[PMCarey]

He would shred you in a debate.

That he might and then you would do research on what he was claiming and find out that he misquotes, misleads, and makes things up. The only verifiable cases of lies and deceit in this case have all been done by conspiracy authors.

For examples of how this applies to Wecht, you might want to read:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.txt

In which Dr. Robert Artwohl takes Wecht to task for several mistakes and omissions and darned if the good doctor didn't have a response to Artwohl's questions. In fact, he seemed rather miffed at being challenged.

[GaryL]

Thank you for this posting this interesting information regarding Dr. Wecht!

This sort of supports a point I've been making for a number of years about Dr. Wecht: I'm sure he's a wonderful pathologist (as he seemingly nevers tires of letting us know). And, yes, the autopsy was not as thorough as it should have been. I'm sure Dr. Wecht would have done a better job (again, as he seemingly never tires of letting us know!).

But my observation is that he has way too much of an "emotional" and, by now, "financial" involvement in this case for his opinions ever to be accepted at "face value" or as unbiased.

Let's face it, he's made quite a name for himself as the media's favorite forensic authority on the assassination. By contrast, Dr. Baden, another well-known and respected pathologist who totally disagrees with Dr. Wecht's conclusions gets about one-tenth the camera time of Dr. Wecht on this issue. The media is in love with Dr. Wecht.