Recent content by cindymac

You said: "...[Flores] said plainly that Horn told him the gunshot was first and that the gunshot would not be immediately incapacitating. He was told that 3 times... How do you mistake hearing something 3 times?..." And just as I thought, (being familair with the testimony), you have no...

You're assuming that Flores heard correctly. As he is not a medical examiner, mishearing/misunderstanding/misinterpreting is a distinct possibility, and Flores concedes that this was in fact the case.

Er, I didn't make an analogy in my response. You made one in yours, and I pointed out that (a) it was false and (b) why it was false: your analogy does not involve immutable physical evidence. Would you rather I just say it's false without explaining why?

You questioned whether I'd accept it as the truth if Laviolette changed her opinion, saying she'd made a mistake. I said it's a false analogy because Dr. Horn's opinion is based on actual physical evidence that does not, and cannot, change.

That's an entirely false analogy. Medical evidence in the form of an actual physical body is what it is. It cannot change.

Well, when you get back to me with those details of those "three times" you can tell me exactly how many years you're talking about.

No, I'm not biased. I'm rational, and what you're suggesting is illogical and unfounded - pure speculation.

What? It's the same thing. That's why you said, "... mistaken about Horn ever telling him that..."

There's nothing unbelievable about it all. Please revisit the "three times" you keep referring to, and get back to me with details of how they amount to categorical unequivocal statements by Dr. Horn to Det. Flores that Travis was shot first. Don't forget to include the dates and occasions...

I'm not sure why it's clear to you, because it makes no sense. Again, if Flores was mistaken, he was mistaken - and would say so. And he did. So what? Or are you suggesting that he - a detective, not a medical expert - should have stuck to his guns and actually disputed the expert medical...

Your "reason" is simply an explanation of why you think there's something fishy going on. But there's NO reason why they would lie. As I've just explained, there's nothing to be gained. Dr. Horn's credibility didn't need maintaining, and certainly not by Det Flores. He's the Medical Examiner...

I didn't say Martinez didn't see the 48 hours show, or what Flores said on it - that's an assumption on your part. So, no need for the "wow". That show was back in 2008, at which time - as I have already said, and as Flores said - sequencing was not important. Therefore, not under particular...

Yes, I would give the same responses if Geffner said the same thing - if the situation was the same. Bottom line is, Dr. Horn says he doesn't recall saying that to Flores, Flores thought he did and/or misinterpreted things, and neither has any reason to lie - nothing to gain from it. Why...

You clearly believe that there is something nefarious going on, when there isn't. I'm not sure why you choose to believe this, because there's no evidence that this is the case - only opinion. Nor is there any reason why it would be the case. It would serve the prosecution equally well to say...

Yes, and hopefully it will help clear up any misconceptions.