Split Thread Ron Brown's head wound

[BeAChooser]

Even if Ron Brown had a head wound that looked like a bullet wound, that doesn't mean it was caused by a bullet.

Of course not. Which is why all the pathologists who were involved at the time (except the one running the show) were calling for Brown to be autopsied. To prove it, one way or the other. To eliminate the uncertainty. And even the pathologist (Colonel Gormsley), who ran the show and conducted the examination of Brown's body, and who prevented an autopsy and ruled it death by blunt force trauma, eventually stated on live TV and in a deposition to Judicial Watch that his conclusion was a mistake, that the basis on which he ruled it blunt force trauma was factually wrong, and that Brown should have been autopsied because the nature of the wound was in fact a "red flag" (his words) for a bullet wound.

In fact, outside of AFIP's head, Colonel Dickerson, who can be proven to have lied about the nature of the wound and the views of his staff to the public, you can't name a single pathologist who has gone on record saying Brown didn't need an autopsy or that the wound and x-rays didn't look suspiciously like a bullet wound. In contrast, I can name half a dozen top pathologists who have said he needed an autopsy because the wound and x-rays suggested a bullet wound. It's only a Truther who would claim, given the above facts, that Brown needed no autopsy. That his was clearly an innocent death.

It could have been cause by a piece of the plane.

True, but Colonel Cogswell was specifically tasked with looking for some piece of the wreckage at the crash site that might have caused the wound ... and he did not find one. And when told what the wound looked like, he told Gormley: "Open him up. This man needs an autopsy." And Cogswell was considered one of the Air Force's top pathologists in gunshot. And he wasn't the only expert in gunshot voicing that opinion at the time.

35 people died in that plane crash.

Which makes it all the more irresponsible that Brown wasn't autopsied because this may have been a mass murder.

 

[TheRedWorm]

The way these conspiracies go, I'm pretty sure you could have a believer attend the autopsy themselves, and still reject any findings that don't conform to their preconceived notions.

 

[BStrong]

Dr. Fackler has forgotten more about wound ballistics than any of us will ever know, but short of some special types of pre-fragmented ammo, no .45 slug that I'm familar with isn't going to produce an exit wound wrt any type of headshot.

Was the head wound the sole injury sustained by Brown?

 

[BeAChooser]

The way these conspiracies go, I'm pretty sure you could have a believer attend the autopsy themselves, and still reject any findings that don't conform to their preconceived notions.

That concern has also been addressed in previous threads. Have you bothered to even read them before opening your mouth?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Is that your stock response to posts? THAT"S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED! READ THE THREADS!!!

I just made a general comment based on the CT mindset. If you'd like to buck that trend, be my guest.

 

[BeAChooser]

Dr. Fackler has forgotten more about wound ballistics than any of us will ever know, but short of some special types of pre-fragmented ammo, no .45 slug that I'm familar with isn't going to produce an exit wound wrt any type of headshot.

Christopher Ruddy reported in "Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" published December 03, 1997, that

He [Fackler] also was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using several calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole."

Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies.

And bullets do strange things sometimes. Without an autopsy, one simply can't rule out that this was a bullet wound. Not given all the noted facts.

Was the head wound the sole injury sustained by Brown?

No, but Dr Cyril Wecht, one of the foremost pathologists in the US, concluded from all the material available on Brown's condition, that other than the hole in his head, there were no life threatening injuries.

 

[BeAChooser]

Is that your stock response to posts? THAT"S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED! READ THE THREADS!!!

I'm a little tired of debating Truthers who are too lazy to open and read the few threads linked above where all the facts and issues have already thoroughly discussed. It's why I stopped posting on 9/11 Truther threads. You can't convince a 9/11 Truther and I'm finding that's also true of RonBrownTruthers and VinceFosterTruthers. So if you want to throw out a strawman like *you can't convince the conspiracists anyway* on this thread, go ahead ... act like a RonBrownTruther. Your concern is nothing but unfounded speculation anyway, designed ONLY to keep people from looking further AT THE FACTS. And I think you know it. I pointed you in the right direction and if you don't want to go there, it's your choice. Or would YOU like to buck the trend, and actually discuss THE FACTS, for once?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Since you seem to care so deeply about them, how do you know you are not the one who is a Ron Brown and Vince Foster truther? At the very least, your use of smileys suggests there is some truth to this.

 

[BeAChooser]

how do you know you are not the one who is a Ron Brown and Vince Foster truther?

I've explained in those other threads you refuse to read why it's people on your side of this issue who fit Truther characteristics. If you want to challenge me on that, with specifics, then I direct you to post #52 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7312455&postcount=52) which has links to some of my posts where 911/RonBrown/VinceFoster Truther characteristics are listed in detail. Why don't you go respond to those posts?

At the very least, your use of smileys suggests there is some truth to this.

I really don't care what you think of my smileys. You no more understand their use (which has also been explained in past threads), then you understand the facts in the Ron Brown case. So if you want to focus on my smileys to avoid discussing the facts in the Ron Brown matter, fine. I understand. In fact, that's one of the behaviors I noted 911Truthers tend to do. See? I really do understand.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I've explained in those other threads you refuse to read why it's people on your side of this issue who fit Truther characteristics. If you want to challenge me on that, with specifics, then I direct you to post #52 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7312455&postcount=52) which has links to some of my posts where 911/RonBrown/VinceFoster Truther characteristics are listed in detail. Why don't you go respond to those posts?

Well, I could care less about Ron Brown or Vince Foster, but I'd have to be dead or in a coma. I made a general comment in this thread to no one in particular. That you personally took offense to it is of no concern to me.

 

[BeAChooser]

I could care less about Ron Brown or Vince Foster

Yet, here you are. No one forced you to post on this thread. Odd behavior for someone with no interest.

I made a general comment in this thread to no one in particular.

LOL! Oh sure, you weren't taking sides in this debate.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Yet, here you are. No one forced you to post on this thread. Odd behavior for someone with no interest.


LOL! Oh sure, you weren't taking sides in this debate.

See, I commented on the CT mindset, and you saw it as taking sides. This is not my problem.

As I said previously, I don't care about either Rob Brown or Vince Foster, and as such, I'll let you have the last word. Ta

 

[BeAChooser]

See, I commented on the CT mindset, and you saw it as taking sides.

You said "I'm pretty sure you could have a believer attend the autopsy themselves, and still reject any findings that don't conform to their preconceived notions.". That's far from an innocuous statement in the context of the thread. Not unless you were trying to say that even if an autopsy revealed unmistakable indications of a bullet wound, one side would still go on claiming there was no foul play. Were you?

 

[fess]

BAC, if I may ask, have you ever witnessed or seen a head wound caused by a bullet, especially a .45 cal. round? There is a massive amount of damage to the skull, not just a hole in the head. There is also a lot of radial fracturing of the skull associated with these types of wounds. And a .45 cal. round would not fragment into tiny pieces that are unrecognizable. Not to forget that in most cases there is also an exit wound. That is not shown in your pictures at all.

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, if I may ask, have you ever witnessed or seen a head wound caused by a bullet, especially a .45 cal. round?

LOL! So here we have another JREF *skeptic* who thinks he knows more than those half dozen top forensic pathologists I named (the only ones on record, by the way) who actually examined the wound and x-rays, and who undoubtedly have vast experience compared to you with regard to gunshot wounds. And why are you so sure it was a .45 caliber round given what I noted Dr Fackler indicated above (you did bother to read that, didn't you?)?

 

[fess]

LOL! So here we have another JREF *skeptic* who thinks he knows more than those half dozen top forensic pathologists I named (the only ones on record, by the way) who actually examined the wound and x-rays, and who undoubtedly have vast experience compared to you with regard to gunshot wounds. And why are you so sure it was a .45 caliber round given what I noted Dr Fackler indicated above (you did bother to read that, didn't you?)?

Whoa there big boy… before you let your alligator mouth show off your piss ant butt, where did I claim to be an expert? Not to mention the fact that you have no idea who I am, what I do, or what I might do with the rest of my life.

So, why don’t you address my post instead of running your mouth? You did say that you wanted to discuss the facts… did you not?

Where did I get the idea it was a .45 cal. Round? By reading your original post which stated;

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 ...

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

... snip ...

 

[BeAChooser]

where did I claim to be an expert?

Oh ... so you said "There is a massive amount of damage to the skull, not just a hole in the head. There is also a lot of radial fracturing of the skull associated with these types of wounds. And a .45 cal. round would not fragment into tiny pieces that are unrecognizable. Not to forget that in most cases there is also an exit wound," you weren't claiming special knowledge of .45 caliber wounds? I see.

So, why don’t you address my post instead of running your mouth?

I did address your point. And my answer was quite clear.

First, I noted it wasn't necessarily a .45 caliber round. Dr Martin Fackler is an honest to gosh expert in such things and said it wasn't, as discussed above. May I suggest before "running your mouth" further, you read beyond the OP and perhaps even read the other threads on this topic that one of my posts above linked.

Second, the only real experts on gunshot in this case (i.e., all the forensic pathologists with considerable verifiable experience in gunshot injuries who examined Brown's wound and the x-rays of his head) all seemed to agree, with the exception for Colonel Dickerson who I proved in the various linked Brown threads lied about the nature of the wound and the opinions of his expert staff in public statements, that the wound they saw first hand or in photos could be due to a bullet, that the tiny pieces of metal they saw in the x-rays were characteristic of bullet wounds, that the bullet wouldn't necessarily have left an exit wound, and that Brown should have been autopsied because of all that.

In fact, if you read the other threads you'll even find that there was sworn testimony by the military photographer who witnessed the examination to the effect that Gormley did not even look for an exit wound so one could have existed and simply wasn't recorded. Also, no one claimed that the round fragmented into tiny pieces. Only that when bullets pass through bone, metal flecks can be shaved off the exterior and left behind along the trajectory of the bullet, leaving a lead snowstorm. Again, go read the rest of what has been previously discussed in these various threads.

Where did I get the idea it was a .45 cal. Round? By reading your original post which stated;

Fine. Now go read the rest of the thread and the discussion.

 

[BeAChooser]

And by the way, are you sure you really know what a .45 caliber round (were that what it was) will do? What do some other internet *experts* say?

http://www.emtlife.com/archive/index.php/t-22480.html

usafmedic45
03-06-2011, 01:39 AM
Speaking as a former deputy coroner, it's not uncommon for even "large caliber" rounds not to exit the skull (especially if they are hollow points or "wadcutter" rounds, mostly due to the decreased mass of the round and increased tendency to mushroom). It's not until you get into the magnum rounds where you're pretty much guaranteed an exit wound. I've seen several suicides with .45 rounds to the head where the slug was just sitting in skull or under the skin.

Why shouldn't we believe him more than you?

Or this?

http://www.ebr-inc.net/45ACPFrangible.html

The other day two wild dogs were converging on my dog in an aggressive manner. The closest weapon I had was my 1911. I shot each dog once with your EBR frangible .45 ammo. Both dogs dropped and there was no exit wound.

Or this?

http://www.aippg.net/forum/f26/young-man-shot-45-a-78155/

A young man is shot with a .45 caliber revolver, point blank in the lower abdomen, just above the pubis. The entrance wound is at the midline, and there is no exit wound. X-ray films show the bullet embedded in the sacral promontory, to the right of the midline.

 

[fess]

I did address your point. And my answer was quite clear.

Fine. Now go read the rest of the thread and the discussion.

No, you didn’t address my post. The only thing you did do is show your acute sense of arrogance. If you can’t be civil, then don’t bother answering my posts.

I have read the thread, including your links that lead only to other posts written by you that basically say nothing but the same thing, over and over.

 

[fess]

And by the way, are you sure you really know what a .45 caliber round (were that what it was) will do? What do some other internet *experts* say?

http://www.emtlife.com/archive/index.php/t-22480.html



Why shouldn't we believe him more than you?

Or this?

http://www.ebr-inc.net/45ACPFrangible.html



Or this?

http://www.aippg.net/forum/f26/young-man-shot-45-a-78155/

So, EMT’s are experts? Being that I am an EMT-P, that would make me an expert? I think a court of law may argue that point with you. But thanks for the compliment any way.

You did a nice job of cherry picking your quotes. However, had you read all of them, you would have found that some of the experts in your link agreed with my original post.

And yes, I have seen gunshot wounds, including being on the receiving end.