(my comments in red Quoting grayhuze in black)
I am sure you meant bullet right? OMG a typo! :shame:
Anyhow, I would have to see the actual photograph because your entire opinion is based on a photograph that is a still shot from a video and is very grainy.
No, Im basing the fact of the exit points location and size on the autopsy report and Horns testimony. Yes the only pic available for now is grainy, but you can see the damage.
If what you are saying is true then why was horn so quick to point out that the brain in younger adult fills out that portion more than older adults.
Because at the time JW, was suggesting it may have somehow missed the brain. Same thing you say, despite the fact that its anatomically impossible based on the actual evidence.
I think he knows it's close. He observed the brain and it was symmetrical. He was confident that a bullet had not traveled through the brain after observing the serial cross sections and noted that the observation was mildly ("somewhat") limited do to decomposition.
Going to the autopsy report, but ignoring his testimony explaining all of it? OK then. First once again you either dont understand what youre reading or are purposefully misinterpreting what it says. It doesnt say anything close to a bullet had not traveled through the brain at all, quite the opposite in fact. The wound track
traverses the right anterior fossa
. Guess what that fossa houses? The right frontal lobe of the brain. It couldnt have traversed the fossa from below it, so that means it traversed the brain, the right frontal lobe. What does symmetrical have to do this? That simply means that it was a healthy brain in a healthy body when TA was alive, it was not deformed in life. In testimony he described the sectioning as being similar to pulling a knife through pudding. As for no apparent trauma, if you pull your finger through pudding, does the track it leaves remain or disappear? He said he was not able to see it due to decomposition, not that it was never there, he said it had to have been there. He did find no hemorrhaging though, why do you think that was?
Now, if the bullet did hit the brain does that mean Travis was immediately incapacitated? NO. I found it not credible that Horn had never heard of another case where a bullet hit the brain and the person was not immediately incapacitated.
That is, once again, not his testimony. First JW was using projectile not bullet in her question and Horn narrowed his answer to similar cases in his and in his colleagues experience. He was asked if research was a part of his job and answered no, but said he has read articles but none he could quote that day. Judging his conclusion (based on similar cases) as not credible is IMO from you either not understanding the medical facts, refusing to listen to him and/or ignoring the tricks JW plays with her word games. Yes, in fairly rare cases people have survived gunshots to the head and even fewer were not incapacitated. They make the news because its not the normal result. But those people did not sustain the same type of injury that TA did, they are not similar cases. Their wound path, as statistics show, is front to back and do not crash through the cranial plate. That means two concussive events, one is normally enough to cause incapacitation.
I also find it not credible and none of you seem to want to address it, is the fact that Horn said "I don't remember ever speaking to Flores about this case" This is the highest profile case of his career. How is that possible?
Apparently you dont read my replies because I did answer this question and explained why I believe it along with your following thoughts & questions below. Its still up there AFAIK.
I think it's much more believable that Flores heard exactly what Horn told him on numerous occasions. The supplemental report says
"The initial report from Dr. Horn was that the gunshot wound to Travis' head would not have been fatal. The gunshot would have possibly disabled him temporarily." So, is Flores lying when he says Horn told him that? or did he just not hear Horn correctly? There are two element in this sentence. Not fatal and disabled temporarily. Did he hear incorrectly regarding both of those elements? Did he also hear Horn incorrectly on two other occasions? How convenient that Horn doesn't remember or recall any of those conversations. Again, in the highest profile case of his career. I find this not credible. I think if we apply the same standard we did to Sammuals, Laviolette and others, we might see things more honestly. Something isn't right in this scenario.
What is not right in this scenario, in my opinion, is that you are accusing Horn, Flores and by extension, JM, of criminal acts without any evidence other than I think, it seems or I find along with a lack of understanding of the medical facts. Horn is an MD who specialized in forensic pathology at top rated schools, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he held a different opinion. As for using the same standards as I did with Samuels and ALV, thats a joke, right? They were destroyed by the lack of evidence used, tests not performed properly and extremely apparent bias in their testimony while Horn offered medically trained opinion of physical evidence along w/the written and photographic evidence upon which it was based.