Debunked:

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=4685&hilit=Autopsy

How is it debunked exactly?

How is it debunked exactly?

Post-mortem reports

In skepticism a formal debunking actually addresses what is being debunked and how. It’s an essay.

What I am seeing is a topic about some of the autopsy report which we all know about.

It’s clear what we would like to say. However can we say it?

Or are there still outstanding problems with saying that for some reasons? I think there could be. Especially if a pathology report is incomplete.

Maybe that article got that from another article and we can trace the source. There might be a few ways of debunking it but I am cautious given the subject matter and incomplete reports.

This article got everything wrong. Hartnell wasn’t stabbed 10 times and Shepard wasn’t stabbed 24 times. In fact, they were only 18 stab wounds off. So when the author of the newspaper article writes about "etching grotesque crosses on her body", I would accept the author as a sensationalist, rather than a journalist. Either that, or he had a copy of the autopsy report and didn’t understand what stab wounds were. There were never any "grotesque crosses on her body", etched or otherwise. Cecelia Shepard was frantically rolling around trying desperately to escape the killer stabbing her – and certainly not staying perfectly still so the killer could etch Zodiac crosses on her body. Any pattern observed during autopsy or viewed in the autopsy report, would be in the mind of the observer, not as a result of design by the killer.

In skepticism a formal debunking actually addresses what is being debunked and how. It’s an essay.

What I am seeing is a topic about some of the autopsy report which we all know about.

It’s clear what we would like to say. However can we say it?

Or are there still outstanding problems with saying that for some reasons? I think there could be. Especially if a pathology report is incomplete.

Maybe that article got that from another article and we can trace the source. There might be a few ways of debunking it but I am cautious given the subject matter and incomplete reports.

You offered a Dubious news paper article. I gave you the actual Cecelia Shepherd autopsy report and an interpretation of that autopsy (verified by two medical professionals). It even has pictures! Lol

Debunking is when someone states a myth, and you provide concrete evidence that proves the myth is false.

There were no “grotesque crosses” on CS’s body, unless you include the two large wounds on her abdomen that came during a violent struggle rather than an intentional sadistic act.

In skepticism a formal debunking actually addresses what is being debunked and how. It’s an essay.

What I am seeing is a topic about some of the autopsy report which we all know about.

It’s clear what we would like to say. However can we say it?

Or are there still outstanding problems with saying that for some reasons? I think there could be. Especially if a pathology report is incomplete.

Maybe that article got that from another article and we can trace the source. There might be a few ways of debunking it but I am cautious given the subject matter and incomplete reports.

You offered a Dubious news paper article.

I gave you the actual Cecelia Shepherd autopsy report and an interpretation of that autopsy (verified by two medical professionals). It even has pictures! Lol

Debunking is when someone states a myth, and you provide concrete evidence that proves the myth is false.

There were no “grotesque crosses” on CS’s body, unless you include the two large wounds on her abdomen that came during a violent struggle rather than an intentional sadistic act.

It even has pictures? Oh and they are the official diagrams with the autopsy report are they? Because you certainly are making it sound that way.

Or is it a fact you have an incomplete pathology report, omitting the diagrams and you interpreted it and came up with your own diagrams or with the help of someone else on here?

Fine. Run wild with your newspaper article and your grotesque crosses.

I don’t care. Enjoy.

So by fine you mean yes you don’t have the original diagrams and yes it is incomplete and yes you added those pictures yourself?

I put up an article. It doesn’t mean I accept it. I can question whatever I like. I can speak for myself and my position. I don’t need you making up what that is.

What I am doing is asking if you can make the deduction you want to make with an incomplete pathology report.

That’s it.

You need be straight with people when you say things like it has pictures.

This article got everything wrong. Hartnell wasn’t stabbed 10 times and Shepard wasn’t stabbed 24 times. In fact, they were only 18 stab wounds off. So when the author of the newspaper article writes about "etching grotesque crosses on her body", I would accept the author as a sensationalist, rather than a journalist. Either that, or he had a copy of the autopsy report and didn’t understand what stab wounds were. There were never any "grotesque crosses on her body", etched or otherwise. Cecelia Shepard was frantically rolling around trying desperately to escape the killer stabbing her – and certainly not staying perfectly still so the killer could etch Zodiac crosses on her body. Any pattern observed during autopsy or viewed in the autopsy report, would be in the mind of the observer, not as a result of design by the killer.

I noticed that with the times stabbed also. I am wondering though why would the journalist say that. Yes sensationalism happens but why did they need to make it any more sensational than it already was? The Zodiac did that enough don’t you think? So I am interested in their source of this. If you think the source is the journalist’s imagination then okay. I can see that but want to know for sure.

http://www.zodiackillerfacts.com/galler … p?album=79

I have already supplied this to Mr. Holland, and he dismisses it as “incomplete“.

I did not dismiss it.

Asking questions doesn’t mean dismissing something.

I know about this report. I know what it has and hasn’t.

I’m going to throw out a bone here and say that the basic question at the top of this thread is one that I’m sure we have all wondered about, perhaps even despite the autopsy report. I suppose it’s easy enough to wonder why this myth seems to pop up so frequently, which in turn leads to wondering if there might be some shred of truth to it. The argument that it wouldn’t be possible to pin someone down and slash them with a knife in criss-cross patterns doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny. The autopsy report however does hold up under scrutiny.

I’m no expert, but if there were such patterns on the body it would be reasonable at the very least to expect to see mention of multiple slashes, or incisions overlapping in one area, I can’t see any mention of that in the autopsy. I would also expect, frugality not withstanding, some attempt to describe intersecting wounds, or wounds that have large multi-direction tears. Having said that, it’s not totally impossible the examiner was just extremely scant and imprecise and that somehow a more interpretive take was leaked to the media, but it seems very unlikely. Far more likely that this began as a sensationalist rumor.