But Spitz provided no examples of claws which are consistent with those wounds, and I've yet to find any elsewhere either. I'm willing to learn such an animal exist too, but I'm not going to take the claims of animal predation of faith regarding those wounds on faith, let alone such claims wounds I've only seen in very low resolution images and the many I haven't seen at all.
The mere fact that he was mentioning animal predation as a cause is evidence that he believe it to be
possible. What "examples" were provided to "prove" that the Lake knife was the murder weapon? (And, the grapefruit is
not and "example" but the overlays of one of the experts more or less proves that the Lake knife was
not the murder weapon, IMO.) If someone else thinks otherwise, that is their right and privilege. However, nothing I've seen in the actual evidence presented at the trials or post-trial proceedings convinces me.
As for biting an eyebrow with one's jaw in place, of course it can be done, just not at anywhere near the angle of incident at which the partials line up with the semicircle on Stevie branch's forehead.
I respectfully disagree. I base my opinion on the exhaustive word of a dentist who, IMO, knows more than I about bite marks and how they are formed. Again, credibility is important.
I was referring to your talk about wounds inflicted by Hobbs, not animals.
It was a bit unclear to me. However, I fail to see the significance of wounds inflicted by the killer when the discussion is about postmortem animal predation.
But again, one can't rightly determine whose conclusions are correct on such matters without actually examining the photos of wounds themselves along with whatever they are being argued as consistent with first.
Whenever a forensic pathologist seeks a confirmation opinion, the "second opinion" pathologist is usually sent photos of the bodies,
not what is believed to have caused the wounds. They state their
expert opinion about what caused wounds. That's the purpose of getting a second opinion. Peretti also formed an opinion (albeit I believe he was in error)as to what he
believed to be the COD. In fact, as he was not present at the time of death and cannot "rightly determine" the actual cause of the wounds, either, that's all he can do. That's all anyone can do.
People stating their opinions doesn't rightly prove anything in itself, regardless of what credentials they have.
True. That is also true for people (including yours, truly) who post on message boards. That's why I've always said that
only the killer and the victims know what happened on May 5, 1993, no matter what elaborate methods one uses to support his/her theory, it's only a theory. That's why, IMO, credibility and experience are so important when trying to determine if a
theory is valid and (possibly) the truth. IMO, the
theory of the State of Arkansas is not supported by the
evidence presented. IMO, the information obtained since the original trials points to a much more feasible
theory for the commission of this crime.
As to the recitation of Spitz's testimony, I don't believe that
any of the experts are
wholly correct. I believe that there is
some truth in
all of their testimonies, but that the
whole truth lies "between the lines" so to speak. As was stated above, they are, after all merely expressing their opinions. However, as I have repeatedly stated, IMO, their opinions are more logical than the
theory of the State, supported by
their employee, Peretti. The fact that Spitz didn't provide an example of the precise animal that caused the injury in question is not a deal-breaker for me. The fact that Spitz and
several other certified forensic pathologists and odontologists
all agree that
some amount of postmortem animal predation is involved is, IMO, the pertinent point of the testimony.