Those that saw the video will testify that there was plenty of blood gushing out so this discredits the doctor's theory.
Actually, I watched the video with my roommate who happens to be a mortician and he was the first one to point out the lack of gushing blood.
While it does not change the fact that they murdered him, I do believe it is highly possible that he was in fact dead BEFORE they sawed his head off.
I (unfortunately) watched two videos of Mooslems beheading hapless victims last year. (Both were Russian soldiers I believe.) There wasn't much blood splatter or flow in those either.
I saw it and as soon as I saw it I came to the same conclusion as the doctor. None of it matters however, he got his head cut off, that much is sure.
"Those that saw the video will testify that there was plenty of blood gushing out so this discredits the doctor's theory."
Actually, I saw the video and there is no blood at all when they hold up his supposedly-freshly-beheaded head. Not even a drop. No comments or other opinions by me, as the guy was still murdered..but medically, the doc may have a point.
I think they killed him (bullet to the head?) and beheaded him long after he died, which would explain the lack of blood.
"Those that saw the video will testify that there was plenty of blood gushing out so this discredits the doctor's theory."
I did not have the courage to view the video. I just couldn't stand seeing such a thing. However, I have wondered (after reading numerous places) about the "lack of blood" statements. I assume from what you are saying that there WAS an obvious amount of blood, and you believe he actually was killed then and there? At any rate, thank you for clearing up something I had wondered about...