Simple
Mistake or Obstruction of Justice: How to Decide?
So how do we determine
if Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay made a simple mistake or obstructed
justice?
The most straightforward
way to make this determination is to:
-
Create images showing
all possible positions of the trajectory rod.
-
Look at each image and
ask the question:
"Is it reasonable to believe
that the highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists Drs.
Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay when examining the autopsy photographs showing
a straight trajectory rod in this position mistakenly
failed to notice that the position of the rod could not have followed the
bent wound path that they described?"
Simple Mistake:
If we answer
the above question with "yes" for every image, then we can conclude that
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay made a simple mistake when they overlooked
the fact that a straight trajectory rod could not be inserted through a
bent wound path.
Obstruction of Justice:
On the other
hand, if we answer "no, it is not reasonable to believe that
the highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists Drs. Luke,
Stahl, Hirsch & Reay when examining the autopsy photographs showing
a straight trajectory rod in this position mistakenly failed to
notice that the position of the rod could not have followed the bent wound
path that they described", then since Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay
failed to report the fact that a straight trajectory rod inserted
through Foster's head contradicted their locations of the wounds in Foster's
head, we can conclude that Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay either
-
knew that the trajectory
rod was inserted through a fabricated wound path, and obstructed
justice by willful failure to report that fact
or
-
obstructed justice by
falsely reporting the location of one or more of the wounds in Foster's
head.
In either case, Drs. Luke,
Stahl, Hirsch & Reay will have obstructed justice. The quibble
is only about how they did it -- by willful omission (option A) or
by commission (option B).
A way to see
the answer
Did the highly trained,
experienced and expert forensic pathologists Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch &
Reay make a simple mistake or did they obstruct justice?
All we have to do to
see the answer is look at a few images.
Looking
At The Trajectory Rod Inserted Through Foster's Head
There are an infinite
number of possible positions of a trajectory rod through Foster's head.
We will begin with three possible positions, then address all the others.
The three positions
of the trajectory rod considered first are:
 Position
1: The trajectory rod was inserted through the wound next to the foramen
magnum and through the exit wound at the center of the back of the skull. |
 Position
2: The trajectory rod was inserted through the entrance wound "at
central midline, soft palate"
and through the wound next to the foramen magnum. |
 Position
3: The trajectory rod was inserted through the entrance wound "at
central midline, soft palate"
and through the exit wound at the center of the back of the skull. |
Position
1
If we assume that Dr.
Beyer inserted the trajectory rod through the wound next to the foramen
magnum and through the exit wound at the center of the back of the skull,
then the trajectory rod wound have been in relation to the skull as shown
in the figure below:
Observations:
-
The trajectory rod misses
the entrance wound reported by Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay as being
"at
central midline, soft palate"
by a wide margin.
-
The trajectory rod would
have protruded from the far left side of Foster's mouth.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert and expert
forensic pathologists could have seen photographs showing a trajectory
rod protruding out the far left side of Foster's mouth and mistakenly
not realized that the rod could not possibly have been inserted through
an entrance wound located "at
central midline, soft palate"? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Conclusion for this
possible position of the trajectory rod:
It
absurd to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs showing a trajectory rod protruding
out the far left side of Foster's mouth and not have realized that the
rod could not possibly have been inserted through the entrance wound they
located "at
central midline, soft palate".
Therefore, if the autopsy
photographs show the trajectory rod in this position then Drs. Luke, Stahl,
Hirsch & Reay obstructed justice,
either
-
by willfully withholding
the fact that the trajectory rod was inserted through a fabricated wound
path
or
-
by falsely reporting that
the entrance wound was "at
central midline, soft palate"
when they knew that the entrance wound was not at that location.
Position
2
If we assume that Dr.
Beyer inserted the trajectory rod through the entrance wound "at
central midline, soft palate" and
through the wound next to the foramen magnum, then the trajectory rod wound
have traversed the head as shown in the figure below:
Observations:
-
The trajectory rod misses
the exit wound reported by Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay as being
"through
comminuted central occipital skull defect at posterior occiput"
by a wide margin.
-
The trajectory rod passed
through an exit wound not reported in the autopsy.
-
The trajectory rod is
at approximately a thirty degree angle to the path of the bullet trough
the head as described by Dr. Beyer in sworn testimony.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod protruding
far to the left of the "comminuted
... skull defect",
yet mistakenly report that the exit wound was actually "through
the comminuted ... skull defect"? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod through an
exit wound not reported in the autopsy yet mistakenly fail to report
this finding in their review of the autopsy? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod that would
be at approximately a thirty degree angle to the path of the bullet through
the head as described by Dr. Beyer in sworn testimony, yet mistakenly
fail to report that fact in their review of the autopsy doctors work? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Conclusion for this
position of the trajectory rod:
| It is
absurd to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod protruding
far to the left of the "comminuted
... skull defect",
yet mistakenly report that the exit wound was actually "through
the comminuted ... skull defect" |
|
| It is
absurd to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod through an
exit wound not reported in the autopsy yet mistakenly fail to report
this finding in their review of the autopsy. |
|
| It is
absurd to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod that would
be at approximately a thirty degree angle to the path of the bullet through
the head as described by Dr. Beyer in sworn testimony, yet mistakenly
fail to report that fact in their review of the autopsy doctors work. |
|
Therefore,
if the autopsy photographs show the trajectory rod in this position then
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay obstructed justice, either
-
by willfully withholding
the fact that the trajectory rod was inserted through a fabricated wound
path
or
-
by falsely reporting that
the exit wound was "through
comminuted central occipital skull defect"
when they knew that the exit wound was not at that location.
Position
3
If we assume that Dr.
Beyer inserted the trajectory rod through the entrance wound "at
central midline, soft palate"
and through the exit wound at the center of the back of the skull, then
the trajectory rod wound have appeared as shown in the figure below:
Observations:
-
The trajectory rod misses
the wound next to the foramen magnum by a wide margin contradicting the
finding by Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay that the bullet "entered
the cranial cavity directly to the left of the foramen magnum"
[607]
-
The trajectory rod is
approximately at a fifteen degree angle with the arrow drawn on page 4
of the autopsy report which Dr. Beyer, in sworn testimony, said indicated
the path of the bullet through the head,
-
The trajectory rod passes
through the center of the brain, contradicting the statement by Drs. Luke,
Stahl, Hirsch & Reay that the bullet penetrated the "left
cerebral hemisphere"
of the brain.
-
The trajectory rod passes
through the center of the brain stem, contradicting the statement by Drs.
Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay that the bullet "contused
the left side of the brain stem".
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod aligned with
the center of the foramen magnum, yet mistakenly report that the
bullet
"entered
the cranial cavity directly to the left of the foramen magnum"? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod that would
have been at an approximate fifteen degree angle to the arrow depicting
the path of the bullet through the skull, yet mistakenly fail to
report that fact in their review of the autopsy? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic
pathologists could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod aligned with
the center of the brain, and then mistakenly report that the bullet
penetrated the "left
cerebral hemisphere"
of the brain? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Is it reasonable ...?
| Is it
reasonable to believe highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod aligned with the center
of the brain, and then mistakenly report that the bullet "contused
the left side of the brain stem"? |
|
Answer:
No, it is
not reasonable -- in fact it would be absurd to believe expert forensic
pathologists would make a that sort of mistake.
Conclusion for this
position of the trajectory rod:
| It absurd
to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod aligned with the center
of the foramen magnum, yet mistakenly report that the bullet "entered
the cranial cavity directly to the left of the foramen magnum". |
|
| It absurd
to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod that would have been at
a fifteen degree angle to the arrow depicting the path of the bullet through
the skull, yet mistakenly fail to report that fact in their review
of the autopsy. |
|
| It absurd
to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod aligned with the center
of the brain, and then mistakenly report that the bullet penetrated
the
"left
cerebral hemisphere"
of the brain. |
|
| It absurd
to believe that highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
could have seen photographs of a trajectory rod aligned with the center
of the brain, and then mistakenly report that the bullet "contused
the left side of the brain stem". |
|
Therefore,
if the autopsy photographs show the trajectory rod in this position, then
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay obstructed justice, either
-
by willfully withholding
the fact that the trajectory rod was inserted through a fabricated wound
path
or
-
by falsely reporting that
the exit wound was "through
comminuted central occipital skull defect"
when they knew that the exit wound was not at that location; by falsely
reporting that the bullet "contused
the left side of the brain stem" when
they knew that it didn't, and by falsely reporting that the bullet "entered
the cranial cavity directly to the left of the foramen magnum" when
they knew that it didn't.
All
Other Possible Positions Of The Trajectory Rod
So far we have examined
three of an infinite number of possible positions of the trajectory rod.
This section outlines a process for examining all the other positions.
We begin by noting
that each of the three positions examined had the trajectory rod passing
through two of the wounds described by Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay.
Therefore all other
possible positions of the trajectory rod would pass through 0 or 1 of the
wounds reported by Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay.
Here are a few examples
of a trajectory rod positioned through 0 or 1 of the official wounds:
  
We leave it as an exercise
for the reader to enumerate all the other possible positions of the trajectory
rod that pass through 0 or 1 of the official wounds, examine that position
and apply the above process. Specifically, for each possible position
of the trajectory rod ask the question:
Is it reasonable
to believe that the highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay could have seen photographs of a trajectory
rod inserted in this position and not have understood that something was
amiss?
Perhaps if Dan Moldea
has time, he will take on this project.
Conclusion:
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay are Guilty of Obstruction of Justice
Because it is absurd
to believe that the highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay could have seen photographs of a straight
trajectory rod inserted through the wound path they described and mistakenly
not have noticed that something was amiss, and because Drs. Luke, Stahl,
Hirsch & Reay did not report that anything was amiss in their reports
to the official investigators, it is clear that Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch
& Reay obstructed justice, either
-
by willfully withholding
the fact that the trajectory rod was inserted through a fabricated wound
path
or
-
by falsely reporting the
location of one or more wounds to Foster's head.
Summary
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch
& Reay the highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists
that want you to believe ....
| ... there
is a point on Foster's soft palate that lies directly behind his lower
lip . . . |
 |
| . . .
and that the official trajectory rod looked like this. . . |
 |
. . are the same highly
trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists that want you to
believe them when they tell you:
Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch
& Reay should be afforded the opportunity to explain their work, their
methodology and their conclusions -- to a judge and jury.
Post
Script: Dr. Henry Lee's Location Of The Entrance Wound
Assiduously avoiding
the specter of specificity that put Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay
in a box, Dr. Henry Lee (Kenneth Starr's highly trained, experienced and
expert forensic pathologist) reported that the entrance wound was somewhere
in Foster's mouth.
From footnote 177,
page 61 of the Starr Report (emphasis added):
[177]
Blackbourne Report at 2. In his report, Dr.
Lee similarly states -- based on examination
of the scene photographs, the medical examiner's report, and the autopsy
photographs -- that "it is clear that Mr. Foster died as a result
of a single gunshot wound," that "[t]he entrance
of this wound was in his mouth," and
that "the bullet appears to have exited through the back of Mr. Foster's
head." Lee Report at 486.
Since the mouth is not
the throat, I suppose that we have Dr. Henry Lee on record as agreeing
with Drs. Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay that the entrance wound was not
in the posterior oropharynx. I wonder if Dr. Lee would go so far
as to place the entrance wound "at
central midline soft palate, 7 1/2 inches below top of head"?
My guess is that Dr.
Henry Lee is much too smart to try a stunt like that.
By the way, I find
Dr. Lee's description of the bullet exit quite interesting.
Where Drs. Beyer,
Luke, Stahl, Hirsch & Reay unequivocally tell us that the bullet exited
through the back of the head, Dr. Lee hedges. The best that Dr Henry Lee
can come up with is to say that "the bullet appears
to have exited through the back of Mr. Foster's head".
It seems that the highly
trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists employed to discover
to the truth are convinced that Vincent Foster committed suicide by a self-inflicted
gunshot to the head.
The only thing these
highly trained, experienced and expert forensic pathologists aren't quite
sure of is where the bullet entered and whether it exited or not.
jc
huntington
revised
4/2000
|
