Messages

Since wound ballistics is considered forensic pathology, I'm real curious who is out there doing this djbrow.

Since you're saying the medical examiner's office doesn't do these tests, please tell us who does.

I'm real, real curious about your answer.

And, since there is no dispute an autopsy was conducted, (where the medical examiner is looking for evidence of trauma or other indications of the cause of death. The process varies based on the nature of the case and is incredibly detailed -- the forensic pathologist has to adhere to an intricate, in-depth process to ensure the proper collection and documentation of evidence.After the examination, the body has an open and empty chest cavity with butterflied chest flaps, the top of the skull is missing, and the skull flaps are pulled over the face and neck.) it is silly & obscene to take the funeral director's comments at face value as Martin's body had a  deep, Y-shaped incision from shoulder to shoulder as a part of the autopsy.

You're either lying or mis-informed.

Djbrow,

Caught lying again.

And when the medical examiner's office releases the files on the Martin shooting which will include a detailed description of the bullet wound, I'll be sure to remind you.

The only one on page #18 ...so far ..

Um, "all of my posts" except the one quoting bullet paths, right?

You meant other than that one, correct?

And why haven't you answered the question, djbrow?

Who is out performing wound ballistics in a case like this, if not the medical examiner's office?

You realize you're not answering that for a specific reason, right?

Oh, and I enjoyed the quotation on Dr. Dimatio's book from:

-Irvin M. Sopher, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, State of West Virginia

If you read or have the book, it is a ballistic expert, never a medical examiner. (I'm looking at it right now).

But please continue with the name calling.

If you read or have the book, it is a ballistic expert, never a medical examiner

----------------------

I said the medical examiner's office. I said this at least 5 times.

Di Maio is a fellow of the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME)

And we certainly would consider him a ballistics expert.

Of course he is a medical doctor. I have to imagine all ballistic experts are. But this is highly specialized. As you know, a coronor wouldn't be properly trained to conduct such a procedure, nor would a general practictioner.

===========================================

Um, I never questioned whether he was a medical doctor.

I pointed out he was a medical examiner. You know, the type of people who you say are not conducting wound ballistics.

Further, I never used the word coroner, and a general practition is not a forensic pathologist. Why are you trying to conflate these things?

The findings of a ballistic expert are submitted to the police, AG, defense, and/or government depending on the case and the issues at hand.

So in other words, the findings are never in police reports, right?

So given that fact, why are you asserting that the absence of the mention in the police report is proof such testing didn't take place?

My point all along has been it was never ordered or directed here because the prosecution and/or police did not feel it was necessary.

=================================

You have no evidence to support this silly assertion.

I never claimed to be anything. That was you. I am still waiting for you to discuss how many criminal cases you have been involved with, how many cases involving bullet injuries you have tried, and how many Motions to Suppress you have filed based on initial police investigatory work at the crime scene.

As for your assertions above, by your very own link, the examiner will determine cause of death, nature of wounds, and nature of injuries. A good example would be where a victim was killed and found months later. The cause of death would be vital to determine the time of death, which may narrow potential suspects.

This is separate from a wound ballistics expert, who does not do any of the above. It isn't their area of expertise.

From Dr. Di Maio's book on distance:

"A contact wound results when the muzzle is held against the body at the time of discharge, and can be further divided into hard, loose, angled, and incomplete contact wounds. In a hard-contact wound, the muzzle is held tightly against the skin. There is little external evidence that it is a contact wound, although if you inspect the entrance you will usually find searing and powder blackening of the immediate edge of the wound, while an autopsy will reveal particles of soot and unburnt powder in the wound track. In loose-contact wounds, the muzzle is held lightly against the skin, and the soot that is carried by the gas is deposited in a zone around the entrance, which can be wiped away. In an angled-contact wound, the barrel is held at an acute angle to the skin, and gas and soot radiate outwards from where the gun does not touch the skin. In an incomplete-contact wound, the barrel is held against the skin, but in a place where the skin is not completely flat. In this case, hot sooty gases escape the gap, leaving a long blackened and seared section of the skin, with scattered grains of powder."

This is simply outside the scope of a medical examiner. If a medical examiner tried to testify to the above at trial, it would be excluded under the Frye Standard.

Thats bullshit. He said he lost sight of him. Why must you insist on being so irresponsible?

He had no obligation to leave the scene and usually people help the police locate suspicious people when they arrive.

You are being nitpicky because you are losing and grasping at straws.