Believe me or not I could not care less
That makes two of us then.
But we are talking about someone pretending he has inside information even though I was the one who explained to you the process and the various documents that existed. You obvious forgot that. I explained which documents the campaign team publicly released and which they did not and I even referred you to the limited information contained in the Court of Appeal ruling.
This:
"Dr Fowler’s evidence
1. The evidence of Dr Fowler is set out in a more substantial report. That report has been peer reviewed by Dr Dragovich, who is Chief Medical Examiner in Oakland County, Michigan and Dr Marcella Fierro, who is the retired Chief Medical Examiner to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Both have qualifications as forensic pathologists. In his careful report, Dr Fowler makes clear that he has reviewed the evidence, which was available in relation to the wounds.
He concluded that the abrasions found were consistent with those of a rifle without a silencer, that there were no distinctive marks on the body which showed that a silencer had been attached, and the residue was consistent with contact wounds. He refers to further work that needs doing, a matter to which I will return in a moment.
2. The Commission's judgment on this matter, which is set out carefully in its decision, is at paragraphs 360 to 362. First of all, it is said that Dr Fowler did not deal with the fact that there was no residue found in the rifle, but there was the blood flake found in the silencer. Although there is really no answer to the first half of that observation, as regards the second there is the point, on which I was prepared to make an assumption, namely that there may be a problem with the blood flake. I have made that assumption because it seems to me that it is possible to do so by reference to the other reasons given by the Commission. The first is the fact that the evidence of Dr Fowler does not grapple with the evidence of the fight in the kitchen and the paint evidence, to which I have referred; second, it does not grapple with the contemporaneous evidence of Mr Fletcher and Dr Vanezis at the trial, which dealt with these issues; third, the Commission took the view that the injuries could well have been caused by another process.
3. It is accepted realistically by Mr McKay that those are formidable points. I cannot see how one can begin to say those are points that the Commission can in any way be criticised for arriving at. They must be plainly within that ambit of judgment open to the Commission. It therefore seems to me very, very difficult to see how, on the analysis that I have briefly summarised, the conclusion in relation to the evidence of Dr Fowler is susceptible to challenge"
This details as plain as day that Fowler said abrasions were consistent with being made by the rifle barrel. WHich abrasions? The part of his report made public states the abrasions around the lower wound. Vanezis assessed it was a bullet abrasion and dirt ring while he assessed it was actually a muzzle burn aka muzzle imprint.
You claim to have inside information but don't even understand with specificity what he was claiming. You only know the conclusion he came to was that the moderator wasn't attached. Despite not understanding his argument and thus not being able to be in a position to evaluate the merits of his claims you simply believe him though the CCRC and COA said his conclusions could not be trusted- in part because he himself said more work needs to be done to prove his claims to be true. Only a fool would accept his claims at true under such circumstances.
