JFK Conspiracy Theories VII: Late November back in '63...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
His thesis has not changed from day one. Hank and I have been posting the testimony that counters his claim non-stop for over a year. He ignores it, or hand-waves it away. In the above post he asks me to quote the testimony, which I have done at least twice, and yet he seems shocked that the doctors said anything.

That is the problem when your starting point is "Everything the Government said was a lie". There is nowhere to go, nothing to draw from but CT-source material, and in most cases those books (which he didn't buy) were written to prove a conspiracy, and not to solve the murder.

It's the old, "They've stacked the odds against us" myth that allows CTists to wallow in their delusional thinking. The important details are ignored( the ballistics, the rifle, Oswald's actions before and after the assassination), and instead they focus on incongruities. In MJ's case he has grossly misread, and misinterpreted the autopsy, and the testimonies of the pathologists. We've seen him do the same in the 9/11 forum with WTC-7, and the technical data from the NIST report; another document he is not qualified to dispute, so he draws on the opinions of other CTists to base his claims on without understanding the source material, nor the underlying science behind it.

I'm not a doctor, or medical professional, so I have to accept the original autopsy results based on the fact that there are THREE PATHOLOGISTS'S SIGNATURES on the document. 3 pathologists were in the room working on JFK. It takes 11 to 14 years of medical school to become a pathologist, and that's 4 to 6 years longer than a typical MD. I hate going to the doctor because I enter a world where my knowledge is limited. On the other hand, I would never take medical advice from my barber, or my mechanic, or even my mom. Yet that is what MJ expects me and you all to do - take his layman's word for it.
Click to expand...

Much the same behavior as manifesto with all his bare assertions, of which he has yet to post any evidence, just his explanations. As if we care about his explanations.;)
 
Let me guess, you're never going to quote what you're talking about? I know it's because you have nothing and it's kind of embarrassing.

The official autopsy result was that both the small EOP wound and the large "exit" head wound were caused by a single round going through the head. You can't even trust the "above" in the "projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased" part, because we know the pathologists indicated on the night of the autopsy that the large head wound and it's area of 'exit' beveling on a piece of skull was anatomically higher than the small 'entrance' wound.

Officially, the brain was not properly sectioned to trace the path of the bullet(s). So the reported inward beveling of the small head wound and outward beveling of a skull fragment are the only evidence provided by the pathologists that it was one, even though this could have indicated more than one under some circumstances.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Let me guess, you're never going to quote what you're talking about? I know it's because you have nothing and it's kind of embarrassing.

The official autopsy result was that both the small EOP wound and the large "exit" head wound were caused by a single round going through the head. You can't even trust the "above" in the "projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased" part, because we know the pathologists indicated on the night of the autopsy that the large head wound and it's area of 'exit' beveling on a piece of skull was anatomically higher than the small 'entrance' wound.

Officially, the brain was not properly sectioned to trace the path of the bullet(s). So the reported inward beveling of the small head wound and outward beveling of a skull fragment are the only evidence provided by the pathologists that it was one, even though this could have indicated more than one under some circumstances.
Click to expand...

Where did the shot come from?
 
Here's a teaser: I'm quite close to closing out my inquiries involving "CSI" Sherry Fiester. tonight or tomorrow I should have it finished.
 
MicahJava said:
..... the "projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased" part, because we know the pathologists indicated on the night of the autopsy that the large head wound and it's area of 'exit' beveling on a piece of skull was anatomically higher than the small 'entrance' wound.....
Click to expand...

Its really embarrassing for you that you still cannot understand how that is possible.
 
MicahJava said:
Let me guess, you're never going to quote what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Here's a quotation from what I was talking about: two stanzas from Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" (1834):

It is an ancient Mariner,
And he stoppeth one of three.
'By thy long grey beard and glittering eye,
Now wherefore stopp'st thou me?

[...]

[The Mariner] holds him with his skinny hand,
'There was a ship,' quoth he.
'Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!'
[etc...]
 
RoboTimbo said:
Where did the shot come from?
Click to expand...

Yes, let's cut to the chase. Are you saying that the true EOP entry wound (in your view) precludes a 6th-floor TSBD shooter, or is your relocation of the entry wound merely "academic"?
 
Axxman300 said:
That is the problem when your starting point is "Everything the Government said was a lie".
Click to expand...

I agree, Axxman. And that's why I asked manifesto a week or more ago why he accepts the HSCA's conclusion about gunshot acoustics. The answer is obvious, of course, but his acceptance of that sole government finding is inconsistent and opportunistic in light of the syllogism he seems to live by: if the government says it, it must be rejected as official deception. Why, then, is the HSCA's acoustics conclusion exempted from the force of this syllogism?
 
MicahJava said:
[IMGw=500]https://i.imgur.com/OwvE4GG.jpg[/IMGw]
Click to expand...

A couple of insights, MJ.

First and for the umpteenth time the entry on this image is way to low to be accurate with the autopsy findings. Surely you can see this?;)
Second you will note that since JFK is looking down and to the left, and placing the entry wound further up, then the trajectory is right on from the 6th floor of the TSBD.;)

I'm so embarrassed for you.;)
 
MicahJava said:
[IMGw=500]https://i.imgur.com/OwvE4GG.jpg[/IMGw]
Click to expand...

Is this a page from one of the volumes by Barry Krusch, the guy who offers to pay $25,000 (later revised to $100,000) to anyone who can disprove his Oswald-Didn't-Do-It thesis before an arbitrator or a "virtual jury"? Krusch claims that there is "absolutely no" evidence that LHO shot JFK. This is your proffer of evidence?
 
bknight said:
A couple of insights, MJ.

First and for the umpteenth time the entry on this image is way to low to be accurate with the autopsy findings. Surely you can see this?;)
Second you will note that since JFK is looking down and to the left, and placing the entry wound further up, then the trajectory is right on from the 6th floor of the TSBD.;)

I'm so embarrassed for you.;)
Click to expand...

And add to that, the area shown as the exit wound/blown out skull in teh above photo is simply not correct. It was further forward than that.

JFK-Dox.jpg


So the projected exit wound was physically lower (even though it was anatomically higher) because JFK's head was tilted forward.

Of course the only thing left now is why was the skull cap blown off above the bullet path. I can answer that in two words....

Pressure cavity.

The whole idea that the bullet itself blew the top of JFK's skull of is just another example of CT nuttery.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
And add to that, the area shown as the exit wound/blown out skull in teh above photo is simply not correct. It was further forward than that.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/qdki1cgvh3su3bh/JFK-Dox.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

So the projected exit wound was physically lower (even though it was anatomically higher) because JFK's head was tilted forward.

Of course the only thing left now is why was the skull cap blown off above the bullet path. I can answer that in two words....

Pressure cavity.

The whole idea that the bullet itself blew the top of JFK's skull of is just another example of CT nuttery.
Click to expand...

The autopsy pathologists have never changed their reporting. They said the wound was lower.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy pathologists have never changed their reporting. They said the wound was lower.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my Krusch question. Is that the guy? You should always attribute quoted material when you post it.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy pathologists have never changed their reporting. They said the wound was lower.
Click to expand...

The drawing I posted was used by the HSCA (Exhibit F66).

NONE of the pathologists or medical experts who testified before the HSCA questioned the accuracy of this drawing. NONE of them, despite having numerous clear opportunities to do so.
 
OKBob said:
Is this a page from one of the volumes by Barry Krusch, the guy who offers to pay $25,000 (later revised to $100,000) to anyone who can disprove his Oswald-Didn't-Do-It thesis before an arbitrator or a "virtual jury"? Krusch claims that there is "absolutely no" evidence that LHO shot JFK. This is your proffer of evidence?
Click to expand...

I assume he is the final judge of this arbitration?
 
bknight said:
I assume he is the final judge of this arbitration?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't think anyone has accepted his challenge, though he specifically called out Bugliosi and Bill O'Reilly for the challenge. I suspect that anyone who takes the position that there is absolutely no evidence against Oswald would find many ways of avoiding defeat.
 
smartcooky said:
The drawing I posted was used by the HSCA (Exhibit F66).

NONE of the pathologists or medical experts who testified before the HSCA questioned the accuracy of this drawing. NONE of them, despite having numerous clear opportunities to do so.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, you just don't know what you're talking about. I see.
 
OKBob said:
Is this a page from one of the volumes by Barry Krusch, the guy who offers to pay $25,000 (later revised to $100,000) to anyone who can disprove his Oswald-Didn't-Do-It thesis before an arbitrator or a "virtual jury"? Krusch claims that there is "absolutely no" evidence that LHO shot JFK. This is your proffer of evidence?
Click to expand...

The reason I asked was there is this guy, Anders Bjorkman, that doesn't know much about space travel with his specialty the Moon Hoax. He "offered" one million Euros for anyone to prove he was incorrect that Apollo didn't carry sufficient fuel to brake from TL to Lunar orbit and he was the arbitrator of the "offer". Of course no one won, even though NASA put 12 men on the Moon in the 60's-70's. smartcooky, abaddon know of him better thatn I.

http://www.members.tripod.com/heiwaco/moontravel.htm
 
bknight said:
The reason I asked was there is this guy, Anders Bjorkman, that doesn't know much about space travel with his specialty the Moon Hoax. He "offered" one million Euros for anyone to prove he was incorrect that Apollo didn't carry sufficient fuel to brake from TL to Lunar orbit and he was the arbitrator of the "offer".
Click to expand...

Sounds like the same MO. And of course when fractally wrong claimants get no takers for their advertised challenges, they take silence as further evidence that they can't be defeated and that their claims are therefore true. When somebody states, as part of his $25,000 challenge, that there is "no evidence" that Oswald did it, you just know that the contest would be profoundly subjective, skewed, and unwinnable, from the start. This kind of prove-me-wrong offer essentially invites contestants to prove a negative. This guy stated that there would be an arbitrator or a "virtual jury," but I don't know who those judges would be or how they would perform their adjudicative role.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RoboTimbo said:
Where did the shot come from, MicahJava?
Click to expand...

It's unlikely that MJ will be responsive. He appears now to have entered a period of proud silence, standing on his dignity. He rests his case by simply restating it again and again in a language of argumentative minimalism. He pities those who can't recognize the magnitude of his discovery, and will not condescend to elaborate.
 
OKBob said:
bknight said:
The reason I asked was there is this guy, Anders Bjorkman, that doesn't know much about space travel with his specialty the Moon Hoax. He "offered" one million Euros for anyone to prove he was incorrect that Apollo didn't carry sufficient fuel to brake from TL to Lunar orbit and he was the arbitrator of the "offer".
Click to expand...

Sounds like the same MO. And of course when fractally wrong claimants get no takers for their advertised challenges, they take silence as further evidence that they can't be defeated and that their claims are therefore true. When somebody states, as part of his $25,000 challenge, that there is "no evidence" that Oswald did it, you just know that the contest would be profoundly subjective, skewed, and unwinnable, from the start. This kind of prove-me-wrong offer essentially invites contestants to prove a negative. This guy stated that there would be an arbitrator or a "virtual jury," but I don't know who those judges would be or how they would perform their adjudicative role.
Click to expand...

Jay probably wasted more time than others in attempting to point out Anders faults. But I get the idea. I have seen that diagram many times but don't know all the places that it might be linked. MJ, as Axxman300 has pointed out does not understand the autopsy. And then he labors to tell us that the pathologists lied in the HSCA when memory has faded and there were inconsistencies in there testimonies.
 
bknight said:
Jay probably wasted more time than others in attempting to point out Anders faults. But I get the idea. I have seen that diagram many times but don't know all the places that it might be linked. MJ, as Axxman300 has pointed out does not understand the autopsy. And then he labors to tell us that the pathologists lied in the HSCA when memory has faded and there were inconsistencies in there testimonies.
Click to expand...

It's also the ballistics. What MJ doesn't understand/ignores is that there is a three to four centimeter(maybe more) variance for where exactly the entry wound is located without effecting the trajectory from the corner window of the 6th floor or the TSBD. He claims it does, and he claims the bullet entered near the base of the skull, which it did not.
 
Axxman300 said:
It's also the ballistics. What MJ doesn't understand/ignores is that there is a three to four centimeter(maybe more) variance for where exactly the entry wound is located without effecting the trajectory from the corner window of the 6th floor or the TSBD. He claims it does, and he claims the bullet entered near the base of the skull, which it did not.
Click to expand...

I like how you're bragging about not being able to identify any particular entry wound on the x-rays.
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you're bragging about not being able to identify any particular entry wound on the x-rays.
Click to expand...

I'll let Axxman300 speak for himself, but my comment is that all of the rest of the world hasn't seen all of the x-ray images, so any conclusion would be speculative.
 
Now that I’ve heard back from all my sources that assisted me in this, here are my findings:

Towards the end of May one of our CTist posters cited blood spatter evidence from a source I was unfamiliar with – Sherry Fiester, A.K.A. Sherry P (Pool) Fiester, Sherry G (Gutierrez) Fiester.

Her bio, from her site:

http://www.sherryfiester.com/about.html

Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

Fiester has presented forensic findings at the Coalition on Political Assassinations Conference (COPA) in Washington, DC in 1995, the Dealey Plaza Echo Annual Kennedy Assassination Conference in the United Kingdom in 1996, and at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Historical Research Conferences since 1996. Fiester is a recipient of the prestigious JFK Lancer-Mary Ferrell New Pioneer Award, presented for advancing a better understanding of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination through innovative research.

Now retired from police work, Fiester is a prominent author, lecturer, and educator. "Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the JFK Assassination" is her first in a series of upcoming publications utilizing various forensic disciplines to address important subjects of interest to Americans in the 21st century. Her next book, "Demystifying Mind Control" is slated for release in late 2013.

Never having heard of Ms. Fiester or her book, I set out to determine if the information in her bio was factual.

Let’s go point by point:

Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience.

The statement on its face is impossible to verify without additional information. There are various online “universities” that offer courses in “Crime Scene Investigation” and it’s entirely possible that someone that has never been employed in the field could receive some sort of “degree” as a CSI. My first task was to attempt to determine where Ms. Fiester had been employed and with what agency had she served.

The only clue I had to go by at the time was the statement further on in her bio specifying Louisiana.

I have several LE contacts in La., both retired and active. I e’d folks and made some calls to friends and asked them to ask around – not one person I spoke with recognized her name right off the bat (at that point I had not discovered the AKA’s) but that didn’t mean that she had not served. As an aside, when folks asked why I was interested in her and I explained it was related to the JFK assassination the reaction was either an expletive, a laugh, or the observation that “you have too much time on your hands.”

She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida.

For this I enlisted the assistance of a researcher employed by my attorney, using his electronic legal database service, with the attorney’s knowledge and permission – it cost me a very expensive lunch.

Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

This part was relatively straight forward. I contacted active and retired forensic science wonks and CSI’s I know through my service and asked them Do you know her or her work? If so please point me in the right direction and if not, could you ask around?

While I was waiting for information to come back, I whipped out google and other search engine fu and some time at the SF public library, looking for any publications regarding CSI or forensics written by Ms. Fiester. During the ‘net portion I discovered Ms. Fiester’s Linkedin profile, which listed the two agencies she claims to have been employed by for a total of 15 years, 3 months. It also lists her education achievements, two years at a University specifying two subjects, neither science related, no degree cited. It does not include any mention of her instructing in CSI or forensics at any level.

One of the things I turned up online was a post at JFK Lancer announcing her death. It was written by Debra Conway, one of the owners of JFK Lancer and stated that Ms. Fiester was her sister.

I emailed Ms. Conway requesting assistance in locating any information concerning her sister’s written work regarding CSI and/or forensics, and requested information pertaining to where her sister had taught in these subjects.

The final two paragraphs in Ms. Fiester’s bio are immaterial to my inquiries.

Conclusions:

1. It can’t be determined by my sources and my own work that Ms. Fiester or her A.K.A’s has ever worked as a sworn LEO or as a CSI (sworn or otherwise) in Louisiana. Even having the names of the two agencies she cited in her Linkedin profile didn’t pan out – one agency told my source they never heard of her. The other never responded to phone inquires from a serving La. LEO. I wasn’t asking for any personal or sensitive information, just a simple yes or no. One individual listed in her Linkedin profile was in-fact a serving LEO. He hasn’t responded to my inquiry or to the inquiry from one of my guys back there that is a serving LEO. General inquiries of retired and serving LEO’s in my circle and my guys didn’t turn up anyone that knew Ms. Fiester. It’s possible that Ms. Fiester could have had some type of connection to law enforcement in some other capacity than what she claimed, but as of the time of this writing there is no evidence past her assertion that she served as a LEO or worked in the field that she claims.

2. There is no evidence that comes up in available electronic databases of criminal court cases, state and federal nationwide, that includes testimony from Ms. Fiester or her A.K.A.’s. Even after I acquired the names of the two agencies she claims to have served with and had the search focused on those two counties nothing came up. My source for this information was able to run defined searches and looked for her name(s) in combination with her specified expertise in different variations in all documents in the various databases he has access to and there were no results – Ms. Fiester is a ghost wrt any of her claimed expertise (there were results that she came up not related to my inquiries) as an expert witness in the field.

3. Debra Conway was kind enough to get back to me concerning my inquiry about her sister’s writings and activities as a forensic/CSI instructor. She informed me that she had her sister’s computer but had not opened it, but did provide me with this link:

https://portlandtribune.com/cr/24-n...-follows-the-clues-at-oregon-city-high-school

At a crime scene, witnesses may be untrustworthy, but “blood spatter doesn’t lie.”

These are the words that Sherry Fiester lives by, and words she shared with 70 students at Oregon City High School last week when she presented a three-day seminar, “CSI: Forensics.”

The above led me to this:

http://ochspioneers.org/sites/default/files/article-files/OC-CSI.pdf

Day 1: April 6th - OCHS FBI Blood Spatter Analysis Training with expert Sherry Fiester

My sources in forensics/CSI from local to the federal level did not discover any materials written by Ms. Fiester related to forensics/CSI other than her JFK assassination book. No retired or active forensics/CSI that I contacted has ever heard of Ms. Fiester before my inquiries. She did not attend or graduate from FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) a common professional education step for certification in various forensic disciplines. She was not a degreed professional in any forensic related field, something that is critical for someone who claims to be qualified as an expert witness in court – defense attorneys drool at the thought of getting a prosecution witness on a stand testifying on science related issues with nothing more than otj training and experience.

There is no evidence past the high-school seminar cited above that Ms. Fiester has ever instructed on forensics/CSI.

As the late great Herb Caen put it:

Tips, check ‘em and lose ‘em.

If any evidence comes my way that indicates Ms. Fiester was in fact what she claimed to be, I will post same.

If anyone feels the need, please do your own due diligence and look into this for yourself.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
This is the drawing of the head wounds approved by Dr. Humes for the Warren Commission:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/YarocRW.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Looks like he was shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD then.

Thanks for the help.

So you're saying that manifest is wrong?
 
BStrong said:
Now that I’ve heard back from all my sources that assisted me in this, here are my findings:

Towards the end of May one of our CTist posters cited blood spatter evidence from a source I was unfamiliar with – Sherry Fiester, A.K.A. Sherry P (Pool) Fiester, Sherry G (Gutierrez) Fiester.

Her bio, from her site:

http://www.sherryfiester.com/about.html

Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

Fiester has presented forensic findings at the Coalition on Political Assassinations Conference (COPA) in Washington, DC in 1995, the Dealey Plaza Echo Annual Kennedy Assassination Conference in the United Kingdom in 1996, and at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Historical Research Conferences since 1996. Fiester is a recipient of the prestigious JFK Lancer-Mary Ferrell New Pioneer Award, presented for advancing a better understanding of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination through innovative research.

Now retired from police work, Fiester is a prominent author, lecturer, and educator. "Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the JFK Assassination" is her first in a series of upcoming publications utilizing various forensic disciplines to address important subjects of interest to Americans in the 21st century. Her next book, "Demystifying Mind Control" is slated for release in late 2013.

Never having heard of Ms. Fiester or her book, I set out to determine if the information in her bio was factual.

Let’s go point by point:

Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience.

The statement on its face is impossible to verify without additional information. There are various online “universities” that offer courses in “Crime Scene Investigation” and it’s entirely possible that someone that has never been employed in the field could receive some sort of “degree” as a CSI. My first task was to attempt to determine where Ms. Fiester had been employed and with what agency had she served.

The only clue I had to go by at the time was the statement further on in her bio specifying Louisiana.

I have several LE contacts in La., both retired and active. I e’d folks and made some calls to friends and asked them to ask around – not one person I spoke with recognized her name right off the bat (at that point I had not discovered the AKA’s) but that didn’t mean that she had not served. As an aside, when folks asked why I was interested in her and I explained it was related to the JFK assassination the reaction was either an expletive, a laugh, or the observation that “you have too much time on your hands.”

She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida.

For this I enlisted the assistance of a researcher employed by my attorney, using his electronic legal database service, with the attorney’s knowledge and permission – it cost me a very expensive lunch.

Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

This part was relatively straight forward. I contacted active and retired forensic science wonks and CSI’s I know through my service and asked them Do you know her or her work? If so please point me in the right direction and if not, could you ask around?

While I was waiting for information to come back, I whipped out google and other search engine fu and some time at the SF public library, looking for any publications regarding CSI or forensics written by Ms. Fiester. During the ‘net portion I discovered Ms. Fiester’s Linkedin profile, which listed the two agencies she claims to have been employed by for a total of 15 years, 3 months. It also lists her education achievements, two years at a University specifying two subjects, neither science related, no degree cited. It does not include any mention of her instructing in CSI or forensics at any level.

One of the things I turned up online was a post at JFK Lancer announcing her death. It was written by Debra Conway, one of the owners of JFK Lancer and stated that Ms. Fiester was her sister.

I emailed Ms. Conway requesting assistance in locating any information concerning her sister’s written work regarding CSI and/or forensics, and requested information pertaining to where her sister had taught in these subjects.
Click to expand...


Could/would you be able to give the gist of her email reply?
The final two paragraphs in Ms. Fiester’s bio are immaterial to my inquiries.

Conclusions:

1. It can’t be determined by my sources and my own work that Ms. Fiester or her A.K.A’s has ever worked as a sworn LEO or as a CSI (sworn or otherwise) in Louisiana. Even having the names of the two agencies she cited in her Linkedin profile didn’t pan out – one agency told my source they never heard of her. The other never responded to phone inquires from a serving La. LEO. I wasn’t asking for any personal or sensitive information, just a simple yes or no. One individual listed in her Linkedin profile was in-fact a serving LEO. He hasn’t responded to my inquiry or to the inquiry from one of my guys back there that is a serving LEO. General inquiries of retired and serving LEO’s in my circle and my guys didn’t turn up anyone that knew Ms. Fiester. It’s possible that Ms. Fiester could have had some type of connection to law enforcement in some other capacity than what she claimed, but as of the time of this writing there is no evidence past her assertion that she served as a LEO or worked in the field that she claims.

2. There is no evidence that comes up in available electronic databases of criminal court cases, state and federal nationwide, that includes testimony from Ms. Fiester or her A.K.A.’s. Even after I acquired the names of the two agencies she claims to have served with and had the search focused on those two counties nothing came up. My source for this information was able to run defined searches and looked for her name(s) in combination with her specified expertise in different variations in all documents in the various databases he has access to and there were no results – Ms. Fiester is a ghost wrt any of her claimed expertise (there were results that she came up not related to my inquiries) as an expert witness in the field.

3. Debra Conway was kind enough to get back to me concerning my inquiry about her sister’s writings and activities as a forensic/CSI instructor. She informed me that she had her sister’s computer but had not opened it, but did provide me with this link:

https://portlandtribune.com/cr/24-n...-follows-the-clues-at-oregon-city-high-school

At a crime scene, witnesses may be untrustworthy, but “blood spatter doesn’t lie.”

These are the words that Sherry Fiester lives by, and words she shared with 70 students at Oregon City High School last week when she presented a three-day seminar, “CSI: Forensics.”

The above led me to this:

http://ochspioneers.org/sites/default/files/article-files/OC-CSI.pdf

Day 1: April 6th - OCHS FBI Blood Spatter Analysis Training with expert Sherry Fiester

My sources in forensics/CSI from local to the federal level did not discover any materials written by Ms. Fiester related to forensics/CSI other than her JFK assassination book. No retired or active forensics/CSI that I contacted has ever heard of Ms. Fiester before my inquiries. She did not attend or graduate from FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) a common professional education step for certification in various forensic disciplines. She was not a degreed professional in any forensic related field, something that is critical for someone who claims to be qualified as an expert witness in court – defense attorneys drool at the thought of getting a prosecution witness on a stand testifying on science related issues with nothing more than otj training and experience.

There is no evidence past the high-school seminar cited above that Ms. Fiester has ever instructed on forensics/CSI.

As the late great Herb Caen put it:

Tips, check ‘em and lose ‘em.

If any evidence comes my way that indicates Ms. Fiester was in fact what she claimed to be, I will post same.

If anyone fells the need, please do your own due diligence and look into this for yourself.
Click to expand...
 
MicahJava said:
I like how you're bragging about not being able to identify any particular entry wound on the x-rays.
Click to expand...

I'm not bragging about it. I am admitting that -LIKE YOU - I have not seen all of the x-rays, nor have I seen all of the autopsy material, and therefore I am in not position to make any conclusion that runs contrary to the official autopsy.

You, on the other hand, think that you are in some way qualified to review the extremely limited material that is on line based on zero medical background whatsoever. Time and again you have revealed yourself to be lazy in your research, seeking only CT sources to back your claims while not exposing yourself to neutral background materials.

I am not a medical professional. Understanding x-rays is as much an art as it is a science, and even having my own x-rays explained to me is often a reach. This means I defer to those who can read x-rays.

I defer to the original autopsy results because I have no reason to doubt them, and in 55 years nobody has yet to give me any sound, credible reason to doubt them.

I have watched the Zapruder film. Only one bullet strikes JFK in the head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom