This underlines the need for an international inquiry. If the Bolivian government has nothing to hide, it has nothing to fear from such an eventuality. The possible execution-style killing of an Irish citizens is the business of the Irish govt. Were it one of our relatives, we would instinctively want our government to find the truth.
The report said it was a dumdum bullet. It says they’re rarely used, but peelers across the world use them because they ensure what goes down, stays down. It’s illegal for them to be used by militaries, but there is nothing wrong with them being used for law enforcement. You’ll find that the Americans and Brits use them as well.
One shot directed at a suspected terrorist isn’t going overboard at all, especially if it’s true that Dwyer was sitting on a bed when the police entered the room. If he was in bed or hit the floor as they went in then he probably wouldn’t have been killed.
Mehhh
The report mentions smashed ribs from a dum-dum round. That might account for damage around the entry wound. Front or back, it is bound to be in the report anyway.Originally Posted by cactusflower
So, you don't think that's an exit wound in this chest ? Or you don't think she meant he was shot from the front ?
It is clear they were executed. Its not realistic to execute someone if they are armed to the teeth. The firefight claim has already be proven to be false based on witness testimony.
Hard to say, but there is no sold indication it was front or back given the massive damage visible. If he was murdered in his bed quickly, then its likely the front. If he was detained before being executed, then the back. Few people have the stomach to kill someone in coldblood face to face. The blindfold given to men in front of firing squds is not for their benefit, but is mainly for the benefit of those doing the firing. Grim, but true.
She saw the body at close hand, she examined it in detail, I presume she knows her business - there was thus clearly one dum-dum bullet to the heart from a higher angle, consistent with a shooting in bed or just getting out of it. It was shoot-to-kill, the Bolivian 'shootout' version doesn't hold water, it didn't even back in April (read the thread back then). That's that. It doesn't mean the Bolivians weren't within their rights to do it, nor does it mean that Flores and co. didn't have it coming. That's a completely different argument, one separate from this issue. But as for the Bolivian version of events immediately before Dwyer's death, that's out the window. Unless we are now including our own State pathologist in a right-wing phalangist conspiracy....
Does she say anything about the range at which he was shot? There’s a difference between an execution after capture and the entry team shooting him from the doorway as they enter.
I can understand them plugging Flores, but shooting Dwyer and letting the other accomplice live doesn’t make much sense for people taking it upon themselves to teach local fascists a lesson. It would have been quite obvious to those observing the terrorists that Dwyer was, essentially, a nobody.
Mehhh
I'll be reading the report tomorrow. Its was an open verdict. The body was decomposing ,we were told, when it came to Ireland. I wonder if she had that photograph ? I would have thought it was more adverse to suggest he was shot in the back, not less.
I'm not hung up on any particular idea of what happened. I posted the same thing when I first saw that photograph months ago.
Tbh, we still don't know what exactly happened and we probably never will.
I have to say that I am not inclined to accept the general view that the Bolivian officials who carried out the first autopsy on Michael Dwyer were incompetent or corrupt or both. As discussed here, we know that the autopsy report was released in full, dated 16 April 2009 at 22:30 hours in Santa Cruz. The report was prepared by Dr Antonio Torres Balanza and Rafael Vargas Peña of the Instituto de Investigaciones Forenses. The admission that an x-ray machine was not available appears candid, but otherwise the report appears carefully composed to my admittedly non-expert eyes. The technical Spanish would need a particularly careful translation and I assume that this was done for the benefit of the Dublin Coroner's inquest yesterday.
Professor Marie Cassidy carried out her autopsy when Dwyer's body had arrived back in Ireland in an advanced state of decomposition. She is reported to have stated at yesterday's inquest that the Bolivian post-mortem 'was incomplete and consisted mainly of an external examination', and that those who carried it out 'had misinterpreted cuts for bullet exit and entry wounds, concluding Mr Dwyer had been shot six times'. What a remarkable charge, that one's counterparts in another country could not distinguish between cuts and bullet wounds. Cassidy has instead stated that a single dum-dum bullet did the damage to Dwyer's body, another serious charge which would need to be backed up by fragment evidence. We are at a disadvantage in not having a full copy of Professor Cassidy's report to compare with that of Balanza and Peña.
Might Professor Cassidy be incorrect? In two cases, that of Brian Rossiter and Brian Murphy, her findings were subject to serious criticism, and in the latter case the word 'fanciful' was used. The Sunday Business Post article reporting these controversies concluded, 'In a speech in 2006 Cassidy said the public needed to understand that forensic pathology was not an exact science and that all pathologists could do was give an opinion based on the evidence'.
Indeed. The Dwyer inquest returned an open verdict, and the case itself remains open.
23Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote