Giffords likely shot in front, not back of head

[Mark Maker]

Source: Yahoo news

By ALICIA CHANG, Associated Press – 56 mins ago
TUCSON, Ariz. – Doctors now think that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords may have been shot in the front of the head, not the back.
After she was wounded last weekend, doctors said the bullet traveled the length of the left side of the congresswoman's brain, entering the back of the skull and exiting the front.
At a briefing Tuesday, Dr. Peter Rhee said it now looks like she was probably shot in the front, with the bullet going out the back, although they can't say for certain.
He said that's based on consultations with two specialists who came to Tucson, Ariz.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110111/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_giffords

---

Everyone jumping to conclusions again. How many "brain doctors" have I seen the last few days with their gory skulls blabbing about bullet paths and potential damage?

All of them please STFU and quit speculating until the truth is known.

This is what leads to conspiracy theories.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Weren't there witnesses? Seems like a pretty simple mystery to solve.

[LaurenG]

2. yeah, I'm with you. Maybe she knows too. nt

[Mark Maker]

4. There could be 100 witnesses

and you'll get 100 versions of what happened.

That's why we have 9-11 truthers, JFK conspiracy theories, Moon landing deniers, who shot JR etc etc.

We would all love it it every event could be reviewed like a football replay, life just doesn't happen that way.

[jobycom]

19. Witnesses tend to be unreliable in a situation like that.

Probably a few saw it exactly as it happened, a few are pretty close, and a few saw something way off. There's no way to know which ones are right without knowing what happened.

When shots are fired, a lot of people flinch or turn away, at least for a moment, so their minds fill in what the expect to happen from the last moment they saw, and what they saw afterward, and sometimes what others told them happened. A lot of them truly remember seeing the whole thing, but didn't. Victims turn away at the last moment, or lower their heads, or some sudden move. There are many cases where a victim is facing their assailant, yet they get shot in the back because at the last moment they try to turn, or they drop to their knees, or something. So you have cases where an assailant was facing the victim, and in the last split second the victim flinches away and gets shot in the back of the head. Makes for a lot of conspiracy theories and jokes about false testimony, but it happens.

There's a famous study on eye-witnesses and perceptions where a group of test subjects are told to watch a short film of a group of people passing a basketball around. They are told to count how many times a person in a white jersey touches the ball. It's not a big court, it's just a small circle of people who start passing the ball and moving around. At the end of the film, the witnesses are asked how many they counted, then asked a couple of other questions, then asked "How many of you saw the gorilla?"

Most don't see that in the middle of the film a man in a gorilla suit walks into the circle, beats his chest, and slowly walks off. He's dressed all in black, like four or five other people in the film, and because everyone is watching those in the white outfits so closely, they don't notice. If you are just watching the film, it's very obvious, but they are focusing on other things.

The same group of researchers do other videos where they have someone stop a stranger in the street and ask for directions on a map. While they are talking someone walks between them with a large package or something that blocks out the view, and the person asking is changed for someone else holding a map but otherwise looking completely different. Most people don't notice the change.

Eyewitnesses are terrible evidence. Some people make excellent eyewitnesses, of course, but you can't tell without other evidence which ones do and which ones don't.

[tabatha]

3. There is also apparently a video,

That should settle the question.

I did read that a witness said she was shot from about a foot away in the back of the head.

But nothing can be assumed until all the data is in.

[hedgehog]

5. If she turned her head at the last minute, that would have changed the

track of the bullet. That's one explanation of why witness testimony might not match physical evidence.

[tabatha]

7. I did wonder why the tracjectory

went up from the back when she was shorter than the shooter.

Going down from the front would make more sense.

[CreekDog]

14. because the gun was not mounted on top of his head?

jeez.

[tabatha]

15. I don't think you understood what I said.

Not at all.

[CreekDog]

16. probably not, sorry

:shrug:

[kestrel91316]

6. The police and FBI will find out soon enough. The eyewitnesses will

be interviewed.

[Carolina]

8. The intensivist and neurosurgeon

are concerned with saving life, but in forensic work, one simple way would be to look at the defect in the skull for bevelling -- inward for an entrance wound, outward for an exit -- much as one would see when a bullet is shot through doubled paned glass. Problem is with contact or very close, near contact wounds, there is such bone destruction along with radiating fractures that the treating physicians are not concerned with putting the pieces back togather but rather with debriding all fragments that could serve as foreign bodies and hence nida for infection. In a deceased victim, a pathologist might actually piece together whatever fragments are present (much like a jigsaw puzzle) to help determine trajectory.

Also, in contact and near contact wounds, the entrance skin defect in the scalp (which includes the forehead) is jagged, often stellate (star-shaped) and can easily resemble, and be mistaken for, the ragged and variably shaped appearance of an exit wound. If Congresswoman Giffords had passed, the pathologist would look for residues on the skin, in the wound track and even in the hair. Again, clinicians are no so concerned with such.

In this case witness statements regarding relative positions of shooter and victim may help (if they can recall) but since there is no doubt about Loughner being the shooter, this issue is not a likely problem for the prosecution.

Edited to add: With Kennedy, the autopsy was poorly done and not by a forensic pathologist. It was a different time in forensics and though I am a forensic pathologist, I also am a conspiracy believer when it comes to JFK and firmly believe that the entire investigation was intentionally botched to protect TPTB

[elleng]

9. "She has a 101 percent chance of surviving,"

said trauma chief Dr. Peter Rhee said. "She will not die. She does not have that permission from me."

KUDOs to Dr. Rhee!!!

[delightfulstar]

20. I believe she is determined to make it.

Not only that, but I also believe that deep down, she is probably determined to come back at 101%, as well. She's never given up on the people of Arizona, and she won't give up on herself, either. A strong, vibrant person, indeed, with a fighting spirit. She is an inspiration.

[onenote]

10. Another example of how, in events like this, information and assumptions made early on

may be revisited and revised as time goes on. Not because of a conspiracy, but because as more information is obtained and more expertise brought to bear on the situation, the overall picture can change.

Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the media or the public from racing to conclusions based on incomplete or preliminary information.

[elleng]

11. Its the media's job to present info, early as well as later,

and the public should get used to the fact you note, that 'early' info and assumptions may be revised. The public, 'pundits' etc, should frame their statements, as events move along, as 'early/preliminary,' etc.

I've listened to her docs statements/interviews, and they've been very cautious; other docs, not involved, should only opine cautiously, and state that's what they're doing, basing their statements on info in media combined with their professional experience.

24/7 news coverage has certainly resulted in unintended consquences, eh?

[dipsydoodle]

12. That guy Hernandez

who effectively saved her life said he could see the entry wound but the exit wound. She was facing him. 'Nuff said.

[tabatha]

17. Hmmm

He was holding Gaby with her back to him. How do you know if he saw the wound at the back or the front?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. Kennedy was shot in the front of the head, too.

Coincidence?

:shrug:

edit to add: Or maybe it was the back of the head. We're still not certain.

[LisaL]

18. That would make sense considering most likely she

would be facing her shooter when shot.