Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[cynic]

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the transhymenal diameter measurement from a somewhat different perspective, specifically from within a population of children referred for examinations for suspected sexual molestation. The main question, therefore, became, "Is the horizontal transhymenal diameter of prepubertal girls, with definitive evidence of penetration trauma to the genitalia, significantly different from that of alleged victims who show no definitive physical signs of acute or chronic penetration trauma to genital tissues?"

Upper limit of "normal" transhymenal diameters as included in the Informational Guide to the California Medical Protocol for the Examination of Sexual Assault and Child Sexual Molestation Victims:
Infancy to 2y: 4mm
2-5y: 5mm
6-9y: 9mm
10y to puberty: 15mm

The graphs below summarize the results of horizontal transhymenal measurements using the supine labial separation technique among prepubertal girls selected by the presence or absence of definitive physical signs of genital trauma. Girls with no definitive signs of trauma (negative examinations) demonstrated a mean transhymenal diameter of 2.3 mm (average age, 5.0 years). Prepubertal girls whose examinations revealed the presence of definitive physical signs of genital trauma (positive examinations) exhibited a mean horizontal transhymenal measurement of 9.0 mm (average age, 6.2 years). Despite correcting for the difference in average age of the 2 populations, the difference in mean transhymenal diameter was highly significant

When compared with the results of other investigators' transhymenal measurements for prepubertal girls selected for nonabuse, the girls with negative examinations in this study exhibited similar values. For example, in the age group of 5 to 8 years, this study population of girls with negative examinations exhibited a mean transhymenal diameter of 3.3 mm compared with the mean of 4.2 mm of the study population of McCann et al. This supports the perspective that the population with negative examinations is a valid and reliable representation of "normal" genital anatomy.

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/8/5/403

Any wonder why expert after expert concluded that Jonbenet was a victim of chronic sexual abuse?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Wow, a chronic abuser can do SO MUCH with three-eighth's of an inch.

Who are you trying to kid? Yourself?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What do you mean, "before the facts are in?" They were asked to render an opinion.

This panel of doctors...

1. ...did not know what happened to JBR that night. Like us, did not know if intruder or parent murdered JBR.
2. ...did not have first hand observation. Never attended JBR in life or death. Saw nothing first hand.
3. ...excluded Dr. Meyer. The coroner was not a part of the panel.

It doesn't really matter WHY this was the case (as you put it, they were to render an opinion), what matters is the obvious position of ignorance that they were in.

 

[Ravyn]

SD and Hotyh,you two are making great points...I'm going back to the fence...These experts was asked if they believed prior sexual abuse and they agreed to that there was..But yet with them not knowing what happen that night and not knowing who killed JonBenet,was this question asked of them who done it...Or just their expert advice in sexual abuse...

 

[BBB167893]

SD and Hotyh,you two are making great points...I'm going back to the fence...These experts was asked if they believed prior sexual abuse and they agreed to that there was..But yet with them not knowing what happen that night and not knowing who killed JonBenet,was this question asked of them who done it...Or just their expert advice in sexual abuse...

VERY good question. To the very best of my knowledge, it was only their advice on sexual abuse that was asked. They never rendered an opinion as to who committed it. I don't think they were ever asked. The closest any of them came to that was when McCann stated that a child is less likely to report abuse if the abuser is a trusted figure.

 

[DeeDee249]

Children that young, when abused by someone they know, trust and/or love, do not always realize it is wrong. I am sure they feel something is not as it should be, some sense of keeping it secret. But it may not be something they think they should resist, unless it is painful or frightening.

 

[cynic]

Wow, a chronic abuser can do SO MUCH with three-eighth's of an inch.
Who are you trying to kid? Yourself?

Are you serious? This is from a medical journal dealing with parameters for the screening of children suspected to have been molested.

It doesn't really matter WHY this was the case (as you put it, they were to render an opinion), what matters is the obvious position of ignorance that they were in.

Why exactly do you think expert witnesses are called in routinely to testify at countless trials?
Forming of an opinion from an examination of reports is not unusual.
The following is from an appeals judgment:
A medical examiner is permitted to testify as an independently qualified expert who bases his or her opinion on the factual information in an autopsy report prepared by a different doctor. See State v. Owsley, 959 S.W.2d 789, 795-96 (Mo. banc 1997) (holding that such testimony is not hearsay because the testifying doctor did not testify about the autopsy-performing doctor‟s opinion).
In State v. Haslett, No. SD28572, 2009 WL 103992 (Mo. App. S.D. Jan. 16, 2009), a doctor reviewed the autopsy documentation and investigative documentation prepared by others and rendered his own conclusions and opinions as to what caused a child‟s death.
Dr. Dudley testified that she conducted an independent analysis of the victim’s autopsy, relying on the forms and documents in the case file including the autopsy report, photographs, investigation reports, lab reports, and death certificate. She stated that these types of materials are reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of forensic pathology. Dr. Dudley also testified that autopsy reports are made in the ordinary course of business and are prepared at or near the time of the autopsy. Dr. Dudley testified that her conclusions as to how the injuries occurred were based on photographs and descriptions of the injuries. From her independent analysis, Dr. Dudley concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation and that the manner of death was homicide. On cross examination, Dr. Dudley acknowledged that Dr. Overman conducted the exam more than twenty years prior. She stated that she was relying on the file, primarily the autopsy report and photographs, to form her conclusions. Dr. Dudley‟s testimony regarding her independent conclusions and opinions was not error.
http://statecasefiles.justia.com.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/missouri/court-of-appeals/wd69472-33097.pdf

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you serious? This is from a medical journal dealing with parameters for the screening of children suspected to have been molested.

Parameters for screening? Are you serious?

The size of the hymenal opening will vary in the same child based on how relaxed the child is while being examined. Hymenal opening diameter measurement is not a reliable indicator of sexual abuse (Berenson et al., 2002, Ingram et al., 2001).

The size of the hymenal opening isn't even used as criteria for PNP referral to a specialist. Thats because they occur in a wide variety of sizes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Acute physical findings of sexual abuse generally involve genital or anal bruising, abrasion, and/or bleeding and are much easier to diagnose.


We KNOW there were acute physical findings of sexual abuse, but we DONT KNOW there was prior sexual abuse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think what you're trying to claim is that JBR was chronically abused over days, weeks, months, or even years by an adult. Then, to cover up this prior abuse, the adult staged a brutal and vicious sexual assault. Thru it all (combined acute plus non-acute) the hymen was never torn over 3/8 of an inch and no healing scars were found???

Maybe you should explain what prior injury was supposedly being covered up?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why exactly do you think expert witnesses are called in routinely to testify at countless trials?

Uh, you'll be needing a trial first? Even then, testimony is cheap.

Its all part of assembling an array of experts willing to 'say stuff' in the event of a trial, for example 'PR wrote the note' or '99.9% certain JMK wrote the note'.

Like I said, expert witness testimony is cheap.

 

[cynic]

The size of the hymenal opening isn't even used as criteria for PNP referral to a specialist. Thats because they occur in a wide variety of sizes.

Obviously there can be anatomical variation; JBR was significantly outside the norm, however.

Acute physical findings of sexual abuse generally involve genital or anal bruising, abrasion, and/or bleeding and are much easier to diagnose.


We KNOW there were acute physical findings of sexual abuse, but we DONT KNOW there was prior sexual abuse.

We do because experts in this area, whose job it to know, say that there was chronic abuse.
The fact that you don’t happen to agree doesn’t make it untrue.

I think what you're trying to claim is that JBR was chronically abused over days, weeks, months, or even years by an adult. Then, to cover up this prior abuse, the adult staged a brutal and vicious sexual assault. Thru it all (combined acute plus non-acute) the hymen was never torn over 3/8 of an inch and no healing scars were found???

You might get others to buy this BS but not me.

It’s all part of assembling an array of experts willing to 'say stuff'

I ask again, what exactly do you think the purpose of experts in various fields happens to be? They routinely advise law enforcement and testify at trials.
When a significant group of experts arrive at the conclusion that JBR was subjected to both chronic and acute abuse, and this opinion is offered to LE, most people would consider that to be highly significant.
I guess in your mind, this would just be part of the misfortune that befell the Ramseys.
How many "coincidences" must there be, before the Ramseys stop being “unlucky,” and just simply be guilty?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Obviously there is anatomical variation; JBR was significantly outside the norm, however.

We do because experts in this area, whose job it to know, say that there was chronic abuse.
The fact that you don’t happen to agree doesn’t make it untrue.

I ask again, what exactly do you think the purpose of experts in various fields happens to be? They routinely advise law enforcement and testify at trials.
When a significant group of experts arrive at the conclusion that JBR was subjected to both chronic and acute abuse, and this opinion is offered to LE, most people would consider that to be highly significant.
I guess in your mind, this would just be part of the misfortune that befell the Ramseys.
How many coincidences must there be, before the Ramseys stop being “unlucky,” and just simply be guilty?

It should be fair to ask of these experts:

The common non-acute criteria for abuse is scarring or a damaged hymen (not hymen size, as you believed). JBR had neither of these. Was there some other, less common injury that was non-acute that the coroner documented?

Misfortune? Nobody quotes these experts but you, and I don't even think these experts of yours were even noticed by LW or the R's at the time. Its tabloid faire. In fact one of your experts was paid for by the tabs! Its all hype.

The R's only misfortune was a SFF maniac and lynch-mob mentality people.

 

[madeleine]

SD and Hotyh,you two are making great points...I'm going back to the fence...These experts was asked if they believed prior sexual abuse and they agreed to that there was..But yet with them not knowing what happen that night and not knowing who killed JonBenet,was this question asked of them who done it...Or just their expert advice in sexual abuse...

I am on the fence as well re PRIOR abuse.If it would have been a FACT then I guess the case could have been solved looong ago (IF wanted).
Prior abuse AND murder can't be a coincidence.You get the one who abused her,you have your killer (and,OR the motive).But I think this is another questionable issue,just like what came first,head-blow or strangulation and did PR write the note or not..............sigh

And since I can't trust neither of the sides (RST and LE) maybe the answer is in the middle somewhere.dunno.......Both sides are so extreme...

 

[DeeDee249]

Can't believe we are still hearing SFF here.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Would you just feel better if LE decided RDI based on fiber evidence?

It is interesting, for all the people who don't really know what DID happen, the number of people who claim to know what DIDN'T happen.

SFF isn't ruled out, not by a long shot.

 

[BBB167893]

It should be fair to ask of these experts:

The common non-acute criteria for abuse is scarring or a damaged hymen (not hymen size, as you believed). JBR had neither of these. Was there some other, less common injury that was non-acute that the coroner documented?

Asked and answered. But I'll repost, if it pleases you (and even better if it doesn't!):

"According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
"There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration.

Sure as he** sounds like scarring and hymenal damage to me!

You might also want to keep in mind that many forms of sexual abuse don't leave any marks.

I don't even think these experts of yours were even noticed by LW or the R's at the time.

What does THAT have to do with anything?

The R's only misfortune was a SFF maniac and lynch-mob mentality people.

Heard it all before.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Asked and answered. But I'll repost, if it pleases you (and even better if it doesn't!):

"According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
"There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration.

Sure as he** sounds like scarring and hymenal damage to me!

This is like saying "sure as he** sounds like JMK wrote the note" because some expert said "99.9% certain".

Did you know that NONE of these so-called 'examination findings' were actually listed by Dr. Meyer in the actual examination report? It might help you, although I doubt it, to consider what the report ACTUALLY SAID:

NO RECENT OR REMOTE ANAL OR OTHER PERINEAL TRAUMA IS IDENTIFIED.

This is not a vague statement. Plus, there were no non-acute injuries listed whatsoever in the final diagnosis. Therefore, your experts circumvented and contradicted the coroner, implied that the autopsy report excluded significant findings, tried to rewrite their own autopsy diagnosis as if they now owned the case. Don't take my word for it, ST proclaimed they made 'the major conclusion in the investigation' as if they had taken over both the autopsy diagnosis from Meyer and the investigation from BPD. What a farce.

This is interesting considering that these so-called 'examination findings' were from an examination that never took place! And these findings, even if true, wouldn't even be the most telling findings for child sexual abuse. Instead, they would be the obscure findings. And listing the hymenal orifice size when other experts state emphatically that hymenal orifice size is not a criteria for prior abuse, makes me wonder if your experts had enough experience with post-mortem cases to even be talking.

I dunno, maybe it would help to consider these experts as possibly having been assembled in order to 'say stuff' in court or for the tabs? And that there was big publicity to be had?

You might also want to keep in mind that many forms of sexual abuse don't leave any marks.

Oh, thats not a wildcard statement.

Heard it all before.

Be hearing it again, no doubt.

 

[BBB167893]

This is like saying "sure as he** sounds like JMK wrote the note" because some expert said "99.9% certain".

That comparison is apples and handgrenades, HOTYH.

Did you know that NONE of these so-called 'examination findings' were actually listed by Dr. Meyer in the actual examination report?

Even if that were true, which it isn't, Dr. Meyer is not an expert on sexual abuse findings, I would imagine. Secondly, the report itself describes the hymen as nearly absent between the 2:00 and 10:00 positions. It's in there.

Plus, there were no non-acute injuries listed whatsoever in the final diagnosis.

????????????? Excuse me, HOTYH, but I've read the thing quite a few times.

Therefore, your experts circumvented and contradicted the coroner, implied that the autopsy report excluded significant findings, tried to rewrite their own autopsy diagnosis as if they now owned the case.

You give them far too much credit. They didn't contradict anyone. They used the autopsy report to arrive at their conclusions. They also didn't imply that anyone excluded anything. They simply applied their own special expertise.

Don't take my word for it,

No danger of that.

ST proclaimed they made 'the major conclusion in the investigation' as if they had taken over both the autopsy diagnosis from Meyer and the investigation from BPD.

He didn't suggest anything of the kind. He said they reached a major conclusion because they did, at least from an investigative standpoint. I've been at this way too long to fall for this stuff.

What a farce.

That's odd; I was just thinking the same thing.

This is interesting considering that these so-called 'examination findings' were from an examination that never took place!

WHAT?

And these findings, even if true, wouldn't even be the most telling findings for child sexual abuse. Instead, they would be the obscure findings. And listing the hymenal orifice size when other experts state emphatically that hymenal orifice size is not a criteria for prior abuse, makes me wonder if your experts had enough experience with post-mortem cases to even be talking.

There's an honest question I can wrap my head around. Problem there is, we get into another "duel of the experts" deal. I've been giving thought to what you said about experts "saying stuff." While I wasn't too pleased that you would fall back on that tired old dodge, the only alternative I can come up with is to scrap expert testimony entirely and just go with what our own eyes and our guts tell us.

I dunno, maybe it would help to consider these experts as possibly having been assembled in order to 'say stuff' in court or for the tabs? And that there was big publicity to be had?

And you say I make wildcard statements! What a joke. Anytime IDI gets in a jam, they pull that old dodge out. It's the biggest wildcard of all, but it doesn't seem to bother you guys any.

Oh, thats not a wildcard statement.

I used to be an IDI. I learned from the masters.

Be hearing it again, no doubt.

Unfortunately, I'm sure you're right.

 

[cynic]

This is like saying "sure as he** sounds like JMK wrote the note" because some expert said "99.9% certain".

I was going to let that comment go, but I decided not to.
The individuals that Steve Thomas referred to were not only experts in their field; they were published, highly regarded experts.

Curtis Baggett is not an expert in his field. His “qualifications” are a joke, and was recently laughed out of court.

Baggett admitted that he was not board-certified. He testified that he had studied under Dr. Rev Walker, who was a doctor of divinity. He also said that he taught document examination through Handwriting University, a mail-order school, and that his son [Bart Baggett] owned HandwritingUniversity.com, “the largest handwriting analysis school in the world.” He admitted that he had taken no continuing education classes, had never published in any trade journals, and that he had once been convicted of felony theft.
…
In that case Judge Clay Land ruled that Baggett was not professionally certified, had not undergone proficiency testing, and had not published anything in the document examination field. Judge Land labeled Baggett’s qualifications as “clearly paltry.”
-Forensics Under Fire. Jim Fisher pg.215

Compare that to the qualifications of just one expert consulted by Steve Thomas and the BPD.

Dr. McCann has been working in the field of Child Abuse and Neglect for the past thirty years. Following his graduation from the University of Michigan's Medical school, Dr. McCann spent two years in the Navy as the base pediatrician in Annapolis, Maryland. Following his discharge he entered into a private practice in Seattle Washington. From there he joined the faculty of the University of Washington and was appointed Chief of Pediatrics at Harborview Medical Center, a University affiliated hospital.
It was there that Dr. McCann first became interested in the issue of child abuse and neglect. In the early seventy's, through the efforts of his colleague, Dr. Shirley Anderson, one of the first child and adolescent sexual abuse evaluation programs was begun.
Dr. McCann took that interest with him when he and his wife moved to Fresno, California to help develop a Primary Care Training Program for the University of California, San Francisco. Recognizing that very little was known about the "normal" genital findings of the prepubertal female, he and his colleagues developed a research project aimed at answering many of those questions. In addition, they followed up with articles on the healing of genital injuries, the use of the colposcope in the evaluation of the prepubertal and adolescent girl suspected of having been sexually abused or molested and the application of the "multi-method" examination approach to the evaluation of these subjects.
Dr. McCann spent the last twelve years of his medical career as the Medical Director of the Child Protection Center at University of California Davis, Medical Center. There he continued his research in the healing process of anal/genital injuries as well as chairing the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) committee that developed the Practice Guidelines: Descriptive Terminology in Child Sexual Abuse Medical Evaluations. He was also instrumental in the development of the child and adolescent sexual abuse reporting forms used throughout the State of California.
Dr. McCann has won numerous awards including the 2001 American Academy of Pediatrics section on child abuse and neglect award for Outstanding Service to Maltreated Children.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I was going to let that comment go, but I decided not to.
The individuals that Steve Thomas referred to were not only experts in their field; they were published, highly regarded experts.

At least Baggett has an excuse?

I mean, what is worse? Being a highly regarded expert and wrong, or just being a run-of-the-mill expert and wrong? I say the former is worse.

Was one of the awards "Right About the JBR Case Award"?

IMO it comes down to publicity. How can it hurt a professional career to make unverifiable claims that just so happen to promote your specialization? It IS self-promoting.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I was going to let that comment go, but I decided not to.
The individuals that Steve Thomas referred to were not only experts in their field; they were published, highly regarded experts.

Curtis Baggett is not an expert in his field. His “qualifications” are a joke, and was recently laughed out of court.

Baggett admitted that he was not board-certified. He testified that he had studied under Dr. Rev Walker, who was a doctor of divinity. He also said that he taught document examination through Handwriting University, a mail-order school, and that his son [Bart Baggett] owned HandwritingUniversity.com, “the largest handwriting analysis school in the world.” He admitted that he had taken no continuing education classes, had never published in any trade journals, and that he had once been convicted of felony theft.
…
In that case Judge Clay Land ruled that Baggett was not professionally certified, had not undergone proficiency testing, and had not published anything in the document examination field. Judge Land labeled Baggett’s qualifications as “clearly paltry.”
-Forensics Under Fire. Jim Fisher pg.215

Compare that to the qualifications of just one expert consulted by Steve Thomas and the BPD.

Dr. McCann has been working in the field of Child Abuse and Neglect for the past thirty years. Following his graduation from the University of Michigan's Medical school, Dr. McCann spent two years in the Navy as the base pediatrician in Annapolis, Maryland. Following his discharge he entered into a private practice in Seattle Washington. From there he joined the faculty of the University of Washington and was appointed Chief of Pediatrics at Harborview Medical Center, a University affiliated hospital.
It was there that Dr. McCann first became interested in the issue of child abuse and neglect. In the early seventy's, through the efforts of his colleague, Dr. Shirley Anderson, one of the first child and adolescent sexual abuse evaluation programs was begun.
Dr. McCann took that interest with him when he and his wife moved to Fresno, California to help develop a Primary Care Training Program for the University of California, San Francisco. Recognizing that very little was known about the "normal" genital findings of the prepubertal female, he and his colleagues developed a research project aimed at answering many of those questions. In addition, they followed up with articles on the healing of genital injuries, the use of the colposcope in the evaluation of the prepubertal and adolescent girl suspected of having been sexually abused or molested and the application of the "multi-method" examination approach to the evaluation of these subjects.
Dr. McCann spent the last twelve years of his medical career as the Medical Director of the Child Protection Center at University of California Davis, Medical Center. There he continued his research in the healing process of anal/genital injuries as well as chairing the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) committee that developed the Practice Guidelines: Descriptive Terminology in Child Sexual Abuse Medical Evaluations. He was also instrumental in the development of the child and adolescent sexual abuse reporting forms used throughout the State of California.
Dr. McCann has won numerous awards including the 2001 American Academy of Pediatrics section on child abuse and neglect award for Outstanding Service to Maltreated Children.

I was going to let this one ride but I think you might need to learn something about sourcing and corroboration:

The fact that it was Baggetts opinion that JMK wrote the note can be corroborated by several sources, including most major news agencies. It seems, however, that your Dr. McCann's oft-touted opinion that JBR was previously abused, well, can't be corroborated.

Who knows if it was his opinion or not? I sure don't because I never read it ANYWHERE. The only place I can seem to source your claim is the BONITA PAPERS. What the heck is that? Not exactly the NY Times is it?



http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Sourceshttp://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Sourceshttp://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/Sources

[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5858"]The Bonita Papers[/ame]. Acording to Internet poster Spade, "These are the unedited "notes" of Bonita Sauer, secretary/para-legal to Dan Hoffman. Bonita intended to write a book from the case documents provided to her boss. But Bonita's notes were sold to the tabs by her nephew." Spade (post deleted) claims that Bonita works in the same office as Larry Pozner. It should be strongly emphasized that much of the information in these papers has not been corroborated. Internet poster Jameson (post deleted) claims Bonita has disavowed much of what is in these papers. User beware.

It seems to me that you are relying on weak third-party hearsay or the tabs instead of well-documented statements in an attempt to further some of your arguments. Sort of like claiming Elvis on Mars.

Whereas you can only make claims about what you believe to be Dr. McCann's opinion, I can show Baggetts opinion thru multiple sources.