Re: Evidence that it WASN'T "J. Frank Dalton" who died at Granbury on Aug. 15, 1
Dear Carl Boshers:
Ben Estes also made another statement, which could be VERY IMPORTANT in its implications for this particular topic. Estes was of the opinion that, as to Dalton's scars, only ONE scar MAY have been the result of a "BULLET GRAZE." FIRST OF ALL, anyone will concede that if a person develops a case of severe edema, the resultant swelling of the body tissues will probably NOTABLY ALTER THE APPEARANCE of any scars which may be on the body. IF Dalton really did have a case of severe edema at the time Estes was examining his scars ( which was at the time of Dalton's POST MORTEM EXAM ), it seems Estes would have DEFINITELY MENTIONED that fact, since Estes would have been anxious to point out that OBVIOUSLY an ACCURATE AND RELIABLE determination of the CAUSE of any body scarring could easily be hampered by a pathological medical condition like severe edema ( since it would be expected that severe edema might conceivably GREATLY ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF BODY SCARS ). Since Estes did NOT state that Dalton, at the time of death, was suffering from a condition of severe edema, I think we can pretty safely conclude that Estes' evaluation of Dalton's body scars was not hampered, "complicated," or even potentially invalidated by the presence in the corpse of such a pathological medical condition. Estes' statement that, in his opinion, only one of Dalton's body scars MAY have been the result of a "bullet graze," would therefore appear to be the accurate, reasoned conclusion of an experienced undertaker, which is NOT subject to question due to the presence in the corpse of UNDISCLOSED/UNREPORTED MEDICAL CONDITIONS/FACTORS ( such as severe edema ) which might easily alter the conclusions reached when taken into account.
Sincerely, and Lots of Love - -
P. K. K.