(10-29-2018 03:52 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Regarding the type of bullet that killed the man in the barn, Dr. Arnold covers this, and I've quoted him on it, but I'll go to Dr. Barnes' first description of the bullet type, quoted in the January-February 1993 edition of Navy Medicine, to show that Dr. Barnes did in fact describe the bullet as a rifle bullet, also known as a "carbine bullet":

Quote:Barnes referred to a "gunshot wound." The Catalogue of the Surgical Section of the United States Army Medical Museum, published under his direction in 1866, describes the wound as caused by:

a conoidal carbine bullet [that] entered the right side, comminuting the base of the right lamina of the fourth vertebra, fracturing it longitudinally and separating it from the spinous process, at the same time fracturing the fifth through its pedicle and involving that transverse process. The missile passed directly through the canal with a right inclination downward and to the rear, emerging through the left bases of the fourth and fifth laminae, which are comminuted, and from which fragments were embedded in the muscles of the neck. The bullet in its course avoided the large cervical vessels. (Guttridge, "Identification and Autopsy of John Wilkes Booth," Navy Medicine, January-February 1993, p. 23, quoting The Catalogue of the Surgical Section of the United States Army Medical Museum, 1866, p. 58, emphasis added)

But, nine years later, in 1875, in The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, Barnes described the bullet as "a conoidal pistol ball." Furthermore, the original card attached to the specimen said the bullet was a carbine bullet, "but it was later changed to pistol ball there as well" (Arnold, p. 265).

Dr. Arnold on why the damage to the spine must have been done by a rifle bullet:

Quote:The picture of the specimen clearly demonstrates that the spinous processes of the vertebrae were completely blown away, the effects of a high-energy missile such as a rifle bullet, not a medium-energy missile such as a pistol ball.

High-energy missiles that traverse the spinal canal are especially damaging. The pulverized bone is blasted into the spinal canal, and a temporary cavity is caused by the secondary bone and neural tissue missiles, which may be as much as 25 times the frontal area of the bullet. The permanent track was at the C4-C5 (cervical vertebrae) level, and the temporary cavity would likely be about six inches in each direction. The proximal damage would have been to the nerve roots to the phrenic nerves, which supply the diaphragm. (p. 265)

So, Dr. Barnes' first description of the type of bullet agrees with Dr. Arnold's forensic and ballistics analysis of the kind of bullet that struck the man in the barn. Corbett could not have fired that bullet. Someone else shot the man, but Conger, Baker, and Doherty deemed it necessary to falsely claim that Corbett shot him.

Finally, I would just mention again that Dr. Arnold was not just any Navy surgeon. He was recognized highly enough by his peers and superiors in the Navy to be selected to train other Navy surgeons and was selected for advanced training at Bethesda Naval Hospital. In addition, he was selected for duty on a Fleet Surgical Team and became the commanding officer of Fleet Surgical Team 4. After he left the Navy (as a captain), he became an assistant coroner.

Did you not read Steve's post #545 above in which he quotes directly from Barnes's statement of April 27, 1865, in which the word "ball" is used? Your selective readings and reasonings are frustrating. In all due respect to Dr, Arnold and his 20th-century skills, imo he cannot make an accurate and complete diagnosis of an injury that happened over 150 years ago.

I am warning all ahead of time that Dr. Arnold's book is going to turn me into a worse nit-picker than I already am. Not counting the end pages devoted to Sources Noted and the Index, the book consists of 383 pages - a good size for such a subject. However, 166 pages are devoted entirely of nearly illegible photocopies of original documents, which are designed to augment Dr. Arnold's arguments. They don't mean much if they can't be read.

Out of the remaining 217 pages of text, most of them carry 1-2 photos (chiefly of people involved in our story). This serves to usurp even more space from the written word, and some pages are even half-blank before the text continues on another page. This is where an old-time editor and layout artist could work wonders. Such technique as that here only serves to distract the reader -- but maybe that's what is intended?

Since we're counting: Out of the 49 Sources Noted, 8 references come from O'Reilly and Dugard, 6 from Theodore Nottingham, 4 from Mark Katz (whose book is on Alexander Gardner), 6 from James Swanson (a good source), 3 from Finis Bates, and at least 5 from various medical sources. He also references 13 rolls of microfilm from the M599 file at the NARA. The M599 file is what we old-timers call the Lincoln Assassination Suspects records. I'm surprised the M619 file from the LOC is not included.

See my post on the Assassination Journey thread where I refer to the author not knowing the times about which he is writing. Another case of this will be discussed later when I try to clear up the assertions that Dr. Arnold made regarding the statement of Polk Gardiner.

(10-29-2018 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I am warning all ahead of time that Dr. Arnold's book is going to turn me into a worse nit-picker than I already am. Not counting the end pages devoted to Sources Noted and the Index, the book consists of 383 pages - a good size for such a subject. However, 166 pages are devoted entirely of nearly illegible photocopies of original documents, which are designed to augment Dr. Arnold's arguments. They don't mean much if they can't be read.

Out of the remaining 217 pages of text, most of them carry 1-2 photos (chiefly of people involved in our story). This serves to usurp even more space from the written word, and some pages are even half-blank before the text continues on another page. This is where an old-time editor and layout artist could work wonders. Such technique as that here only serves to distract the reader -- but maybe that's what is intended?

Since we're counting: Out of the 49 Sources Noted, 8 references come from O'Reilly and Dugard, 6 from Theodore Nottingham, 4 from Mark Katz (whose book is on Alexander Gardner), 6 from James Swanson (a good source), 3 from Finis Bates, and at least 5 from various medical sources. He also references 13 rolls of microfilm from the M599 file at the NARA. The M599 file is what we old-timers call the Lincoln Assassination Suspects records. I'm surprised the M619 file from the LOC is not included.

See my post on the Assassination Journey thread where I refer to the author not knowing the times about which he is writing. Another case of this will be discussed later when I try to clear up the assertions that Dr. Arnold made regarding the statement of Polk Gardiner.

I do not understand your objection to photos when he's simply showing the reader some of the new evidence that he found. And, by the way, I can read almost every one of the photos that shows text.

Are you going to say anything, just a little bit, about the truly important document discoveries he made at the National Archives, documents that Holt & Co. suppressed that provide important new information? Or are you going to ignore them because they contradict the traditional story? He summarizes many of them in the preface, which you should have read by now, but so far you have said nothing about any of them.

(10-30-2018 02:21 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 08:21 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I am warning all ahead of time that Dr. Arnold's book is going to turn me into a worse nit-picker than I already am. Not counting the end pages devoted to Sources Noted and the Index, the book consists of 383 pages - a good size for such a subject. However, 166 pages are devoted entirely of nearly illegible photocopies of original documents, which are designed to augment Dr. Arnold's arguments. They don't mean much if they can't be read.

Out of the remaining 217 pages of text, most of them carry 1-2 photos (chiefly of people involved in our story). This serves to usurp even more space from the written word, and some pages are even half-blank before the text continues on another page. This is where an old-time editor and layout artist could work wonders. Such technique as that here only serves to distract the reader -- but maybe that's what is intended?

Since we're counting: Out of the 49 Sources Noted, 8 references come from O'Reilly and Dugard, 6 from Theodore Nottingham, 4 from Mark Katz (whose book is on Alexander Gardner), 6 from James Swanson (a good source), 3 from Finis Bates, and at least 5 from various medical sources. He also references 13 rolls of microfilm from the M599 file at the NARA. The M599 file is what we old-timers call the Lincoln Assassination Suspects records. I'm surprised the M619 file from the LOC is not included.

See my post on the Assassination Journey thread where I refer to the author not knowing the times about which he is writing. Another case of this will be discussed later when I try to clear up the assertions that Dr. Arnold made regarding the statement of Polk Gardiner.

I do not understand your objection to photos when he's simply showing the reader some of the new evidence that he found. And, by the way, I can read almost every one of the photos that shows text.

Are you going to say anything, just a little bit, about the truly important document discoveries he made at the National Archives, documents that Holt & Co. suppressed that provide important new information? Or are you going to ignore them because they contradict the traditional story? He summarizes many of them in the preface, which you should have read by now, but so far you have said nothing about any of them.

I guess I better ask Amazon for my money back since most of the questionable pages in the volume I received - especially the Owens statement and at least one other - are totally illegible to the point of appearing 99% blank. Of course, all of the other pages that have been poorly photo-copied and then poorly printed are in original handwriting that is very hard to read or that varies in shading.

As for reading the Preface by Dr. Arnold, it was just about the first thing my staff member and I read two years ago when sent the review copy. Upon re-reading, I can only say, "Spurious then and spurious now."

Both of us have been Lincoln assassination addicts for 50-60 years, so we have read our share of books on the subject (and own most of them in our personal libraries - good and bad and worse) and know what to look for -- and it has nothing to do with us being sworn members of that secret society that you seem to think exists in our field for the sole purpose of guarding the awful truth that there was a huge government cover-up in 1865 and ever since.

(10-29-2018 07:19 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-29-2018 03:52 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Regarding the type of bullet that killed the man in the barn, Dr. Arnold covers this, and I've quoted him on it, but I'll go to Dr. Barnes' first description of the bullet type, quoted in the January-February 1993 edition of Navy Medicine, to show that Dr. Barnes did in fact describe the bullet as a rifle bullet, also known as a "carbine bullet":

Quote:Barnes referred to a "gunshot wound." The Catalogue of the Surgical Section of the United States Army Medical Museum, published under his direction in 1866, describes the wound as caused by:

a conoidal carbine bullet [that] entered the right side, comminuting the base of the right lamina of the fourth vertebra, fracturing it longitudinally and separating it from the spinous process, at the same time fracturing the fifth through its pedicle and involving that transverse process. The missile passed directly through the canal with a right inclination downward and to the rear, emerging through the left bases of the fourth and fifth laminae, which are comminuted, and from which fragments were embedded in the muscles of the neck. The bullet in its course avoided the large cervical vessels. (Guttridge, "Identification and Autopsy of John Wilkes Booth," Navy Medicine, January-February 1993, p. 23, quoting The Catalogue of the Surgical Section of the United States Army Medical Museum, 1866, p. 58, emphasis added)

But, nine years later, in 1875, in The Medical and Surgical History of the War of the Rebellion, Barnes described the bullet as "a conoidal pistol ball." Furthermore, the original card attached to the specimen said the bullet was a carbine bullet, "but it was later changed to pistol ball there as well" (Arnold, p. 265).

Dr. Arnold on why the damage to the spine must have been done by a rifle bullet:

Quote:The picture of the specimen clearly demonstrates that the spinous processes of the vertebrae were completely blown away, the effects of a high-energy missile such as a rifle bullet, not a medium-energy missile such as a pistol ball.

High-energy missiles that traverse the spinal canal are especially damaging. The pulverized bone is blasted into the spinal canal, and a temporary cavity is caused by the secondary bone and neural tissue missiles, which may be as much as 25 times the frontal area of the bullet. The permanent track was at the C4-C5 (cervical vertebrae) level, and the temporary cavity would likely be about six inches in each direction. The proximal damage would have been to the nerve roots to the phrenic nerves, which supply the diaphragm. (p. 265)

So, Dr. Barnes' first description of the type of bullet agrees with Dr. Arnold's forensic and ballistics analysis of the kind of bullet that struck the man in the barn. Corbett could not have fired that bullet. Someone else shot the man, but Conger, Baker, and Doherty deemed it necessary to falsely claim that Corbett shot him.

Finally, I would just mention again that Dr. Arnold was not just any Navy surgeon. He was recognized highly enough by his peers and superiors in the Navy to be selected to train other Navy surgeons and was selected for advanced training at Bethesda Naval Hospital. In addition, he was selected for duty on a Fleet Surgical Team and became the commanding officer of Fleet Surgical Team 4. After he left the Navy (as a captain), he became an assistant coroner.

Did you not read Steve's post #545 above in which he quotes directly from Barnes's statement of April 27, 1865, in which the word "ball" is used? Your selective readings and reasonings are frustrating. In all due respect to Dr, Arnold and his 20th-century skills, imo he cannot make an accurate and complete diagnosis of an injury that happened over 150 years ago.

And did you read my reply? Did you read the quote from Dr. Barnes' 1866 article? The point is that the first time he specified the type of bullet, he said it was a carbine bullet. Furthermore, the card attached to the specimen said the bullet was a carbine bullet, but it was later changed as well.

As for your argument that the Garretts did not have any kerosene, what evidence do you have to support this speculation, other than the fact that kerosene was scarce during the war years?

And are you ever going to discuss the important new information that Dr. Arnold found at the National Archives? It's summarized in the preface, which you should have read by now. Regardless of one's theory of the assassination, this information is undeniably important. So are you ever going to discuss it?

My request is probably due to my aging brain and eyesight. I am asking folks who reply to a previous post to include only the pertinent part of the post you are replying to. This will greatly cut down the length of the posts. Example: if you are replying to a single paragraph of a long post, cut out the rest of the post and only include that paragraph, not the entire post. If you are replying to a few sentences only include those sentences. This should make discussions easier to follow and lessen the long repetitions. Thank you to everyone.

You mean like this?

(11-06-2018 05:07 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  lessen the long repetitions.
Thank you

I sometimes find myself repeating myself

(11-06-2018 05:07 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  is probably due to aging brain and eyesight.

(11-06-2018 05:52 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Do you ever find yourself repeating yourself?

Yes. Also, I am increasingly losing my memory of names of places such as restaurants. I'll say to my wife, "What's the name of the place with the good chili? Let's go there for lunch." (Answer: Skyline)

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Has Dr. Arnold ever treated, or experienced himself, a broken leg bone that has been subjected to twelve days of riding horseback (which included mounting and dismounting); spending a lot of time on the ground, which was cold and damp during April in Southern Maryland; and jostling around in a wagon? Bet not...

We rec'd a review copy of Dr. Arnold's book several years ago and decided not to get it for our gift shop.

---

(08-16-2018 02:27 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Finished Arnold's book today. A lot of information to take in. Arnold seems to make a solid case that Stanton, Baker, Holt, and some other Army officers were involved.

I had been skeptical of the theory that Booth escaped, mainly because I trusted the government's identification of the body and the family's later identification. But Arnold presents good reasons to doubt those identifications.

Another thing I find fascinating about Arnold's book is his medically based commentary on the wound described in the autopsy report and on the injury to Booth's ankle. A former Navy surgeon, Arnold shows that the government's version of the shooting of the man in the Garrett barn could not have happened, that there is no way the man could have been standing up and walking toward the barn door when he was shot, because the bullet entered the man's head at about a 25-degree angle. Arnold also seems to make a good case that the bullet must have been a rifle bullet, not a pistol bullet.

The best description that I have ever heard as to how Corbett's pistol shot entered Booth through the back of his neck came from expert researcher, historian, and author Michael W. Kauffman.

When Mike used to narrate the Surratt Society's Booth Escape Route Tours, he would carefully explain that Corbett was actually aiming at Booth's shoulder in an attempt to get him to drop his rifle. However, because of the broken leg, as Booth advanced towards the door to escape the increasing flames, he limped on his injured left leg causing the bullet to hit him in the neck instead of the shoulder.

Have you read Dr. John K. Lattimer's detailed ballistic account of the shooting? I think it's still available on the secondary market. I knew John for forty years, and he was researching and experimenting in the ballistics field long before that. He was also expert in the Kennedy assassination and was the first civilian outside of the family to be allowed to study the autopsy and ballistic details re: JFK.

I purchased the Dr. Lattimer’s book on Ebay. It’s a “must have.”

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Has Dr. Arnold ever treated, or experienced himself, a broken leg bone that has been subjected to twelve days of riding horseback (which included mounting and dismounting); spending a lot of time on the ground, which was cold and damp during April in Southern Maryland; and jostling around in a wagon? Bet not...

It was not 12 days. It was actually slightly less than 10 days. Most of those 10 days he was lying around. He spent three nights indoors. He had ample food for nearly all of his flight. He had people around to help him mount the horse.

There is no way that the bruising and swelling that Dr. May described could have been caused by the ankle fracture described by Dr. Mudd and as a result of Booth's 10 days of flight.

I would imagine that as a Navy surgeon and then as a coroner, Dr. Arnold saw his share of broken limbs.

Quote:The best description that I have ever heard as to how Corbett's pistol shot entered Booth through the back of his neck came from expert researcher, historian, and author Michael W. Kauffman.

Kauffman's discussion on who shot the man in the barn is as superficial and problematic as his discussion (one short paragraph) on the JWB initials. Kauffman doesn't even address the wound ballistics issues and the fact that Dr. Barnes initially identified the bullet as a carbine bullet. He even repeats the myth that the man in the barn raised his weapon and that this was why Corbett shot him, whereas Conger said that he saw the man drop his weapon and start walking toward the door.

Again, Corbett could not have fired the shot because the damage done to the spine was too severe to have been done by a pistol ball. Dr. Arnold discusses this in some detail. Rifle and pistol balls obey the laws of physics, and hence do different kinds and degrees of damage to bone. This explains why Dr. Barnes initially said that the missile was a carbine bullet, and why the card for the specimen identified the missile as a carbine bullet.

As mentioned previously, the track of the bullet was substantially downward, about 25 degrees below horizontal. The markedly downward track for the bullet was first identified by Dr. Barnes, confirmed by the AFIP forensic experts in 1993, and confirmed again by Dr. Arnold.

One big problem with the Lincoln case is that for the last 50 years or so it has been dominated by scholars who have uncritically accepted the military commission's version of events. The "Lincoln assassination research community" has been one giant echo chamber, which has been dedicated to seeing the Emperor's New Clothes and has served to dismiss, ignore, and, on occasion, even scorn scholars who question the military commission's claims too severely. So there's no check and balance, no robust peer review of "scholarly" books on the Lincoln case that toe the military commission's line.

That's how Michael Kauffman's discussions on the the shooting of the man in the barn and on the JWB initials can be described as "expert" and "scholarly" in this echo chamber, when in fact Kauffman's discussions are woefully incomplete, problematic, and misleading--not intentionally, but misleading nonetheless.

(11-10-2018 04:42 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 04:20 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(08-20-2018 02:56 PM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Dr. Arnold also argues that the description of the man in the barn's injured ankle could not have been describing the appearance of the kind of injury that Booth had. Dr. Arnold, a retired Navy surgeon and former coroner, contends that there would not have been the described amount of bruising and swelling from an ankle fracture.

Has Dr. Arnold ever treated, or experienced himself, a broken leg bone that has been subjected to twelve days of riding horseback (which included mounting and dismounting); spending a lot of time on the ground, which was cold and damp during April in Southern Maryland; and jostling around in a wagon? Bet not...

It was not 12 days. It was actually slightly less than 10 days. Most of those 10 days he was lying around. He spent three nights indoors. He had ample food for nearly all of his flight. He had people around to help him mount the horse.

There is no way that the bruising and swelling that Dr. May described could have been caused by the ankle fracture described by Dr. Mudd and as a result of Booth's 10 days of flight.

I would imagine that as a Navy surgeon and then as a coroner, Dr. Arnold saw his share of broken limbs.

Quote:The best description that I have ever heard as to how Corbett's pistol shot entered Booth through the back of his neck came from expert researcher, historian, and author Michael W. Kauffman.

Kauffman's discussion on who shot the man in the barn is as superficial and problematic as his discussion (one short paragraph) on the JWB initials. Kauffman doesn't even address the wound ballistics issues and the fact that Dr. Barnes initially identified the bullet as a carbine bullet. He even repeats the myth that the man in the barn raised his weapon and that this was why Corbett shot him, whereas Conger said that he saw the man drop his weapon and start walking toward the door.

Again, Corbett could not have fired the shot because the damage done to the spine was too severe to have been done by a pistol ball. Dr. Arnold discusses this in some detail. Rifle and pistol balls obey the laws of physics, and hence do different kinds and degrees of damage to bone. This explains why Dr. Barnes initially said that the missile was a carbine bullet, and why the card for the specimen identified the missile as a carbine bullet.

As mentioned previously, the track of the bullet was substantially downward, about 25 degrees below horizontal. The markedly downward track for the bullet was first identified by Dr. Barnes, confirmed by the AFIP forensic experts in 1993, and confirmed again by Dr. Arnold.

One big problem with the Lincoln case is that for the last 50 years or so it has been dominated by scholars who have uncritically accepted the military commission's version of events. The "Lincoln assassination research community" has been one giant echo chamber, which has been dedicated to seeing the Emperor's New Clothes and has served to dismiss, ignore, and, on occasion, even scorn scholars who question the military commission's claims too severely. So there's no check and balance, no robust peer review of "scholarly" books on the Lincoln case that toe the military commission's line.

That's how Michael Kauffman's discussions on the the shooting of the man in the barn and on the JWB initials can be described as "expert" and "scholarly" in this echo chamber, when in fact Kauffman's discussions are woefully incomplete, problematic, and misleading--not intentionally, but misleading nonetheless.

WHY DOES THIS SOUND SO FAMILIAR? HAVE YOU RE-POSTED OR RE-ADJUSTED ONE OF YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS? RUNNING OUT OF THINGS TO TRY AND CONFUSE US WITH?

(11-10-2018 08:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  WHY DOES THIS SOUND SO FAMILIAR? HAVE YOU RE-POSTED OR RE-ADJUSTED ONE OF YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS? RUNNING OUT OF THINGS TO TRY AND CONFUSE US WITH?

Someone quoted your previous reply in their reply, so I responded to it again.

You still have not explained the problems posed by the wound ballistics evidence discussed by Dr. Arnold (and supported by Dr. Barnes' first identification of the type of bullet). Since Corbett could not have fired the shot, who fired it?

Moments after the man whom everybody at Garrett's farm called Boyd was shot in the barn, Luther Baker believed that Conger had shot him and said so. Conger denied being the shooter and suggested that the man had shot himself, a theory that no one believes and that the AFIP forensic experts rejected.

(11-11-2018 11:12 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  Conger denied being the shooter and suggested that the man had shot himself, a theory that no one believes and that the AFIP forensic experts rejected.

Two members of this forum, Bill Richter and Rick Smith, believe it was possible that Booth committed suicide. They do not argue that Booth definitely did so, just that it was possible.

CLICK HERE.

"Someone quoted your previous reply in their reply, so I responded to it again."

Pretty sure that someone was you originally, Mr. Griffith, because you were so disrespectful of the work of Michael Kauffman. No further comment.

(11-11-2018 11:12 AM)mikegriffith1 Wrote:  You still have not explained the problems posed by the wound ballistics evidence discussed by Dr. Arnold (and supported by Dr. Barnes' first identification of the type of bullet). Since Corbett could not have fired the shot, who fired it?

Moments after the man whom everybody at Garrett's farm called Boyd was shot in the barn, Luther Baker believed that Conger had shot him and said so. Conger denied being the shooter and suggested that the man had shot himself, a theory that no one believes and that the AFIP forensic experts rejected.

#1 Mike, it has been repeatedly put to you (but you ignore it) that the man could have been shot as he stumbled ( I wrote he could have been crawling) or falling to escape the burning barn. This would easily answer the reason for the trajectory of the bullet.

#2 The "question" as to whether a rifle or a pistol was used is irrelevant, IMO. Corbett presumably was issued with a rifle. Once he'd been named as the killer, I doubt that anybody interrogated him as to whether he'd used a pistol or a rifle. The bloke in the barn was killed. Rifle or pistol ? Who cares?

#3 Dr Arnold may have been a made a Captain (so what?) . You say he was a respected surgeon and a coroner (later you say he was an 'assistant' coroner). He was not though a ballistics expert. He could certainly use the relevant terminology ... but that doesnt make him a ballistics expert.

#4 You havent suggested any reason (please, dont bother ... I , for one, am not interested) as to why Corbett was erroneously, deliberately or otherwise, named as the killer.

By the way, in your list of possible killers you left out Colonel Clarence Cobb or Paymaster Benjamin Price.