Since wound ballistics is considered forensic pathology, I'm real curious who is out there doing this djbrow.
Ballastic tests go far beyond testing the gun that was fired. They include an examination of the wound to determine distance, angles, trajectory, and powder burns. None of which was done here.
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.
Ballastic tests go far beyond testing the gun that was fired. They include an examination of the wound to determine distance, angles, trajectory, and powder burns. None of which was done here.
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.
That is my point. A medical examiner's office doesn't perform wound ballistics. A medical examiner's officer performs an autopsy.
Really?
Now remember, you asserted that wound ballistics " include an examination of the wound to determine distance, angles, trajectory, and powder burns"
Well, in an interview with Atlanta's Fulton County Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Eric Kiesel we learn:
The essence of the medical examiner's job is to use his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound. Depending on the type of wound or weapon used, this can get difficult. Dr. Kiesel talks about those difficulties:
[When] they weren't shot once, they were shot 13 times or 20 times ... you've got to sort out paths of all these bullets. You've got to figure out where each bullet went. The old way of doing it was, 'Well, he's got 10 holes on the front, there are eight holes on the back, and there's two bullets inside, we're done.' [The] legal system won't accept that anymore.
That is my point. A medical examiner's office doesn't perform wound ballistics. A medical examiner's officer performs an autopsy.
Really?
Now remember, you asserted that wound ballistics " include an examination of the wound to determine distance, angles, trajectory, and powder burns"
Well, in an interview with Atlanta's Fulton County Deputy Chief Medical Examiner Eric Kiesel we learn:
The essence of the medical examiner's job is to use his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound. Depending on the type of wound or weapon used, this can get difficult. Dr. Kiesel talks about those difficulties:
[When] they weren't shot once, they were shot 13 times or 20 times ... you've got to sort out paths of all these bullets. You've got to figure out where each bullet went. The old way of doing it was, 'Well, he's got 10 holes on the front, there are eight holes on the back, and there's two bullets inside, we're done.' [The] legal system won't accept that anymore.
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.
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.
All of your posts deal with cause of death (medical examiner, autopsy). That is not the purpose of wound ballistics which is to determine angles, burns, fragments, etc. for verification of trajectory, etc.
For a good read on wound ballistics, Dr. Dimatio is a genious in the field.
By the way, do you realize why you are the only one calling names, making accusations, etc.?All of your posts deal with cause of death (medical examiner, autopsy). That is not the purpose of wound ballistics which is to determine angles, burns, fragments, etc. for verification of trajectory, etc.
For a good read on wound ballistics, Dr. Dimatio is a genious in the field.
By the way, do you realize why you are the only one calling names, making accusations, etc.?By the way, do you realize why you are the only one calling names, making accusations, etc.?
The only one on page #18 ...so far ..
By the way, do you realize why you are the only one calling names, making accusations, etc.?
The only one on page #18 ...so far ..
Well....I do appreciate you bringing a different perspective.
With that being said, I don't think there was corruption, racism (although maybe some unintended indirect perceptions of black youth), or a sinister act.
I just think there was a very quick rush to judgment that prevented a full range of evidence from coming to light which has spoiled this case, sadly.
Well....I do appreciate you bringing a different perspective.
With that being said, I don't think there was corruption, racism (although maybe some unintended indirect perceptions of black youth), or a sinister act.
I just think there was a very quick rush to judgment that prevented a full range of evidence from coming to light which has spoiled this case, sadly.
All of your posts deal with cause of death (medical examiner, autopsy). That is not the purpose of wound ballistics which is to determine angles, burns, fragments, etc. for verification of trajectory, etc.
For a good read on wound ballistics, Dr. Dimatio is a genious in the field.
By the way, do you realize why you are the only one calling names, making accusations, etc.?
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
All of your posts deal with cause of death (medical examiner, autopsy). That is not the purpose of wound ballistics which is to determine angles, burns, fragments, etc. for verification of trajectory, etc.
For a good read on wound ballistics, Dr. Dimatio is a genious in the field.
By the way, do you realize why you are the only one calling names, making accusations, etc.?
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
All of your posts deal with cause of death (medical examiner, autopsy). That is not the purpose of wound ballistics which is to determine angles, burns, fragments, etc. for verification of trajectory, etc.
Um, that would be a lie. The essence of the medical examiner's job is to use his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound
You realize you're the only one here lying, right?
All of your posts deal with cause of death (medical examiner, autopsy). That is not the purpose of wound ballistics which is to determine angles, burns, fragments, etc. for verification of trajectory, etc.
Um, that would be a lie. The essence of the medical examiner's job is to use his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound
You realize you're the only one here lying, right?
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.
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'm looking at it right now).
Di Maio is a veteran of the U.S. Army Medical Corps, and served as chief medical examiner of San Antonio, Texas until 2006
If you read or have the book, it is a ballistic expert, never a medical examiner. (I'm looking at it right now).
Di Maio is a veteran of the U.S. Army Medical Corps, and served as chief medical examiner of San Antonio, Texas until 2006
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So in sum. Djbrow asserts:
[Wound ballistics] was never ordered or directed here because the prosecution and/or police did not feel it was necessary.
Yet, the police don't tell the medical examiner whether or not to do an autopsy, and nor does the prosecution. Further, as a part of the autopsy, the medical examiner uses his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound. Finally, neither the police nor prosection tell ballistic experts when or how to do their jobs.
Then, djbrow pretends that wound ballistics are done by "experts" who are not the medical examiner and the big piece of evidence to support this assertion is Dr. DiMaio's book which is praised by medical examiners and Dr. DiMaio was a medical examiner.
He also is a well regarded member of the National Association of Medical Examiners.
So djbrow is talking in circles here.
Or lying.
Or not who he claims to be.
So in sum. Djbrow asserts:
[Wound ballistics] was never ordered or directed here because the prosecution and/or police did not feel it was necessary.
Yet, the police don't tell the medical examiner whether or not to do an autopsy, and nor does the prosecution. Further, as a part of the autopsy, the medical examiner uses his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound. Finally, neither the police nor prosection tell ballistic experts when or how to do their jobs.
Then, djbrow pretends that wound ballistics are done by "experts" who are not the medical examiner and the big piece of evidence to support this assertion is Dr. DiMaio's book which is praised by medical examiners and Dr. DiMaio was a medical examiner.
He also is a well regarded member of the National Association of Medical Examiners.
So djbrow is talking in circles here.
Or lying.
Or not who he claims to be.
Z made it sound like he was reaching for the door handle and was "allegedly" attacked. When in fact the confrontation happened 3 blocks away for Z's vehicle.
Really?
Why don't you show us where you getting this bombshell information.
Z made it sound like he was reaching for the door handle and was "allegedly" attacked. When in fact the confrontation happened 3 blocks away for Z's vehicle.
Really?
Why don't you show us where you getting this bombshell information.
So in sum. Djbrow asserts:
[Wound ballistics] was never ordered or directed here because the prosecution and/or police did not feel it was necessary.
Yet, the police don't tell the medical examiner whether or not to do an autopsy, and nor does the prosecution. Further, as a part of the autopsy, the medical examiner uses his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound. Finally, neither the police nor prosection tell ballistic experts when or how to do their jobs.
Then, djbrow pretends that wound ballistics are done by "experts" who are not the medical examiner and the big piece of evidence to support this assertion is Dr. DiMaio's book which is praised by medical examiners and Dr. DiMaio was a medical examiner.
He also is a well regarded member of the National Association of Medical Examiners.
So djbrow is talking in circles here.
Or lying.
Or not who he claims to be.
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.
So in sum. Djbrow asserts:
[Wound ballistics] was never ordered or directed here because the prosecution and/or police did not feel it was necessary.
Yet, the police don't tell the medical examiner whether or not to do an autopsy, and nor does the prosecution. Further, as a part of the autopsy, the medical examiner uses his or her skill and experience to determine the true nature and cause of a particular wound. Finally, neither the police nor prosection tell ballistic experts when or how to do their jobs.
Then, djbrow pretends that wound ballistics are done by "experts" who are not the medical examiner and the big piece of evidence to support this assertion is Dr. DiMaio's book which is praised by medical examiners and Dr. DiMaio was a medical examiner.
He also is a well regarded member of the National Association of Medical Examiners.
So djbrow is talking in circles here.
Or lying.
Or not who he claims to be.
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?
Thats bullshit. He said he lost sight of him. Why must you insist on being so irresponsible?
Thats bullshit. He said he lost sight of him. Why must you insist on being so irresponsible?
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.
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.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.