wilsodh
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 400
I'll try this one more time. When he says that there is a small amount of blood in the Paracardial Sac, he is saying it was nicked with the knife and
there was a little bleeding. Then when referring to the lungs he writes: exuding moderate amount of blood and intermixed frothy decompositional fluid. This again indicates that while the lung did not suffer a significant puncture, there is new bleeding inside the lungs from a wound to the lungs. The next line that you quote: "There are no areas of induration, consolidation, hemorrhage, or gross scarring". These terms are all used when the lungs are being examined for disease processes such as Black Lung, the COPD family of diseases, Cystic Fibrosis, Asbestosis, and such lung injuries. I know you and your ilk won't accept this explanation, but I feel compelled to try to help you understand. You can look those four words up for yourself and see what they all relate to, if you want to, but whatever. If you look up hemorrhage of the lung by itself you will get information that supports your narrow view, but if you look the four terms up together you will actually get a better idea of what that line is actually saying, and it isn't what you are trying to make it say. The blood in the lungs from a disease process looks different than freshly spilled blood. Similar to signs of hemorrhage in the stomach gives the appearance of coffee grounds when it is vomited out.
After death, blood seeks the lowest point. I could not find it right now and I am not real concerned about finding it. But anyway, he did comment on the discoloration in gluteal and upper posterior thigh regions due to the blood settling there. Similar to what you see in the hands and feet, that blackish color. Anything in the torso (a realatively open area) area would settle to the Gluteal area that was in the bottom of the shower. Once he was placed in the shower, the blood started draining downward due to gravity. The same thing would have happened in the head, as his head was turned to the right and he was slumped that way. We can see it in the hands and feet, also.
I don't disagree that he could have written a more detailed report. But, the information is there, and it is not what you think it is or what you are trying to twist it to be. I can easily see why someone would read the report and think it says one thing, but be way of base with that assumption. In many places it seems his brain is going faster than his fingers and type, and he leaves out details that should be there and would make the report easier to read and understand.
I know you and your ilk...
...supports your narrow view...
<sigh> Alrighty then.
Well... 'reckon I'll try one more time also. With your textbook clarifications (yes, of course I checked the terms beforehand) you are missing the point of the argument: how strong, really, is the evidence of knife-first? We agree that Horn's autopsy report was skimpy, but you stop short of acknowledging that this weakens the reliability of the evidence, and instead attempt to fill in the gaps yourself in order to support your view of what happened. Further, you don't acknowledge the potential impact of decomposition on the reliability of the evidence, despite Horn's own warning about this.
So we are left with three factors that weaken the argument for knife-first based on intracranial hemorrhaging: 1) lack of thoroughness and detail in the autopsy report, 2) decomposition of the tissues, and 3) Horn's own acknowledgement (in testimony and in the autopsy report) that decomposition of the body limited the certainty of his observations. What many of our "ilk" are saying is the evidence is clearly not strong enough to rule out a gun-first scenario. I don't think we are saying a knife-first scenario is impossible. We have been trying to apply careful analysis of the evidence with a critical eye toward its reliability to see what scenario seems to fit best. I don't know about you, but this is the reason why I log on to Websleuths every day (a habit I wish I could break!).
On the other hand, many of those who ardently defend knife-first seem to be taking more of a dogmatic approach, generally assuming Horn is infallible, not deeply examining and questioning the evidence and testimony, and instead questioning (sometimes disrespectfully) those of us who question the state's scenario.
You may say I have a narrow view, but if you go back to my post (#1555), this is what I wrote:
I would suggest that this evidence, while consistent with a knife-first scenario, is insufficient to rule out a gun-first scenario.
In other words, if Horn were asked in court "Is is possible that the decomposition of the area made it difficult to ascertain with certainty whether Travis was alive when he was shot?"
How do we think Horn would answer?
In my book, thinking for ourselves, questioning a prevailing view, deeply exploring the evidence, and trying to make the most sense of what the evidence presents us with is not an exercise in narrow thinking. It is opening up alternative possibilities. That's what keeps me logging on everyday.
So how do YOU think Horn would have answered the question above?
Dave