View Single Post
  #28  
Old June 4th 04, 07:02 AM
LaDonna Wyss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
(LaDonna Wyss) wrote:
First, I am not going to post Gus Grissom's autopsy report on the
Internet. I wouldn't even DREAM of asking Betty Grissom's permission
to do such a thing. Second, my medical credentials have nothing to do
with it.


They certainly do when you make medical statement with such certainty.

Scott had that report examined by a top forensic
pathologist; you should ask for HIS credentials.


We have done so on multiple occasions. scott has refused to supply
them. (The credentials of said pathologist are far from the only
thing he has refused to supply. He has openly admitted to concealing
evidence.)

D.


OK, THAT is one he** of a serious allegation, and I am not going to
allow it to stand. Scott is not "concealing evidence." There are
things that occur during the course of an investigation which, if
revealed at the wrong time in the wrong forum, can and do compromise
the investigation. That is NOT the same thing as concealing evidence.
Let's make certain you have that straight.
As for Scott "refusing" to supply the pathologist's credentials: I've
come to know him rather well over the past 18 months. What you
interpret as refusal is most likely Scott's propensity to forget
things. He is NOT attentive to detail. When he is deluged (such as I
have been just now with 14 postings all at once) he tends to become
overwhelmed and skips over most, if not all, of what he is being
asked. Again, perhaps a personal flaw, but not indicative he is
hiding anything. I will see about the credentials when I ask him to
tell me the pathologist's name again. If Scott is too busy flying,
I'll do my own credential search on the Internet and get it to you
that way.