>>5952363
Your entire premise is an appeal to authority that completely falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. "Slovenian stuntman here." That's an unverifiable credential from an anonymous person on the internet. Even if we take the claim at face value, being a stuntman doesn't automatically make you an expert in geology, criminal investigation, or wound analysis. It makes you an expert in falling down for a living.
The core of the argument is a classic "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy: "after this, therefore because of this." The stuntman says he got cuts from sharp rocks during his stunts, and therefore, these specific cuts on this specific person must have come from the same thing. This is an insane leap in logic. It ignores the entire field of forensic pathology. Cuts from sharp rocks are typically jagged, irregular, and show signs of crushing or abrasion, not the clean, precise, and parallel lines often associated with a weapon. To look at a complex injury and immediately declare its cause based on your personal, entirely unrelated experience isn't expertise; it's myopic arrogance. It dismisses all other possibilities - defensive wounds, an altercation with a tool or weapon, or any other scenario, without a single thought.
Finally, the whole thing is just a personal anecdote masquerading as expert analysis. "I quit doing the stunt... I only do car stunts now." This isn't evidence; it's a personal life choice presented as a data point. It adds nothing to the discussion of this specific case other than to frame the speaker as a world-weary veteran who has seen some things. It's emotional storytelling designed to make the conclusion seem more weighty than it is. In reality, it's a irrelevant sidebar about one guy's career change that has zero bearing on the facts of a completely separate incident.
