Author Topic: Vintage article  (Read 5719 times)

TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Vintage article
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:42:51 am »
This 1995 article must be Sherry posting under her married or maiden name, or an alias:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=171908

Cutty

  • Guest
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2013, 11:09:18 pm »
Uh huh ............... as she has stated, the understanding and acceptance of blood spatter analysis and related forensic/ballistic science has taken decades to evolve. She spent the last ten years compiling the book as I recall. ;)

Mitch C.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2013, 10:55:48 am »
I read the entire article, and this is a good introduction for me to Sherry's work. I need to read the book. One question, where do you all feel the audio evidence (specifically the last quick succession shots...bang-bang!) fit into this. Assuming there is only one head shot, which "bang" was it, and what wound, if any, did the other "bang" cause?

At least one other researcher theorizes that the bang-bang represents two head shots not quite simultaneously, from back...then fatal shot from the front. But the blood spatter evidence as interpreted by the articles author disputes this apparently.

Cutty

  • Guest
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2013, 01:50:20 pm »
^ Yes, researchers have tried to explain the slight forward head movement before the "back and to the left" reaction as one shot from the rear followed immediately by the frontal shot. Years of lab trials using incredibly high speed photograpy have now proven that, in the case of ballistic skull wounds, the head moves into the bullet, against the bullet's direction of travel. I have also been working on a video that explains how, following the slight forward movement, the shot from the south knoll produced a transfer of kinetic energy causing the "back and to the left" reaction as explained in "Enemy Of The Truth."

As for the audio evidence, it has always been a big point of interest to me & you may recall that I tried to replicate shots at points in the Z film suggested by Bob Harris here in the studio. The problem I have encountered is the ambiguity of the existing physical audio evidence combined with the unreliability of conflicting earwitness testimony. There is an entire chapter on earwitnesses in "Enemy Of The Truth".  IMO, "Bang ... bang, bang" still suggests that the Carcano couldn't be fired so quickly but the new forensic evidence trumps that, no? It proves at least 2 shooters were firing, as we know Governor Connally was hit from behind, and again, the one and only head shot came from the front.

Another point I have come to realize is that in all of the previous audio trials they would have to have placed all trial shooters in the correct positions (south knoll not included?) to achieve matches to existing audio evidence. I don't believe the consideration of the location of the open mic to the dictabelt was done with much precision either. Results do include one sound attributed to a firearm with no match to a location. Considering all possible backfires, fireworks and rifle reports confused by the echoes of Dealey Plaza, I am less than optimistic that we can ever nail anything down with absolute certainty. I wouldn't bother to argue with Mr. Harris after he insisted that I should continue my audio study as if done from within the limo, trying to corroborate the ear witness testimony of the occupants. I tried to explain that the limo occupants were within the 10 ft. radius of any bullet that found its mark inside the vehicle so the simultaneous nature of the "sonic boom" would make that shockwave the only audible sound to the occupants and not the rifle report. That leaves it impossible to believe, with confidence, that earwitness testimony from within the limo could place the direction of origin for the shots that enterd the limo.

Well, that's what I have for now. Thoughts?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2013, 09:22:26 pm by Karl »

Mitch C.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2013, 11:41:05 am »
My thought is...I am ordering "Enemy of the Truth"  ASAP. Sounds fascinating. I was wondering what the naysayers (including Mr. Harris) arguments are to refute the only one shot to the head theory (from South Knoll). Is there anything to give pause to Sherry's theory?

Cutty

  • Guest
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2013, 08:16:06 pm »
You will enjoy the read, Mitch, it "is" fascinating and moves along easily.

Bob Harris couldn't make any argument to refute what is revealed in "Enemy Of The Truth" because, first of all, he was given a copy for free and obviously did not read it as evidenced by his statements which exhibited lack of knowledge regarding it's content. Considering the book was a threat to his theories, he paid very little attention to the technical issues being presented and chose, instead, to take a low road and question the credibility of some of the book's endorsers. I could go on but you get the idea .............. hence we have moved on.

To call the pertinent Z312 - Z313 evidence "theory" would be improper after decades of lab trials by a large number of top minds in the field have rendered "back spatter" a scientific fact. The book is overflowing with references to all of these trials with their respective dates and Sherry is a most prominent court certified expert, called upon often for her testimony on the subject.

As for the short of it, I have yet to see any challenge to the substance of her book from anyone. Now, I mean anyone, whether it be serious or off the wall from any level of expertise. As I've said, Sherry welcomes a challenge and is always eager to discuss it but I believe she will tell you that she's had no comers. There have been no dissenters among her peers. I'll be just as interested as anyone to see her challenged so we could see what would happen!! ;)
« Last Edit: August 11, 2013, 12:24:12 am by Karl »

TLR

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2013, 12:34:43 pm »
In this newsletter is another 80s-era article (by Edgar Tatro) about a South Knoll sniper:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Mack%20Gary%20Cover-up/Item%2023.pdf

Mitch C.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2013, 01:02:58 pm »
Couldn't help but notice Gary Mack's old article in the mix^. How things have changed.

I have received and am now well into "Enemy of Truth". Even separate from the subject she is addressing with her expertise, the general forensic information is fascinating and enlightening to this layman.

I suppose because Mr. Harris holds very strongly to the two shots to the head theory (one from behind followed quickly by the final front), that considering that one forward shot caused the slight forward movement toward the shot, then the violent move backward right, along with both a back and front spatter is untenable. I thought there was some merit to that theory for a long time, but facts are stubborn things.

I get the feeling Mr. Harris also has little regard for Jim Marrs, who wrote the forward and whose work is quoted from in the book. At any rate, a great read so far. I will comment additionally as I read further.

Cutty

  • Guest
Re: Vintage article
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2013, 03:07:36 pm »
Thank you, TLR, cool discoveries! ;)

Excellent, Mitch! I'll just add that Sherry's expertise is actually somewhat diversified as she was already a Louisiana law enforcement officer when she accepted an opportunity for advanced study in Crime Scene Investigation.