From: grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant)
Subject: unmarried shooters
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  9 SEP 92 13:05:03 PDT


re: 3196  (David Wright)


||In the past we have discussed some aspects of Dr. John K. Lattimer's
||analysis of the medical and ballistics evidence of the assassination.
||But it has been sporadic and un-systematic. 

|Let's see here. The last time I responded to Joel, we were in the
|middle of some very interesting debate that apparently Joel is now
|ignoreing. Will Joel do this again, start a debate, then leave town,
|and bring up another? Call me Charlie Brown, but I will once again
|try to refute these ideas!

	Ah, and here it is.  Several days before I was compelled to
	leave town on business for several weeks I announced that
	I was going to be leaving and suggested that folks like
	David Wright take their shots while I was still in town.
	I gave an estimated time of return to alt.jfk and was
	pretty close to that date.  And now, a couple of months 
	after the fact, David suggests I am ignoring - what?  And
	wonders if I might leave town again?

	Well, if my company tells me to fly to New England or
	California or whatever for a few weeks then I guess I
	will be out of town.

	In the meantime, if there is something from the past you
	want to bring up, bring it up.


|| I intend, over the
||next couple of weeks or so, to set forth Dr. Lattimer's principal
||research results, point by point. 

|Lattimer is a goof ball.

	Terrific.

||Across the board, the single-assassin scenario has been confirmed.

|What does this mean? In deciding weather a man is guilty of a crime,
|there are rules of evidence that are followed to secure the accuracy 
|of the phyisical evidence. These rules were not followed in the JFK
|case, so we have no idea on wheather the phyisical analysis is correct
|or not. Readers familiar with the case know that every official body
|at that time lied and coverup evidence, so instead of supposing that
|the phyisical evidence is secure, we should in fact suppose the
|opposite and be higly skeptical of it's authenticity.

	You ask "what does this mean?" and then provide a
	non-responsive answer.

	The single-assassin scenario has been confirmed by the
	medical evidence that shows shots only from behind,
	and by the ballistic evidence that shows the shots 
	came only from one gun.  In a nutshell, that's why
	the single-assassin scenario has been confirmed.

	As to the identity of the assassin, that's another
	matter and other evidence is used to make that
	determination.

||...  Their medical
||panel, for instance, included forensic anthropologists who
||determined conclusively that the individual seen in the
||autopsy x-rays and photographs was John F. Kennedy and no other
||person. 

|Are you saying that that the JFK case should be decided by experts?
|That is too bad, since few people are experts. The overiding consensus
|of the testimony of the individuals invovled point to the fact that
|the Xrays and Photos are not accurate. Note that one expert, Groden,
|did *not* find that the xrays and photos were originals, and claimed
|that they are fakes.

	Even Blakey, no friend of the WC, said that Groden has a
	tendency to overreach the evidence.

	As for the overriding consensus of the testimony of the
	individuals involved etc., etc., I assume you mean Parkland
	doctors and/or Bethesda witnesses?  Your statement is not
	clear.

	Few people are experts, which is why their expertise is so
	valuable.  Courts recognize, for instance, people like 
	Agent Frazier as being trained and experienced in particular
	aspects of criminal investigation.  And when investigating
	a crime it is vitally important to carefully weigh expert
	analysis of those aspects of the crime where such expertise
	can be brought to bear.  That's the way crimes are investigated,
	and the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the experts
	does not support your theories is just too bad for you, eh?

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy.jfk:3182 alt.conspiracy:10494 alt.activism:16036 alt.society.civil-liberty:5684 alt.individualism:5363 alt.censorship:7387 talk.politics.misc:44158 misc.headlines:6249 soc.culture.usa:7173