, CampaignFinanceGate, Filegate, Travelgate, Emailgate, RapeGate, LewinskyGate, KosovoGate, etc., etc., etc. Why is that?

I have good reason to still be concerned about the Clintons. After all, they are now back in our Executive Branch. She is going to be a key player in running our foreign policy in a very troubled time. She's going to be privy to many of our top secrets. Yet the Clintons have already demonstrated a willingness to sell out this country to hostile foreign powers for money and political advancement. And who knows what blackmail material a foreign power might have on them now. Silly us ... we thought the Clinton nightmare was over a decade ago. But thanks to Obama and democrats, they are the gift that just keeps on giving.

 

[gdnp]

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg

http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg

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

Well in your analysis, please note that all we have available are pictures of the x-rays, taken by Janoski in order to test her camera as the originals were on a light panel in the examination room at Dover. She only remembered she had done that when Major Sentell later told her (according to Janoski's sworn affidavit) that a second set of x-rays were taken by Gormley because the first showed a "lead snowstorm". The original x-ray and photos of the head are gone, removed from a lock safe that only a few people had access (none of them being the whistleblowers).

Even so, the x-ray (and wound photos) clearly show the bone of the skull penetrated the brain and that brain, not bone, is what was visible in the wound. This directly contradicts Gormley's original claim (the one still repeated in the official report and on which he said he based his conclusion that Brown died of blunt force trauma) that there was no penetration of the brain and only bone was visible in the wound. It wasn't until Gormley was presented on live TV with these photos that Janoski took that Gormley changed his story and then claimed he had been "mistaken" and that the wound actually was a "red flag" that should have warranted an autopsy. Even later he admitted that he'd been ordered by the White House and JCS not to autopsy Brown's body. Hmmmmm.

Sorry, no way to make a definitive diagnosis from these photos: too small, too low quality.

What I can say is that the depressed skull fracture looks like what one would expect from a blunt object striking the head, not a bullet. The wound on the top of the head would be the entry wound, as the bevel is larger on the inside than the outside. I say it looks like a wound from a blunt object, not a bullet, because on the lateral view it appears that the depressed bone fragment is intact. It's hard to say: what I think is a depressed fragment might be hyperostosis interna. A bullet might have made a similar wound in the remaining skull, but the depressed bone fragment would have been fragmented by the bullet. I'd also expect there to me more damage to the underlying brain tissue, a trail of small lead fragments along the bullet track, as well as an exit wound somewhere, which I don't see. There are some white flecks over the left orbit on the frontal view, but I can't tell from these photos whether these are real or artifact. In any event, they do not seem to follow a linear bullet track.

That's about the best I can say. Nothing definitive.

Oh goodie, another claimed internet expert. Let's believe you and ignore what ALL the forensic pathologists who were there and did see the original x-rays had to say about it.

Sorry, not a claimed internet expert, an expert. Having testified in trials as an expert radiologist witness, certified by the court, I think I have the right to that designation. That being said, I would not agree to render an expert opinion on this case, as bone trauma and gunshot wounds are not my area of subspecialty.

As for what forensic pathologists say, I would be more interested in what a forensic radiologist has to say. They do exist.

And as for what they ALL had to say, I don't really know. Haven't read teh rest of the thread. But since you wish to defer to their authority, why don't we just jump to the official report and believe what their pathologists said instead, Hmmmmmm?

 

[Franziska]

I am so glad to see a thread on this topic. Very interesting. Some people have never heard this one. My aunt has believed this theory for years.

 

[beachnut]

There is no statute of limitation on murder.


I hardly was "owned" by beachnut. You grossly misrepresent that exchange and leave out a few important details. What beachnut did was plagerize text and photos from what I believe was www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". And much of that material I showed was flawed. And then beachnut ran when I suggested that he was dishonoring his CLAIMED pilot "friend" by allowing him to be smeared as a bad pilot. When I asked him if as a CLAIMED "friend" of the family he had ever told the family that they were lied to in the AIB report. When I asked him whether as a CLAIMED "friend" he ever told the family that military pathologists and a military photographer suspected foul play. When I asked how his CLAIMED "friend's" family felt about being lied to by the acting Secretary of the Air Force, who sent a letter I proved was filled with lies. For those who'd like to verify this, just go here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119618 or here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2905050 . And all of this has been pointed out previously TO YOU with no response from you.

The truth is that all beachnut (and YOU) ever did was regurgitate the "official story" ... which I showed in those threads is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts. Lies by omission, if nothing else. And you fail to mention that YOU also claimed to have a friend who was on the scene at the crash site (some "guy" named Gary). You claimed the Brown case came up in conversation, you showed him the silliness, and he did a "face palm." But like beachnut, when I asked for details of what Gary told you, you ran. But I'm still interested. If you want to post what Gary told you, I'm all ears. I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies by him. Care to test me? Hey, why not have him join this thread and speak directly to me. Do you or he have a sack or not?

BAC cannot refute the “official story”, but he presents as much delusion on this issue as 911Truth does on 911.

You were owned by facts and evidence. You have delusions; the facts and evidence prove this. I went over the investigation step by step as a train aircraft accident investigator myself and found it to be sound, and found your delusions to be politically motivated and based on ignorance.

The best part you have nothing, and the real investigation has all the facts. You lack knowledge in flying, and I showed the investigation was sound and proved Brown died in an accident. I know you hate Clinton and this make your efforts worthless. But you have no problem seeing 911Truth as a delusional effort, but when it comes to your hate for Clinton, everything is a Conspiracy theory for you.

The real investigation has lots of interesting things that contributed to the accident. The real event is more complicated than your biased Clinton bashing delusion crap.

Now you have been owned by other experts with the head wound.

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry, no way to make a definitive diagnosis from these photos

Which is one reason an exhumation and autopsy is still needed. On something potentially this important we really need to be sure. Wouldn't you agree? Especially given the fact that some of the best forensic pathologists in the country at the time (when it came to bullet wounds and airplane crashes) looked at the originals of those photos (and some even had access to the original x-rays before they mysteriously disappeared from a locked safe) and it was their conclusion that Brown needed an autopsy because the wound did look suspiciously like a bullet wound and the x-rays seemed to argue in favor of that and against the notion of blunt force trauma.

In fact, gndp, not a single pathologist who had access to those x-rays and original photos (other than Mr Dickerson, the head of AFIP, who I can show lied about the nature of the wound and the opinions of his staff to the press) says anything but that now. And I don't believe you can quote a single pathologist anywhere in the country who has looked at those images and will defend the conclusion that Brown died by blunt force trauma. Not one. They are ALL suspiciously silent on this matter (although most probably haven't even heard of it except via the rumor mill because the mainstream press has never even reported what the pathologists said and neither did the documentaries on the crash done by National Geographics and Discovery Channel).

What I can say is that the depressed skull fracture looks like what one would expect from a blunt object striking the head, not a bullet.

How odd. I don't recall you telling us you were a forensic pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds. Just how much experience have you had with bullet wounds, gdnp? My doubts about your expertise stems from the FACT that experts who did have LOTS and LOTS of experience vehemently disagree with you. As I've pointed out in numerous threads on this topic:

AFIP Forensic pathologist Colonel Steve Cogswell called it "an apparent gunshot wound", and he was acknowledged by Air Force management at the time (in their performance reviews, no less) to be one of the Air Force's top pathologists where gunshot was concerned. He even gave talks at symposiums on the subject ... and on mistakes in pathology. During those talks, before he was silenced by Air Force management, he identified the Brown case as one such mistake, telling his audiences that the frontal head X-ray showed "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray" behind the eye socket. He said "that's we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."

AFIP forensic pathologist Colonel Gormley, who conducted the examination of Brown at Dover and who ruled the death a result of blunt force trauma in the official report, has changed his mind about that conclusion. In documents submitted to a court, he admitted that he had consulted other high ranking pathologists (including Hause and Navy Commander Edward Kilbane) who were present during the external examination of Brown's body and they "agreed that [the hole in his head] look[ed] like a gunshot wound". And he agreed that Brown should have been autopsied (but said he was under orders at the time from the White House and JCS not to autopsy the body). And he has admitted on live TV that the two reasons he originally cited for concluding it was a blunt force injury ... that is, seeing nothing unusual in the x-rays and seeing bone, not brain, in the wound (i.e., no penetration of the skull) ... were not true. Brain was indeed visible in the wound and the x-rays did show features that suggested a bullet wound (a "lead snowstorm" and a bone plug displaced off to the side and into the brain).

AFIP forensic pathologist Lt. Colonel David Hause, another recognized gunshot expert, agreed with Cogswell, saying that "by any professional standard" an autopsy should have been conducted. Note that Hause actually saw Brown's body and the wound when it was examined at Dover. Standing over the body, he said "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too" ... during Gormley's examination. He said "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain." Note that directly contradicts Gormley's claim in the official report that only bone was visible in the hole. Hause felt strongly enough about this that he put his own career in jeopardy by publicly criticizing the military's treatment of Cogswell after Cogswell went public. (Note that the military effectively destroyed Cogswell's career.) Hause also criticized the military for it's total lack of interest in finding the missing x-rays and photos. And when the Washington Post reported that Dickerson had convened a group of pathologists and issued a report reaffirming Gormley's death by blunt force conclusion, Hause stated that Dickerson lied when he told a Washington Post reporter that it was a unanimous finding of the AFIP's staff. He also said Dickerson lied when he told the reporter that Hause had changed his mind and now affirmed Gormley's findings. And he said Dickerson lied when he told the reporter that Hause signed off on a report to that effect. In fact, Hause said he never did see the report Dickerson claimed he signed off on and never even informed that a report was to be issued.

AFIP Forensic pathologist Major Thomas Parsons, another AFIP expert in gunshot, also went public and agreed with Cogswell that the wound looked like it could have been caused by a bullet and that Brown should have been autopsied. After the Washington Post article came out saying all AFIP pathologists agreed with Gormley's findings, he stated he could not back Gormley's findings. He said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in the Washington Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true."

And then we have Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, who was one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists with thousands of gunshot and airplane crash cases to his credit. When shown high quality photos of the wound and x-rays, he said a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane. He identified tiny fracture lines in the skull that "would not be inconsistent with a gunshot wound." And he was particularly troubled by "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole. These "do suggest metallic fragments," he said. "Little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." He also said the frontal X-ray suggests "what we say in the jargon of forensic pathology is a lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet. Wecht, who is also a lawyer, said "there was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI ... snip ... The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy." He said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

Dr. Martin Fackler, who though not a pathologist was director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory (now there's an organization that might understand bullet wounds), said when looking at the photos "It's round as hell. ... snip ... 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. ... snip ... They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding." He also said that brain matter was clearly visible, contrary to what Gormley claimed in the official Air Force report on the crash.

But you are right about one thing. There is nothing "definitive". That's why they should have done an autopsy. That's the only way to be definitive. That's why they should still do one. Being that the allegation is a potential mass murder. Wouldn't you agree?

That being said, I would not agree to render an expert opinion on this case, as bone trauma and gunshot wounds are not my area of subspecialty.

I'm glad we have that cleared up.

As for what forensic pathologists say, I would be more interested in what a forensic radiologist has to say. They do exist.

So you simply dismiss what the forensic pathologists have to say? I see. Well by all means ... quote a forensic radiologist in the Brown matter. I'll be waiting.

why don't we just jump to the official report and believe what their pathologists said instead, Hmmmmmm?

Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you. Name the pathologists mentioned in the report and what they say. As far as I know, the only one named is Colonel Gormley. And as noted above, he has now admitted that what is in the report is not true.

 

[BeAChooser]

You were owned by facts and evidence. You have delusions; the facts and evidence prove this. I went over the investigation step by step as a train aircraft accident investigator myself and found it to be sound, and found your delusions to be politically motivated and based on ignorance.

Hey beachnut ... did you ever get around to telling the family of your *good friend* (the pilot of the ill fated plane) what all those forensic pathologists listed above had to say? Did you ever inform the family of your *good friend* that they were lied to by the Acting Secretary of the Air Force in that letter he sent them (remember that I pointed out the specific lies)? Or are you still letting them remain in the dark ... like a *good friend* would. (sarcasm)

Now you have been owned by other experts with the head wound.

ROTFLOL! Speaking of being delusional. It's either that or admitting you didn't actually read what gdnp wrote.

 

[gdnp]

As I have said in multiple threads (not because I frequent Ron Brown threads, but because you bring up Ron Brown repeatedly in unrelated threads) I have no real interest in debating your Ron Brown conspiracy theories. As best as I can tell it has something to do with the Clintons having Ron Brown shot in the head and then crashing a plane with a bunch of other people aboard to cover it up. Sounds like an awfully messy and inefficient way to rub someone out, especially if you are short of suicidal pilots.

I agreed to look at your x-rays since you said you had photos, and x-rays are my area of expertise. Unfortunately, the images are not of diagnostic quality. I don't really care why the images are not of diagnostic quality: they may have been stolen from a locked safe, had Coke spilled on them, or spontaneously combusted along with Spinal Tap's drummer. If they don't exist, I can't read them. That is the end of my involvement in the thread. I have no desire to critique the opinions of others who have or have not seen the x-rays in question. I have not even read their opinions. Sorry. You will have to find someone else to play your conspiracy games with.

 

[BeAChooser]

I have no real interest in debating your Ron Brown conspiracy theories.

And yet here you are.

As best as I can tell it has something to do with the Clintons having Ron Brown shot in the head and then crashing a plane with a bunch of other people aboard to cover it up.

It would appear you didn't really make much of an attempt to understand what is actually alleged or what I've posted on the subject. I guess you think you already know all there is to know about the topic.

Sounds like an awfully messy and inefficient way to rub someone out, especially if you are short of suicidal pilots.

I've addressed such criticisms in the various threads on this subject. I can only note that you showed (and apparently still show) no real interest in addressing my responses. Your statement also shows a number of ill conceived assumptions about what is alleged or theorized. Best you not say anything if you really don't want to know the facts or the theories. You will only end up embarrassing yourself.

I don't really care why the images are not of diagnostic quality: they may have been stolen from a locked safe, had Coke spilled on them, or spontaneously combusted along with Spinal Tap's drummer.

Again, if you really don't want to know, you'd have been advised not to offer an opinion ... since you'll only end up making a fool of yourself.

You will have to find someone else to play your conspiracy games with.

This is obviously not a game. A potential mass murder ... a murder involving a high government official ... a murder possibly connected to the very serious matters of Chinagate and Campaign Finance illegalities ... is not a game.

And the experts saying that an autopsy should have been performed because the wound looked suspiciously like a bullet wound were anything but conspiracy theorists. They deserve to be listened to with an open mind ... yet Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, investigated the matter (and concluded Brown died by blunt force trauma) without even interviewing them.

Nor were these experts necessarily republicans. In fact, the military photographer who brought the whole matter to light (and first said "that's looks like a bullet wound" during the examination of Brown's body) was a democrat ... one who had voted for Clinton. Wecht is a life long democrat.

You do a disservice to the fundamental idea behind this forum (that of being a skeptic) by simply dismissing these allegations in the manner you have. I think you prove you aren't really a skeptic ... just a highly partisan democrat.

I think the truth is you involved yourself in this because you thought you could discredit the allegations through claims of *expertise*. And of course, folks like beachnut, were more than happy to cite you in that manner. Then you found (on this thread) that wasn't going to work. So now you do what democrats always do when confronted with facts they can't handle (and, btw, the evidence concerning the wound and what happened at AFIP are only a part of the incriminating facts).

 

[332nd]

So, BAC, What are you doing to bring this "potential mass murder" to justice?

 

[BeAChooser]

So, BAC, What are you doing to bring this "potential mass murder" to justice?

What I can, Redtail. What I can. And your debating tactic has also been tried before in threads on this topic. I note you didn't make any attempt to respond to my responses to such tactics back then. At least you could try, like gdnp did, to come up with something halfway original now.

 

[gdnp]

What I have done is exactly what I said I would do: Evaluate a piece of evidence in a field in which I hold expertise. I found that evidence inconclusive, and stated so. I stated from the beginning, repeatedly, that I had no interest in joining the larger debate.

You will notice that there are many threads that I do not participate in here. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a prominent example. I have not not found the subject matter of sufficient interest. The same goes for Ron Brown. Even if I accepted that Clinton had Ron Brown killed, Clinton is no longer the president, and hasn't been for 8 years. I am more interested in recapitalizing the banks.

Buh Bye.

 

[beachnut]

So, BAC, What are you doing to bring this "potential mass murder" to justice?

He could if his hearsay, lies and fantasy qualified as evidence.

 

[Big Les]

I'd be interested to see how the Fackler quote came about - he is pretty much the go-to guy on wound ballistics, so if the quote is accurate and in the correct context, it does seem that there's a discrepancy.

But discrepancy does not = conspiracy, as we know all too well. Picking at the holes again, I suspect.