Sherry Fiester on ‘Enemy of the Truth’

“We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”
~Jesse Curry
retired police chief of Dallas, Texas, “JFK Assassination File.”

Sherry Fiester on ‘Enemy of the Truth’

From an interview by John Valeri on @:

Today, Hartford Books Examiner welcomes Sherry P. Fiester.

The author of Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination (JFK Lancer Productions & Publications, Inc., $24.95), Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor who first began to apply her professional expertise to the Kennedy assassination in 1995. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and blood spatter analysis, and is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels; she has also written numerous articles for professional publications. Fiester is a recipient of the JFK Lancer-Mary Ferrell 2003 New Frontier Award, given in recognition of research that furthers the investigation of Kennedy’s murder.

Published last November, Enemy of the Truth was received enthusiastically by the author’s contemporaries. Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, praised, “As more information is extracted from official government files and new technology is utilized in analyzing the scientific aspects, Fiester’s fascinating, extensively researched book presents a powerful and cogent basis for repudiation of the official findings. A true literary dissection performed with a sharp analytical scalpel.” Further, Larry Hancock, author of Someone Would Have Talked, noted, “… no experienced law enforcement criminalist has stepped up to the challenge of re-examining the President’s murder with current day knowledge—until now. Anyone with even a passing interest in JFK’s murder needs to examine her [Fiester’s] analysis and conclusions.”

From the publisher:

President John F. Kennedy’s assassination is the most studied murder investigation of the 21st century, yet it remains plagued by questions and a variety of unproven theories. Regardless of how tenacious and believable an enduring claim may be, if lacking historical or scientific sustenance, it is a myth. While these intriguing, but unverifiable suppositions gather attention, they detract from the quality of information essential to explain this mysterious homicide. Myths are superficial, have no investigative depth and ask the reader to take a leap of faith that having supporting scientific evidence does not require. John F. Kennedy said, “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” Filtering long held beliefs in the Kennedy assassination through contemporary, reliable, established scientific facts will help to dispel myths; the very thing Kennedy described as the great enemy of truth. Enemy of the Truth utilizes various forensic disciplines to dispel assassination mythologies, including simultaneous headshots, where the shooter for the fatal head shot was located, if the limousine stopped and more.

Now, Sherry Fiester invites readers to reconcile speculation with science …

1) What inspired you to write ENEMY OF THE TRUTH? Also, please share the meaning behind the title?

For many years I have used a particular email … “I am only one, but I am one. And even one can make a difference. So I will do what I can and hope others do their part; because together, we are more than just one.” It saddens me to know that the assassination of President Kennedy is rife with distorted series. As a result, the historical narrative of our country is incorrect. People have struggled for 50 years to determine what really happened that day in Dallas. Knowing that I have information that would help them answer questions concerning the assassination, and not sharing that information would be wrong. So, in late 2011. I begin to seriously work on the book that would be eventually called Enemy of the Truth. It was published in November 2012.

President Kennedy once said, “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest; but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” I believe the historical narrative of our country concerning the Kennedy assassination is distorted with biased and unverified information that could be characterized as a myth.

Many people still believe in a single shooter, regardless of the scientific facts that prove otherwise. Sadly, the majority of the conclusions and purported facts concerning the death of President Kennedy are anecdotal, unrealistic, and incorrect statements kept alive by those who would prefer fabrications that promote sensationalism as opposed to the quiet reality of fact. I want to fight the unsubstantiated allegations that continue to rear their head, summoning the naive to join forces in a “truth is stranger than fiction” campaign. Although imaginative and sometimes thought provoking, these theories rely upon the suspension of common sense and fly in the face of forensic research. I want to correct those misconceptions.

Polls have consistently shown that the American public’s confidence in their government has steadily declined since the Warren Report was issued in 1964, and now over 80% of the people refuse to believe a lone, deranged gunman killed Kennedy. The American people are convinced they have never been told the truth about the tragedy of November 22, 1963 and many will not stop in their search for the truth concerning his death and the subsequent cover-up. I am one of those people. This book is part of my fight to bring the truth to light and restore accuracy to our history.

2) You examine the case through the use of forensic s. How does this provide a different context to work within – and what advantages does scientific examination hold over anecdotal/circumstantial evidence?

Application of the latest forensic technology and research provides new pieces of the assassination puzzle. For example, identifying the fatal head injury as a shot from the front would prove a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.

You have applied forensic techniques to debunk both pro and anti-conspiracy theories. Can you give a brief example of each (think Grassy Knoll shooter)?

The Kennedy assassination is the most controversial homicide and most studied murder investigation in American History, yet its mysteries remain unresolved and its questions unanswered to the majority of our nation’s citizens. The latest polls indicate the American people believe Oswald did not act alone, and that President John F. Kennedy’s death was the result of a conspiracy. In addition, almost everyone points to the shooter at the Grassy Knoll as proof of that conspiracy.

PRO CONSPIRACY MYTH: For almost 50 years, the death of the President has been attributed to a shooter secreted behind the wooden picket fence at the infamous grassy knoll. Witnesses observed smoke from that location, many heard a shot believed to have originated from behind the fence, and a huge number spontaneously rushed up the slope towards the fenced area. Police officers also believed the shot originated from that area and moved urgently in that direction. One witness saw a flash of light from near the Grassy Knoll and another witness related observing men with a rifle behind the fence. There is even a confession from someone who claimed to have shot the President from behind the picket fence. However, even with such overwhelming evidence, in order to properly identify the location for the sniper, and possibly prove a conspiracy, we must turn to forensic science and contemporary ballistic trajectory reconstruction techniques.

By utilizing the latest information concerning medical wound ballistic research, we can determine if the head shot came from the front, side, or rear of Kennedy. Subsequently, we can locate the shooter within Dealey Plaza. By following the currently recommended steps for reconstructing shooting trajectories, an angle of possible projectile paths for President Kennedy’s fatal head wound can be identified. Utilizing those recommended and recognized trajectory reconstruction standards, the shooter is conclusively proven to be near the south end of the triple overpass or the parking lot adjacent to that portion of the overpass. The unprecedented application of those current forensic crime reconstruction techniques excludes the Grassy Knoll.

ANTI CONSPIRACY MYTH: The remarkable flight of Warren commission Exhibit 399 is cryptic and complex. The Warren Report states the bullet struck President John Kennedy in the back of the neck, passed through the neck without striking bone, and then exited at the front of his throat. The bullet then entered Texas Governor John Connally’s back at the right armpit, damaging four inches of his fifth rib before it exited his chest below the right nipple. Continuing forward, the bullet then struck Connally’s right wrist and shattered the radius bone before exiting at the base of his palm. The still moving bullet then struck Connally’s left thigh just about the knee, penetrating about three inches beneath the surface of the skin. The bullet struck the femur, depositing a small lead fragment before stopping its forward movement.

The bullet was then somehow expelled from the wound in Connally’s thigh, escaped his clothing, and was deposited on a stretcher to be found in a hallway of the Parkland Memorial Hospital. This bullet would eventually become the foundation of the Warren Commission’s theory that a single assassin was responsible for the shooting of the President.

Although, any deviation from this conclusion would suggest a second assassin, the Commission did not declare they had proven the Single Bullet Theory, nor did all members accept the possibility of a single bullet wounding both men. They just declared their inability to prove the validity of the Single Bullet Theory as inconsequential. By its own admission, the Warren Commission did not demonstrate the Single Bullet Theory correct.

“Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds” (WCR:19).

The alignment of the points of entry was only indicative and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be approximated. (WCR: 107).

Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.” Enemy of the Truth proves the Single Bullet Theory is a manufactured resolution of WC problems stemming from a biased investigation that obviously attempted to manipulate the findings supporting a single shooter.

3) Given your research and findings, what specific areas of this case do you believe warrant further investigation? And how has time and technical advancement affected this opinion?

Like many people, I believed that President Kennedy’s fatal head shot came from the grassy Knoll. I had been to Dealey Plaza and stood behind that within wooden fence. For 35 years witnesses and researchers had pointed to the grassy Knoll as the location for that shooter. I like them believe that the fatal shot came from the right front of the president. The problem was. I was confused about where front was located. In 2003, I completed a trajectory analysis to reconstruct the shooting for the fatal headshot. Using the same standard procedures Investigators use today in shooting homicides, I made a surprising discovery. I thought front was the grassy Knoll. But I like so many others was mistaken. President Kennedy is looking approximately 25° beyond profile reference to Zapruder. This means the grassy Knoll was at an approximate 90° angle to him.Front as applied to president Kennedy at the time of the headshot was actually near the South end of the triple overpass, on the opposite side of Dealey Plaza. Utilizing the trajectory analysis techniques, the grassy Knoll is excluded as a possible location for the shooter for the fatal headshot

In the years since President Kennedy’s death, various technical fields have made great strides in understanding ballistics. Developing accurate methods to establish projectile trajectories and establishing a better understanding of wound ballistics continues to be the focus of new research and technical publications. Scientifically establishing directionality of the projectile striking Kennedy in the head is paramount TO EITHER support a single rear shooter, OR establishing a conspiracy. Beveling, fracture sequencing, and projectile fragmentation, target movement, and blood spatter in gunshot wounds to the head are current methods of assessing a projectile’s direction of travel. Application of the latest forensic technology and research provides new pieces of the assassination puzzle. Identifying the head shot as a front or rear injury is significant as it proves a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Contemporary research indicates of the five methods to determine the direction of travel of the projectile fatally wounding President Kennedy. One is deemed unreliable, and the other four support a shot from the front. Importantly, they do so while meeting the evidentiary standard required to support a criminal conviction in today’s courtroom.


Bullets traveling through bone create marginal conical shaped fractures adjacent to the entry or exit site. The conical beveling characteristically appears as a symmetrical chipping out of bone forming an indentation surrounding the entry or exit point on the opposite side of impact. The small end of the cone touches the interior or exterior bone table from which the bullet entered. Tangential gunshot wounds to the head create elliptically shaped defects containing both internal and external beveling (Levy, 2012).

Some wounds present both internal and external beveling. Researchers attribute this pseudo-beveling in high velocity distance shots to the transference of kinetic energy to the skull as dislodged chips flaking off entry wound edges, producing the effect of beveling. Without careful examination, misinterpretation of an entrance wound as an exit wound is possible in all types of entries (Quatrehomme, 1998, Coe, 1981; Prahlow, 2010; Adams, 2010).

Based upon current forensic research, it appears beveling cannot provide conclusive evidence of projectile direction. Incorrect assessment of direction can occur with tangential entries or exits, mistaken orientation, insufficient beveling, or the failure to recognize external beveling on entry wounds.

Fracture Patterns

When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009).

The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries.

The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.

Target Movement

When examining the Zapruder film frame by frame, it is readily apparent the President Kennedy’s head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backward in response to the gunshot wound to the head.

German wound ballistic researcher Bernd Karger, states initial transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, prior to target movement with the force of the moving bullet. Karger found greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008). Wound ballistic researcher Robin Coupland used high-speed photography to confirm and document the forward movement into the line of fire referenced by Karger (Coupland, 2011).

Researchers Karger and Coupland noted the force in a moving bullet is energy of motion, or kinetic energy. Upon impact, the bullet pushes against the head, and initially, as the weight of the head is greater than the weight of the bullet, the head moves against the line of fire. As the projectile slows, more kinetic energy transfers to the target. A overcoming the weight of the head with a sufficient transfer of energy causes the target to move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. Application of contemporary wound ballistics research to the movement observed in the Zapruder film indicates a minute forward motion followed by more pronounced rearward movement—consistent with a single shot from the front.

Bullet Fragment Distribution

The distribution of bullet fragment begins near the point of entry and continues in the direction of the bullet trajectory in an ever-widening path as it moves away from the entry wound. A lateral view of the same pattern will reveal a conical shape to the fragment distribution. The apex of the pattern is closest to the entry wound and the wider portion of the fragment cone is closest to the exit wound (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998).

The House Select Committee on Assassinations heard testimony concerning the characteristics of bullet fragment patterns when Larry Sturdivan testified the majority of metallic fragments are typically deposited nearest the entry wound (HSCA 1: 402). Clark Panel Report also stated the majority of fragments were located in the front and top of Kennedy’s head (ARRB MD59:10-11).

Multiple forensic publications indicate X-rays fragment patterns display the majority of fragments near the entry wound. Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays depict the majority of bullet fragments in the front and top of the head, which indicates a frontal shot.

Blood Spatter

Backspatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible (James, 2005).

Scientific journals, books, and research published since the late 1980s indicate the blood observed in the Zapruder film displays the pattern shape of back spatter. It also extends from the wound area a distance characteristic of back spatter, particularly when correlated to blood documented elsewhere on the scene. The timing for the pattern creation and the dissipation rate identifies it as back spatter. In fact, all available information concerning the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter replicated in forensic laboratories and described in peer-reviewed publications since the late 1980s. Consequently, the only possible conclusion is the back spatter in the Zapruder film is genuine. Identifying the blood in the Zapruder film as back spatter signifies a shot from the front of President Kennedy.

4) To what do you credit the continued fascination with this case?

All homicides have similar questions. How was the victim killed? Who was the perpetrator? How can we prove their responsibility in the victim’s death? Why did they kill the victim? Were other people involved? Normally, we are able to answer those questions. We identify the participants and their motives, and collect enough evidence to prove their guilt in court. However, in the case of President Kennedy’s homicide very few questions have been answered. We cannot identify the shooter’s that injured and killed President Kennedy. We can guess, but we have no real proof. We do not know how many people were involved, not only in Dealey Plaza, but behind the scenes. The evidence has been compromised, and misinterpreted in many cases. The controversy lies in knowing there are two conspiracies. The first was to kill the president, and the second demonstrated by concealing what really happened in Dealey Plaza. What the American people are lacking is closure. Accepting what happened means knowing the truth. However, the truth is still a vague concept for many. Until that basic information is known, there will always be controversy. Although almost 50 years has passed without answers, it does not mean that answers are not available.


With thanks to Sherry P. Fiester for her generosity of time and thought.

The author will be presenting at the 19th annual JFK Lancer Conference to be held November 21-24 at The Adolphus hotel in downtown Dallas. Fine more information at

607 thoughts on “Sherry Fiester on ‘Enemy of the Truth’

  1. CSI Sherry Fiester – Curriculum Vitae

    Detective Lieutenant – Forensics
    St. Charles Patish Sheriff’s Department
    August 1995 – October 1999 (4 years 3 months)
    In 1995 newly elected Sheriff Greg Champagne employed me to head his Forensic Unit. It was a wonderful opportunity to assist in the development of an investigative unit that would become regionally based and respected for their expertise.

    My duties included: Supervise overall operations for Forensic Unit, Evidence Division, and License and Permits Departments; Direct, supervise and coordinate forensic investigations and personnel in the field; Develope forensic standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for meeting national individual certifications; Maintain fiscal responsibility, develop budgets and maintain inventory for three departments without budget overages; Develop and maintain computerized records management system for case activity, sex offenders database and evidence retention; Inspect facilities for emergency readiness and compliance of OSHA regulations; And develop instructional materials and conducte educational programs on state and national levels.

    Detective Sargeant – Forensics
    Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department
    1982 – 1993 (11 years)
    In 1983 I began my career with Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Department. After three years in Patrol I transferred to the Forencis Investigation Division. I have testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern interpretation in Federal and local judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. I am published in Crime scene Investigation, Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Interpretation and has taught at state, national and international levels.

    Directed, supervised and coordinated forensic investigations for multiple agencies in a 6 parish region
    Trained, supervised and coordinated clerical office staff and forensic investigative personnel
    Developed forensic certification standards, protocols, training manuals, policy and procedures for successfully meeting national individual certifications
    Developed and maintained computerized records management system for case activity
    Maintained fiscal responsibility, developed budget and maintained inventory.

  2. Blood Spatter

    “Backspatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible.” (James, 2005).
    ‘Essential Forensic Biology’ By Alan Gunn

    Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice (Practical Aspects of Criminal & Forensic Investigations) Hardcover – May 26, 2005
    by Stuart H. James (Author), Paul E. Kish (Author), T. Paulette Sutton (Author)

  3. Principles of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Theory and Practice
    Stuart H. James, Paul E. Kish, T. Paulette Sutton
    CRC Press, May 26, 2005 – Law – 576 pages

      The illustration above is the product of photogrammetry Photogrammetry is the science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. Moreover, it may be used to recover the motion pathways of designated reference points located on any moving object, on its components and in the immediately adjacent environment.

  4. Forensics and Crime Scene Investigation

    There are 4 questions to be answered in a homicide investigation:

    • Cui Bono
    • Motive & Opportunity
    • Means
    • Modus Operandi

    The investigative process relies on these techniques to answer those questions:

    • Crime scene investigation [CSI], a study of the scene of the homicide, with a measurement and record of all elements within that scene.
    • Medical evidence – Autopsy

    Click to access homicide%20investigation%20standard%20operating%20procedures%201999.pdf

  5. Bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) is one of several specialties in the field of forensic science. The use of bloodstains as evidence is not new; however, the application of modern science has brought it to a higher level. New technologies, especially advances in DNA analysis, are available for detectives and criminologists to use in solving crimes and apprehending offenders.

    The science of bloodstain pattern analysis applies scientific knowledge from other fields to solve practical problems. Bloodstain pattern analysis draws on the scientific disciplines of biology, chemistry, mathematics and physics. If an analyst follows a scientific process, this applied science can produce strong, solid evidence, making it an effective tool for investigators, although care does need to be taken when relying on bloodstain pattern analysis in criminal cases. A report released by The National Academy of Sciences calls for more standardization within the field. The report highlights the ability of blood spatter analysts to overstate their qualifications and the reliability of their methods in the court room.[1]

    In physics there are two continuous physical states of matter, solid and fluid. Once blood has left the body it behaves as a fluid and all physical laws apply.

    Gravity acts on blood (without the body’s influence) as soon as it exits the body. Given the right circumstances blood can act according to ballistic theory.
    Viscosity is the amount of internal friction in the fluid. It describes the resistance of a liquid to flow.
    Surface tension is the force that maintains the shape of a drop of liquid, such as blood. When two fluids are in contact with each other (blood and air) there are forces attracting all molecules to each other.

    Blood spatter flight characteristics.
    Experiments with blood have shown that a drop of blood tends to form into a sphere in flight rather than the artistic teardrop shape. This is what one would expect of a fluid in freefall. The formation of the sphere is a result of surface tension that binds the molecules together.

    This spherical shape of blood in flight is important for the calculation of the angle of impact (incidence) of blood spatter when it hits a surface. That angle will be used to determine the point from which the blood originated which is called the Point of Origin or more appropriately the Area of Origin.

    A single spatter of blood is not enough to determine the Area of Origin at a crime scene. The determination of the angles of impact and placement of the Area of Origin should be based on the consideration of a number of stains and preferably stains from opposite sides of the pattern to create the means to triangulate.

  6. Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination
    by Sherry P. Fiester

    Reviewed By William LeBlanc, *CFCSI and Phil Dragoo
    (*Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator (CFCSI).

    “Each chapter is a stand-alone examination of a particular myth concerning the assassination. The chapter headings are the stated myth, followed by a detailed examination of how forensic information, research, and analysis can either confirm the statement or expose it as false. In each chapter, the author, a retired professional forensic investigator, proceeds from established forensic investigative research and/or protocol. Science, not speculation, leads to the correct analysis, dispelling the myth, which, as President Kennedy himself stated, is always the enemy of the truth.

    Readers will appreciate the author’s meticulous attention to detail in a book written in the language of the professional crime scene investigator, with each subject introduced in a manner to allow the reader complete understanding of the subject. With 233 citations supporting the information provided in Enemy of the Truth, Fiester provides many opportunities for confirmation of the research material presented.

    The ballistics, blood spatter pattern interpretation, and trajectory reconstruction procedures used by the author are based on the most current techniques used in the field. Her conclusions are methodical, accurate, and what should be expected, especially when considering the crime scene investigation procedures used on and after that fateful day. It is regrettable such a poor job was done by the first responders in securing the scene, the detectives in their investigation of the scene, and the medical examination of the wounds received by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Any Crime Scene Reconstructionist would have a difficult time accurately interpreting the information collected in this case. The author makes a valiant effort in painstakingly interpreting and using the available information to educate the reader so he can form his own opinion as to the number of shooters, how many shots were fired, and in determining the origin of the gunshots.”~William LeBlanc, and Phil Dragoo

    This is another great review, going into quite a bit of detail in a chapter by chapter format.

  7. History of Blood Spatter Analysis
    Although bloodstain pattern analysis has been studied since the late 1890s, investigators haven’t always recognized how valuable it can be. The first known study of blood spatters occurred at the Institute for Forensic Medicine in Poland, by Dr. Eduard Piotrowski. He eventually published the book “Concerning the Origin, Shape, Direction and Distribution of the Bloodstains Following Head Wounds Caused by Blows.” Cases that included the interpretation of blood spatters didn’t appear until 50 years later.
    In the highly publicized case of the State of Ohio v. ­Samuel Sheppard, an affidavit concerning blood spatter evidence was entered by Dr. Paul Kirk. This 1955 case marked one of the earliest instances of the legal system recognizing the importance of blood spatter analysis. Dr. Kirk showed the position of the assailant and the victim as well as showing that the assailant struck the victim with his left hand.
    The next significant person in the field was Dr.Herbert MacDonell, who published “Flight Characteristics of Human Blood and Stain Patterns” in 1971. MacDonell also trained law-enforcement in blood spatter analysis and developed courses to continue to train analysts. In 1983, he and other attendees of the first annual Advanced Bloodstain Institute founded the International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts (IABPA). Since then, the field of bloodstain analysis has continued to grow and develop. It has now become standard practice for law enforcement to include during crime-scene investigation.
    blood spatter

  8. Basics of Blood
    As unpleasant as it is to deal with, when a crime results in bloodshed, the blood left behind functions as evidence for investigators. A bloodstain pattern analyst can’t simply glance at drips and smears of blood and immediately tell you the who, what and when of a crime scene. Blood spatter analysis takes time and is just one piece of the puzzle when investigators are putting together the elements of a crime. However, bloodstain pattern analysis can corroborate other evidence and lead investigators to seek additional clues. After close analysis, blood spatters can indicate important information such as:

    >Type and velocity of weapon
    >Number of blows
    >Handedness of assailant (assailants tend to strike with their dominant hand on the opposite side of the victim’s body)
    >Position and movements of the victim and assailant during and after the attack
    >Which wounds were inflicted first
    >Type of injuries
    >How long ago the crime was committed
    >Whether death was immediate or delayed

    Blood spatters can lead to the recreation of a crime because of how blood behaves. Blood leaves the body as a liquid that follows the laws of motion and gravity. It travels in spherical drops due to surface tension. Blood molecules are very cohesive, or attracted to each other, so they squeeze against each other until they form a shape with the smallest area possible. These drops behave in predictable ways when they strike a surface or a force acts upon them.
    Imagine what happens when you spill water droplets on the floor. The water falls slowly to the ground, making a circular puddle. The shape and size of the puddle depends on how much water you pour, how high you hold the water glass and whether you’re spilling it on carpet, wood, linoleum or some other surface. A lot of water makes a larger puddle. If the water falls from a distance, the puddle will be smaller in diameter. A hard surface will retain more of a circular shape, while carpet absorbs some of the water and makes the edges spread.

    Although initially it behaves as a liquid, blood eventually begins to clot after it leaves the body. Clotting can occur within 15 minutes. If some blood spatters are more clotted than others, it can indicate that multiple blows or gunshots occurred over a period of time.
    Blood spatters can also contain bits of tissue and bone. This usually points to a high-impact spatter, and the type of tissue can help to determine the depth and severity of the injuries that were sustained in the attack.

    Read More:


    “In this article I address the chain of custody for the so-called “magic bullet,” otherwise known as Commission Exhibit 399 (or CE399). According to the Warren Commission, this bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor John Connally.
    In fact, the chain of custody for this central piece of evidence is non-existent. The true and amazing story about the near-pristine “magic bullet” found at Parkland Hospital shortly after JFK’s assassination has been carefully pieced together by analysts such as Sylvia Meagher in the ’60s and John Hunt in the past few years.
    Although Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen received the bullet in Parkland Hospital by about 1:30 p.m., an hour after the assassination, Johnsen’s initials are nowhere on the magic bullet, despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.
    Johnsen handed the bullet to the Secret Service Chief James Rowley at Andrews Air Force Base at about 7:30 p.m., who didn’t initial it either. Neither Johnsen nor Rowley could identify the bullet when shown it later.
    The chief of the Dallas police crime lab, Carl Day, said he initialed all three hulls found on the sixth floor at about 1 pm on the afternoon of November 22.

    When Day testified on 4/22/64 to the Warren Commission, he had to admit that he did not initial any of them during the time that they were found at the 6th floor of the book depository.

    As the hulls are nondescript, initialing them is essential if anyone hopes to recognize such an item again. Detective Richard Sims wrote that after Day took pictures of the hulls, he picked up the “empty hulls”, Day held open an envelope, Sims dropped them in. Sims held onto an unsealed envelope with three hulls in it at 2 pm; at some point, homicide chief Will Fritz was given the envelope by Sims. Fritz later gave the envelope to a sergeant, who eventually brought one hull back to Fritz and the other two hulls back to Day.

    Day admitted during his Warren Commission testimony that he only initialed the two hulls in the unsealed envelope when he got it back at 10 that night. Day passed the shells on to FBI agent Vince Drain in the early morning, and I am similarly unaware of any record of Drain initialing any of these materials before he passed them on to firearms expert Robert Frazier at the FBI lab. Frazier’s testimony doesn’t mention anything about these shells being initialed by either of these men.

    These hulls should have been excluded based on the failure to have a reliable chain of custody.”
    ~Bill Simpich
    planted slug

    Read more:
    Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he “keep his mouth shut” about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital. This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

    Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o’clock – uh, excuse me, that’s Saturday morning – after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
    Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
    Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…
    Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it’s pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say – was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn’t want you to talk about it period?
    Tomlinson: Just don’t talk about it period.
    In contrast to all of these very solid corroborations, we have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399. Unlike many other issues related to the case, this one is not a tough call. It seems that J. Edgar Hoover agreed, because in recordings of telephone conversations between him and LBJ, he suggested that Connally was wounded because he came between the President and an assassin, and that if Connally had not come between them, JFK would have taken his bullet.


    • “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
      Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”
      ~Jesse Curry
      retired police chief of Dallas, Texas, “JFK Assassination File.”

      • Gun and ballistics expert Cunningham to Hale Bogg’s question: “you cannot establish the fact of the bullets fired in that gun (38 sp. on exhibit)

        Cunningham: “No, you cannot.”

    • “Bottom line: the first four people who handled the bullet in question could not, in fact, identify it as being the same one they handled. The first two law enforcement officers who handled it did not place their initials on the bullet, as was required. There are time differences about receipt of the bullet. One person who handled the bullet recalls that the bullet in evidence has a different shape than the one he handled. I submit that a court would not have allowed the bullet into evidence. How can one argue for any theory about a bullet who’s provenance is not clearly established?”~Clarence Carlson – December 15, 2014 at 3:39 pm

  10. The word forensic comes from the Latin forēnsis, meaning “of or before the forum.”

    scientific (adj.)
    1580s, from Middle French scientifique, from Medieval Latin scientificus “pertaining to science,” from Latin scientia “knowledge” (see science) + -ficus “making” + facere “to make” (see factitious). Originally used to translate Greek epistemonikos “making knowledge” in Aristotle’s “Ethics.”

    Sciential (mid-15c., “based on knowledge,” from Latin scientialis) is the classical purists’ choice for an adjective based on science. Scientic (1540s) and scient (late 15c.) also have been used. First record of scientific revolution is from 1803; scientific method is from 1854; scientific notation is from 1961. Related: Scientifical; scientifically.

    Method: a way of doing something. : a careful or organized plan that controls the way something is done.


    • Skulduggery
      noun: skullduggery or skulduggery
      underhanded or unscrupulous behavior; trickery.
      synonyms: trickery, fraudulence, underhandedness, chicanery.

    • Accessory After The Fact:
      Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
      An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia (among other things), obstruction of justice.

  11. PBS Frontline, an apparatus of the Public Relations Regime, dealing with “Infotainment” disguised as analysis. It is a propaganda tool of the System, just like everything on mainstream television, radio and press.
    Note the sponsors of PBS – the Tax Exempt Foundations. Understanding the history of these organizations is essential in assessing the agenda performed by PBS, NPR, and other such official mouthpieces.
    It is my assertion that this PBS/Frontline special had one specific agenda and target; Dr. Cyril Wecht personally. Wecht has been one of the most articulate and successful spokesman on the conspiracy to kill JFK. Defaming Wecht is high priority for the System that killed Kennedy.

    BY John Whitehead
    Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

    By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say. By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write. By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.

    By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do. By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember. And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

    Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof. Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking or user bias. Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Consequently, no longer are we “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals.

    The government’s questionable acquisition and use of DNA to identify individuals and “solve” crimes has come under particular scrutiny in recent years. Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That has all been turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including the recent decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA.
    “We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases.” “~scientist Leslie A. Pray
    Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

    If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way: Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

    Moreover, despite the insistence by government agents that DNA is infallible, New York Times reporter Andrew Pollack makes a clear and convincing case that DNA evidence can, in fact, be fabricated. Israeli scientists “fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva,” stated Pollack. “They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.” The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

    Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish. But for those who know their history, the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”


    • Willy Whitten
      March 10, 2015 at 6:16 pm
      What does Chuck Denham’s conflict of interests charges have to do with this?

      The author of those studies was, John T. James PhD, and the information in them continues to be held in high esteem. Other studies come to similar conclusions, the medical community as a whole has acknowledged the problem.

      That problem is however a side issue to the issue we begin with, and that is the veracity of and the essential need of crime scene investigation for solving crimes.

      You have gone from attacking Sherry Fiester’s qualifications, to attacking those who support her qualifications, to attacking the very practice of crime scene investigation itself.
      Your position becomes more preposterous with each argument you make.
      Crime Scene Investigation is based on verified scientific method, and backed by decades of scientific literature in its support.

      You are ignorant of this scientific literature because you are more interested in winning an argument than grasping the science of CSI. And your motive for this is clear and understood; it is because modern forensics proves Kennedy was struck by bullets fired from the front.

      Everything swirls like Déjà vu in these blog debates sometimes… I have read these arguments and made these responses before…”But who knows where or when?”

      I have met Photon in so many different masks on the web … he is like a Manichean Devil that possesses many minds in the world today. A “divine psychopath” as it were.

  13. Alan Dale speaks with Professor Peter Dale Scott
    author of Deep Politics and the Death of JFK and Deep Politics II and III; Coming to Jakarta: A Poem About Terror; Mosaic Orpheus, a collection of his poems which includes the Tao of 9/11; Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies and CIA in Central America; Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina; The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America, and most recently, American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan. 01:29:59


  14. Listen to the mockingbird
    The mockingbird is singing o’er her grave
    Listen to the mockingbird, listen to the mockingbird
    Still singing where the weeping willows wave

    “Later, in 1966, I inquired of Life about the three versions of the same issue.Edward Kern, a Life editor, replied in a letter to me dated November 28, 1966. In his reply he said: “I am at a loss to explain the discrepancies between the three versions of LIFE which you cite. I’ve heard of breaking a plate to correct an error. I’ve never heard of doing it twice for a single issue, much less a single story.”

    Well, unlike Edward Kern, I was not at a loss to explain the three versions. To me the three versions of Life and Life’s lies about what the Zapruder film revealed show in microcosm an elegant example of how the U.S. media criminally joined with U.S. governmental civilian personages, and with the national security state apparatus to employ deceit in seeking to prop up the Warren Report.

    Henry R. Luce created Life magazine. He was an ardent Cold Warrior having championed the American Century and having lobbied for the National Security Act of 1947. His widow, Claire Booth Luce, was a former member of the House of Representatives and a former ambassador to Italy. She was one of Allen Dulles’ lovers. In his book, The Last Investigation, my dear friend, Gaeton Fonzi, who worked for U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker while the Senator was investigating the Kennedy assassination, told how Claire Booth Luce lead them on a wild goose chase. She effectively used up their governmentally-paid-for time by sending them on a fruitless search for fanciful persons. [16]”~Vince Salandria

    “The person who on November 22, 1963 had been in direct control of the White House Situation Room, the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs, was McGeorge Bundy. Bundy was a hard-liner on foreign policy. He had been a student of CIA’s covert operations chief, Richard Bissell, who had been fired by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. Bundy in 1948 had worked for Bissell on the Marshall Plan. Bundy was a man of considerable intelligence. He did not out of stupidity inform the Presidential party that Oswald was the lone assassin before there was any evidence against him and while there was compelling evidence of conspiracy. Did he not do this to inform the Presidential Party who had been in the motorcade that this was a matter of state, the importance of which rose higher than Anglo-Saxon principles of justice?”~Ibid

    “At the Bethesda Naval Hospital, Commander James J. Humes prepared autopsy notes, unquestionably the most important autopsy notes ever. On November 24, 1963 he signed a certificate: “I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to Naval Medical School Autopsy Report A63-272 …” In destroying the autopsy notes he committed the crime of obstruction of justice.”~Ibid

    House Select Committee on Assassinations Collection – 10 February 1992

    7. CIA Complicity. Our survey found nothing in these records that indicates any CIA role in the Kennedy assassination or assassination conspiracy (if there was one) or any CIA involvement with Oswald. These records do reveal however that Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956.

    “Box 1 CIA Security files on numerous individuals including G P Hemming, Martin Luther King, Marina Oswald, and others. 1967 CIA IG report on plotting against Castro, Garrison investigation (File folders 6, 7, 17, and 20 are missing).”

    Click to access Shaw-as-informant.pdf

    I call for Glasnost!

  16. “Incompetence” & “Blowback” are both revetments that fall under the umbrella of “Plausible Deniability”.

  17. Why the Zapruder Film is Authentic
    Several pieces of documentary evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination appear to have been altered or forged, but there is currently no good reason to suppose that the Zapruder film is one of them.
    Access to the Zapruder Film
    Its chain of possession is well documented, and provides no opportunity for conspirators to have gained access to the film before it had been copied and those copies had been widely distributed.
    The Zapruder Film Matches Other Evidence
    There are no obvious contradictions between the Zapruder film and the rest of the photographic evidence, including the three other home movies that depict the shooting.

    Zapruder Film Contains Evidence of Conspiracy
    Finally, the most powerful and obvious point: the Zapruder film can hardly have been altered to cover up evidence of conspiracy, given that it contains almost irrefutable evidence of conspiracy:
    When combined with certain uncontroversial facts, the Zapruder film provides explicit disproof of the single–bullet theory: Kennedy’s reaction to his throat wound occurs earlier than Connally’s reaction to his back wound, which in turn occurs earlier than Connally’s wrist wound.
    Famously, the film reveals Kennedy’s sharp back–and–to–the–left movement in reaction to what can only plausibly be interpreted as a shot from in front.

    The Case for Zapruder Film Forgery
    James Fetzer, ed., The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Catfeet Press, 2003; ISBN 0–8126–9547–X), puts forward the case for forgery. Much of the evidence and argument in the book is laughably weak, incongruously so given that Fetzer is a former professor of philosophy. The book’s credibility is not helped by the sad fact that one of its contributors appears to believe that the moon landings were faked. This sort of association of beliefs is liable to contaminate public trust in rational critical thinking about the JFK assassination.

  18. More Magic Bullet Nonsense

    “It has been demonstrated repeatedly that when the speed of an M-C bullet is reduced, a nearly “pristine” bullet can be the result. Several experiments have shown this, including this one by wound ballistics expert Martin L. Fackler.” ~Jean

    This is transparent trickery at play here:

    Click to access fackler.pdf

    The theory behind these experiments is flawed.
    This hardly is representative the actual Magic Bullet. Simply reducing the speed and firing the bullet through a cadaver wrist, does not represent all the other chores the actual Magic Bullet went through to reduce the speed.
    It was the events that slowed the Magic Bullet down that are important, not just the speed of the bullet when it hit the wrist.

    The Magic Bullet had allegedly gone through the skin, tendons, and muscles of Kennedy’s neck, then (dismissing the feature of extended time and bizarre trajectory) that bullet allegedly went through Connally’s back – clothing, skin, muscle, hit and broke a rib and exited before finally allegedly hitting his wrist.
    None of this work is accounted for in Fackler’s ‘experiments’.
    . . . . .
    The Magic Fragments and Other Stories by Millicent Cranor
    Disputing Fackler’s experiment to reproduce “the Magic Bullet”

    Click to access Item%2006.pdf


    • …I would believe that the missile in the Governor behaved as though it had the examination of the wrist both by the X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the–I mean in the wrist. (IV, H-113)
      I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (IV, H-114)~Dr. Gregory (Connally attendant doctor @ Parkland)–Kelin_format.html

      • As we see the Obfuscati distort and misrepresent both history and science with their spurious argumentation.

      • Besides Humes’ inconstancy, there is at least one other reason to suspect Humes’ tender tale isn’t true. Boswell’s “face sheet” autopsy notes, the ones Humes did not destroy, also bear the President’s bloodstains. That fact prompted an amusing exchange when ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn asked Humes, “Do you see any inconsistency at all between destroying some handwritten notes because they contained blood on them but preserving other handwritten notes that also had blood on them?” “Well,” Humes answered, “only that the others [that he destroyed] were of my own making. I didn’t – wouldn’t have the habit of destroying something someone else prepared.”[115] Notes Finck prepared on the night of the autopsy happen also to be missing. So unless someone else in the military destroyed Finck’s notes, Humes must have done it. For according to the records, including his own affidavit,[116] it was Humes who took sole possession of all the notes, including Finck’s.[117]

    • To assess this Magic Bullet theory completely, we must begin at Parkland Hospital and the first view of the throat wound. This was determined at the time to be a wound of entry because of its small diameter.
      This small entry wound was then expanded by Dr Perry with a tracheotomy, and then further as he attempted to track the bullet and see if any tendons had been severed by the bullet.

      If this throat injury was a wound of entry, the whole discussion on the Magic Bullet is a moot point.

      The autopsy physicians did not even know this wound was a bullet injury until later that night when they spoke with Dr Perry on the phone (Audrey Bell testified to the HSCA investigators Horne and Gunn, that she had heard this conversation from Perry’s end that night – not the next morning as the official WC version would have it)

      Concurrently, the doctors at Parkland never discovered the wound in Kennedy’s back. Another wound of entry.

      Now we have two wounds, neither of which was allowed to be tracked due to the intervention of general officers during the autopsy. This is the critical point. No one knows the terminal trajectory of the missiles that caused these wounds.

      So the postulation for the Magic Bullet begins on an unknown, and everything from this point forward is conjecture.

      Readers can review the argument of this thread themselves to determine what the internal ballistics to transition ballistics, to external ballistics can inform us of. But the terminal ballistics are an unknown and can only be surmised by other avenues of inquiry.

  19. Nurse Audrey Bell was the Parkland Hospital Supervisor of Operating and Recovery Rooms in 1963. In the course of her work on November 22, 1963, she had an opportunity to view President Kennedy’s wounds. She also participated in the surgery on Governor Connally.

    Nurse Bell described Kennedy’s head wound as occipital, in the right posterior portion of the head. She did not see his throat wound. She recalled receiving “three to five fragments, perhaps four” from the body of Governor Connally, more than are currently in evidence. She viewed the Warren Commission photograph of these fragments and said that they were too small. According to ARRB staff member Doug Horne, Nurse Bell drew pictures of the fragments as she remembered them, but ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn refused to take her drawing into evidence.

    Audrey Bell also recalled phone calls from Bethesda to Dr. Perry on Friday night, not Saturday morning as reported by the autopsy doctors to the Warren Commission. This recollection, corroborated by Dr. John Ebersole’s formerly-secret HSCA testimony among others, would if true cast grave doubt on the honesty of the reporting about the autopsy findings, and make all the more suspicious the fact that the neck was not dissected to track the bullet path.

      • The Magic Bullet is Woowoo Bullshit

        Now what has happened is that “ballistic” experts have reproduced a planted bullet, likely recreated using similar methods used to create the original planted prop.

        So we now have this phony CE#399 and all its phony step children on display receiving hosannas and praise by the true believers in the WC Report.

        It is Kafkaesque, but never mind that, their bible tells them so.

      • Third Thoracic Vertebrae
        JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > Backwound

        T-3 Thoratic

        This should make it perfectly clear where T-3 is located:

        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Boswell’s autopsy face sheet.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in that photograph.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his shirt.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his coat.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Burkey’s autopsy report.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

  20. As Cranor has pointed out, a “blue ribbon” panel of expert physicians falsely claimed that nicotine was not habit-forming, and they knew at the time this was false. This fraud was finally exposed. It is well known that experts can be (a) bought, (b) intimidated in certain circumstances, and (c) conned into lying because of concerns for national security. And, finally, it should be pointed out that experts often disagree. To see experts telling blatant lies about the SBT, including the falsification of the size of Connally’s back wound, go here:

  21. In fresh tests of the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action weapon, supervised by the Italian army, it was found to be impossible for even an accomplished marksman to fire the shots quickly enough.
    The official Warren Commission inquiry into the shooting concluded the following year that Oswald was a lone gunman who fired three shots with a Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle in 8.3 seconds.
    But when the Italian team test-fired the identical model of gun, they were unable to load and fire three shots in less than 19 seconds – suggesting that a second gunman must have been present in Dealey Plaza, central Dallas, that day.
    In a further challenge to the official conclusions, the Italian team conducted two other tests at the former Carcano factory in Terni, north of Rome, where the murder weapon was made in 1940.
    They fired bullets through two large pieces of meat, in an attempt to simulate the assumed path of the magic bullet. In their test, the bullet was deformed, unlike the first bullet in the Kennedy assassination, which remained largely intact.
    According to the commission, the third disintegrated when it hit Kennedy’s head. The new research suggests, however, that this is incompatible with the fact that Oswald was only 80 yards away, in a book depository, when he fired. The Italian tests suggest that a bullet fired from that distance would have emerged intact from Kennedy’s head, implying that the third shot must instead have come from a more distant location.

  22. The Magic Throat by Milicent Cranor

    One of the most bizarre mysteries of the Kennedy assassination is how the throat incision — described by the Parkland Hospital doctors as only 2 to 3 centimeters wide — became 6.5 to 8 centimeters by the time Kennedy was brought to the morgue. [1, 2]

    Only two explanations for this discrepancy come to mind: (a) “body alteration,” as proposed by David Lifton, author of Best Evidence, who believes persons unknown took the body on a secret detour during which time the body was searched for bullets and the wounds were altered to disguise their nature, [1] or (b) the incision was that wide in the first place.

    For me, the mystery deepened when, in 1992, the pathologist in charge of the autopsy indicated the incision was small – the size of an ordinary tracheotomy [3] – the way Parkland described it to David Lifton.

    Why would the pathologist, Commander James Humes, contradict both his earlier testimony and the autopsy photographs?

    • On 11-22-63, at 3:16 PM CST, barely two hours after JFK was pronounced dead, Perry appeared with Kemp Clark, MD, the professor of neurosurgery who had pronounced JFK dead.

      A newsman asked Perry: “Where was the entrance wound?”

      Perry: “There was an entrance wound in the neck…”

      Question: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?”

      Perry: “It appeared to be coming at him.”…

      Question: “Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?”

      Perry: “The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.”[66] (emphasis added)

      Read the how Perry was badgered into changing this clear and straightforward opinion by Arlen Specter, and the PR Machine:


    Now what has happened is that “ballistics” experts have reproduced a planted bullet, likely recreated using similar methods used to create the original planted prop.

    So we now have this phony CE#399 and all its phony step children on display receiving hosannas and praise by the true believers in the WC Report.

    It is Kafkaesque, but never mind that, their bible tells them so.
    The WC cult has no corpus delicti.

    • “What expertise do you have in clinical psychology?”
      “None. I don’t need any.”~Jean Davison


  24. The Context of the Warren Commission’s Investigation of Kennedy’s Autopsy Evidence

    It is useful to put the Commission’s handling of the President’s medical and autopsy evidence into the context of its overall management of the murder investigation. Its work on the latter was far from exemplary. So unexemplary, in fact, that the Commission’s shortcomings later gave rise to scathing criticism not only from the predictable, omnipresent malcontents, but also, extraordinarily, from two independent groups of experienced government investigators – those of the 1976 Senate Select Committee (eponymously named the Church Committee after its chairman, Senator Frank Church), and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1978.

    Though the mainstream press has repeatedly lauded the Warren Commission, it has been oddly quiet about these remarkable, official rebukes. This, despite the fact they amounted to no less than the government twice, independently, impugning its own work. The HSCA’s comment that, “It is a reality to be regretted that the [Warren] Commission failed to live up to its promise,”[118] pretty much sums up the conclusions of both the Church Committee and the HSCA. The reasons both groups found for the failure are as similar as they are straightforward. The Warren Commission never assembled an independent investigative staff of its own. Instead, it unwisely turned to the FBI, and to a lesser extent, to the Secret Service and the CIA. The interests of these agencies happened to lay with a no conspiracy finding, lest they be accused of failure to foil the worst-case scenario.

    “The Committee has developed evidence,” the Church Committee concluded, “which impeaches the process by which the intelligence agencies arrived at their own conclusions about the assassination, and by which they provided information to the Warren Commission. This evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient and that facts which might have substantially affected the course of the investigation were not provided the Warren Commission or those individuals within the FBI and the CIA, as well as other agencies of Government, who were charged with investigating the assassination.”[119] Regarding the FBI’s endeavors, the House Select Committee was blistering: “It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming its case against Oswald as the lone assassin, a case that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within 24 hours of the of the assassination.”[120]

    Hoover, it turns out, succeeded in swiftly disseminating his pre-investigative epiphany to a powerful lobby, one that closed ranks, minds evidently shut, even before the first Commission member had been appointed. “Almost immediately after the assassination,” the Church Committee said, “Director Hoover, the Justice Department and the White House ‘exerted pressure’ on senior Bureau officials to complete their investigation and issue a factual report supporting the conclusions that Oswald was the lone assassin … .”[121] That conclusion has found abundant confirmation in a flurry of formerly suppressed documents, many of which were only unsealed finally in the 1990s.

    Memo of 11-25-63 from Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach to Bill Moyers of the White House, asserting that “the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.” The investigation was at this point 3 days old, and Oswald had been murdered only the day before.
    (see Katzenbach memo)

    For example, in an 11/24/63 memo to LBJ, Homer Thornberry, an associate of the acting Attorney General Katzenbach, reported that, “I have talked with Nick Katzenbach and he is very concerned that everyone know that Oswald was guilty of the President’s assassination.”[122] The next day, in a memo to presidential assistant Bill Moyers, Katzenbach himself urged that, “the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”[123] As historian Michael Kurtz has observed, the day before Katzenbach wrote this memo, on the same day Thornberry dispatched his communiqué, Hoover had called presidential adviser Walter Jenkins and had said, anticipating Katzenbach, “The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”[124][125] [Additional internal FBI memos, literally from the day of the murder, reflect the same monogamous passion for Oswald evident in Hoover’s, Katzenbach’s and Tornberry’s memos. This is explored in detail in an essay by author Aguilar, Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and The Nation.[126])

  25. Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger
    “Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.”~Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow
    Foreign Affairs (CFR)
    November/December 1998, Volume 77, Number 6

    Design masquerading as Diagnosis – The Hegelian Dialectic – Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis

  26. 21st Century Criminology
    Herbert McDonald peer reviewed Fiester’s work

    Only in a few cases were purported experts disqualified. In People v. Owens, the court
    held that a police officer’s testimony concerning his blood splatter analysis was improperly
    admitted, because the prosecution provided no evidence of the officer’s training or experience in
    the field of blood-spatter analysis.53 The court found that although the officer stated that he had
    studied blood spatter technique under Professor McDonald, this testimony was not sufficient in
    to establish his qualifications.54 Similarly, in State v. Philbrick, an officer testified that he had
    received “special training in blood spatters (a three-week course) in New York State under
    Professor Herbert MacDonald.”
    55 The court noted that the trial court failed to determine whether
    blood splatter analysis was scientifically reliable enough to provide the basis for expert opinion
    testimony, and further declared that the detective’s testimony regarding his training course alone
    might have called his qualifications into question.56
    It should be emphasized that Professor McDonald’s expertise is not in question in this ruling. It was determined that the detective testifying at the trial was not sufficiently trained by a mere 3 week course.

  27. The Academic Anemia Of Noam Chomsky
    “People shouldn’t be killed, whether they are presidents or kids in the urban slums. I know of no reason to suppose that one should have more interest in the JFK assassination than lots of killings not far from the White House.”~Noam Chomsky

    “If you look at the place where investigation of “conspiracies” has absolutely flourished, modern American history, I think what’s notable is the absence of such cases — at least as I read the record, they almost never happen. …The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, all these other things that people are racing around searching for conspiracy theories about — they’re “nothing” organizations. Of course they’re there, of course rich people get together and talk to each other, and play golf with one another, and plan together — that’s not a big surprise. But these conspiracy theories that people are putting their energies into have virtually nothing to do with how the institutions actually function.The Kennedy–assassination cult is probably the most striking case. I mean, you have all these people doing super–scholarly research, and trying to find out just who talked to whom, and what the exact contours were of this supposed high–level conspiracy — it’s all complete nonsense. As soon as you look into the various theories, they always collapse, there’s just nothing there. But in many cases, the left has just fallen apart on the basis of these sheer cults.”~Chomsky

    “A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later.” ~Robert McNamara’s 1995 memoir In Retrospect – Chapter 3, titled “The Fateful Fall of 1963: August 24–November 22, 1963”

    To assess this Magic Bullet theory completely, we must begin at Parkland Hospital and the first view of the throat wound. This was determined at the time to be a wound of entry because of its small diameter.
    This small entry wound was then expanded by Dr Perry with a tracheotomy, and then further as he attempted to track the bullet and see if any tendons had been severed by the bullet.

    If this throat injury was a wound of entry, the whole discussion on the Magic Bullet is a moot point.

    The autopsy physicians did not even know this wound was a bullet injury until later that night when they spoke with Dr Perry on the phone (Audry Bell testified to the HSCA investigators Horne and Gunn, that she had heard this conversation from Perry’s end that night – not the next morning as the official WC version would have it)

    Concurrently, the doctors at Parkland never discovered the wound in Kennedy’s back. Another wound of entry.

    Now we have two wounds, neither of which was allowed to be tracked due to the intervention of general officers during the autopsy. This is the critical point. No one knows the terminal trajectory of the missiles that caused these wounds.

    So the postulation for the Magic Bullet begins on an unknown, and everything from this point forward is conjecture.

    Readers can review the argument of this thread themselves to determine what the internal ballistics to transition ballistics, to external ballistics can inform us of. But the terminal ballistics are an unknown and can only be surmised by other avenues of inquiry.

    • I attended a couple of live lectures by Chomsky in the 1980’s that were sponsored by Pacifica Radio Network, KPFK in LA. Chomsky’s monotone delivery was like a sedative, mind-numbing & boring. But it was politically correct in those circles to accept that Chomsky was “brilliant”. Perhaps he might have been at one time.
      I would characterize Chomsky’s technique as argumentum verbosium.

  28. Click to access Item%2010.pdf

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    RECORD NUMBER: 180-10088-10221
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    DATE: 02/07/77
    PAGES: 1
    SUBJECT: WOUND BALLISTICS: “Expert in explosives” (Handwritten note)

    , Bob Tanenbaum
    FROM: Andy Purdy
    DATE: February 7, 1977
    RE: Ballistics Testing, Edgewood Arsenal–Dr. aosep

    I spoke with Dr. Dolce about information he may
    have about the nature of the wounds of Kennedy and
    Connally. He indicated that he has the original
    “‘:write-up” of the ballistics testing (55 pages including
    ….° Photographs) and that there are significant discrepancies
    between the conclusions of the original write-up and
    the conclusions which were later given to the’Warren
    Commission by the people he worked with.
    Dr. Dolce would like to meet with us to relate the
    information he has and give us access to the write-up.
    Dr. Dolce would like a written indication of:our interest:.

    Click to access Item%2009.pdf


  30. Testimony Of Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw to the Warren Commission

    Mr. SPECTER – Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound on the posterior side of the Governor’s chest?
    Dr. SHAW – This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the auxiliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade.
    Mr. SPECTER – What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
    Dr. SHAW – Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.

  31. It is discouraging when something as laughingly absurd as the Magic Bullet can be made out to be reasonable by a long enough string of assertions and ludicrous rhetoric blended with appeals to authority.
    Logic and proportion has long been ground underfoot by this Warren Report Cult. If they can make something so preposterous seem rational there is no limit to their insanity.
    magic bullet
    The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
    Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson

    Click to access Item%2002.pdf

    • “In the same fashion, the FBI data indicated that it had tested three bits of metal from Connally’s wrist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in 1964, two weighing 2.3 milligrams each and another weighing 1.52 milligrams. The container *Guinn got, which he said came with assurances from Archives that this was all the metal from Connally’s wrist in its possession, had two other pieces, one weighing 16.4 milligrams and the other 1.3 milligrams.” (This adds up to 21.52 milligrams)
      [* Dr. Vincent P. Guinn]
      Hosty Chapter 8.doc…/Hosty/Hosty%20Chapter%208.doc

  32. Because the Magic Bullet thesis is absurd, any who defend it must resort to absurd argumentation in support of the absurd allegation.

  33. Some of the readers/commentators here do not seem to understand what I have already said. So I will make it clear one more time;

    I am comfortable with my position and the conclusions I have come to on these matters.

    All of these issues have been argued over too many times already.

    Others are free to come to any conclusions that they feel to be reasonable. And they can express such positions as they will. Although I will remark that I see many instances that I do not find at all reasonable.
    It is unreasonable to insist that only their “experts” are legitimate, especially when such experts have been found lacking. My critics may argue that this is a two way street, claiming they have found a lack in the experts I find viable. But these are arguments already made and acknowledged.

    I let all concerned stand their ground. I am now speaking to the general readership of this blog. I consider them the important audience here. I am happy to let the candid world decide who is right and who is wrong in these matters.

    • Source: Summary of the Forensic Pathologists’ Perspective of Wound Ballistics – 7HSCA, 168

      (430) “The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation.”
      . . . . . . . . . .
      Note the use of conjectural phraseology in all but one sentence: “It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway.”

  34. Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald
    December 19, 1963 NATIONAL GUARDIAN 5

    In an analysis of the civil liberties aspects of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the American Civil Liberties Union said the “public interest” would be served if the commission named by President Johnson were to make “a thorough examination of the treatment accorded Oswald, including his right to counsel, the nature of the interrogation, his physical security while under arrest, and the effect of pretrial publicity on Oswald’s right to a fair trial.”

    IN ALL LIKELIHOOD there does not exist a single American community where reside 12 men or women, good and true, who presume that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. No more savage comment can be made in reference to the breakdown of the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence. At the very foundation of our judicial operation lies a cornerstone which shelters the innocent and guilty alike against group hysteria, manufactured evidence, overzealous law enforcement officials, in short, against those factors which militate for an automated, prejudged, neatly packaged verdict of guilty. It is the sacred right of every citizen accused of committing a crime to the presumption of innocence.
    That which intervenes between the zealous investigator and the jury is due process of law, developed at great cost in human life and liberty over the years. It is the right to have irrelevant testimony barred. It is the right to have facts, not hopes or thoughts or wishes or prejudicial opinions, presented. It is the right to test by cross-examination the veracity of every witness and the value of his testimony. It is, perhaps above all, the right to counsel of one’s own choice, so that all the other rights may be protected. In this defense, Oswald has forfeited all rights along with his life.~Mark Lane

    • On November 22, 1963, just after the arrest of Oswald, Dallas law enforcement officials announced that they had found the murder weapon. Wade and his associates studied the rifle. It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.”

  35. “If, Willy, the bullet hit foliage thick enough to significantly reduce the velocity then the bullet would be knocked off its aimed path or trajectory. In other words, not much chance of it hitting the target.” ~Bill Clarke

    This is a presumptuous statement Bill. If “the target” was the back of Kennedy’s head, some 9 to 12 inches off target to Kennedy’s back is a “missed shot”, as far as missing “the bulls eye”.


    “Finally, as we all know today, the evidence which the HSCA used as the “lynchpin” in its case against Oswald has now been thoroughly discredited. That would be the Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis, sometimes called Neutron Activation Analysis for bullet lead traces. That FBI procedure always had questions surrounding it. In fact, the first time it had been used was in the JFK case. Today, after the painstaking reviews by two professional teams of metallurgists and statisticians, it has been so vitiated that the FBI will never use it again in court. (ibid, pgs. 72-73) Unfortunately, that verdict came a bit late for Oswald.

    When approaching CE 399 today, the so-called Magic Bullet, one wonders how Warren Commission defenders can keep a straight face discussing it. All the desperate schemes used in the past decade on cable TV shows with their preposterous computer simulations and numerous trajectories all avoid the main point. And it is the similar problem that we have with CE 543. Today, the adduced evidence trail indicates that CE 399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza. The work of people like Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson, John Hunt, and Robert Harris, clearly indicates that CE 399 is, and always was, a plant.”~ James DiEugenio

  37. “After publication, I modified this piece on the suggestion of Mark Zaid, Anthony Summers, and John McAdams. Originally I included Col. Fletcher Prouty as one of the Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot. Nothing I wrote about Prouty was inaccurate but these readers advised me of other things Prouty had done and said that called into question his veracity. So he’s not the best example to cite. I replaced him with another Washington insider, Joseph Califano.

    For the record, here’s what I wrote about Prouty.

    5) Col. L. Fletcher Prouty: This career military man served as chief of Pentagon special operations in 1963. He believed that there had been a plot against JFK among enemies of his policies in the national security agencies. Prouty was the basis for the character “Colonel X” in Oliver Stone’s “JFK.”~Jeff Morley
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Len Osanic
    February 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    “I’m wondering now what kind of journalist reporter that Morely is ?
    First who asks mcadams for advice on anything?
    Mark Zaid. seriously…
    Second, you would someone who knew the man, or check his official website. The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site.

    To even consider asking mcadams for advice, is why morley is on the outside looking in. Prouty’s, The Secret Team book published by Balentine books first printing 1974. JFK by Birch Lane Press /Carol Publishing 1992. And now both on Skyhorse Publishing. Oliver Stone hired Fletcher for the making of JFK, and thought highly of him, and echoed that in my interview with him on Black Op Radio in January. To obfuscate what Prouty writes about, with a one time licence deal to re-print a limited run for the IHR publisher is saying, “don’t look behind the curtain”.
    Morely has my phone number and email but doesn’t have the guts to call me or Dave Ratcliffe. I leave it up to you to decides if he even knows anything about Fletcher Prouty, or further has the journalistic skills to write about this topic, which his website claims as “FACTS”. When you have to ask a mcadams, what the facts are, that means you really don’t have any idea at all.

    Makes me regret even having morley take part in my
    50 Reasons For 50 Years series.”

    jfkfacts- “making non-sense of JFK’s assassination after 50 years”

  38. The Lincoln Assassination and Cover-Up: Part of an On-Going Story
    April 14, 2015 by Peter Dale Scott

    “Wikipedia claims that this is proven by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, citing an article on the Lab website that is forbidden to the public. Wikipedia does not mention that NAA analysis on the same Isotope Reactor was used four decades ago to analyze the bullets killing John F. Kennedy. (The use of NAA analysis of lead in bullets, once used to bolster the “single bullet theory” of Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt, has since been decisively discredited by other U.S. Government experts at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. In September 2005 the FBI announced that it would no longer rely in criminal cases on the inaccurate evidence produced by comparative bullet lead analysis.)”

  39. The distinction between raw data and information is generally misunderstood. Data is not information until it is put in some particular context.
    Data sets must not only be put in context, but all other data in that context must be analyzed as a whole.


    15 March 1985

    Mr. Fletcher Prouty
    Alexandria, Virginia
    Dear Fletch:
    As I read your interesting letter it is plain that you have not wanted for interest or achievement in your life. It has to have been exciting and rewarding too.

    Mine has been a lively existence too. I had much to do with Vietnam from ’64 to ’68, and was loudly disenchanted with what went on and how. I recorded it as part of my book First to Fight that came out a few months ago.

    I’ve also spent ten years in the newspaper business (a most useful education) and now write a syndicated weekly column. I wrote another book, Organization for National Security that resulted in my testifying before a Senate committee.

    All taken together, a stirring life.

    As to your chronicle concerning the JFK assassination period, I remember your going to Antarctica. I was in the Pentagon at the time of the tragedy but have no recollection of where Lansdale was.

    The pictures.– The two policemen are carrying shotguns, not rifles. Their caps are different (one a white chinstrap, one black). One has a Dallas police shoulder patch, one does not and their caps differ from that of another police officer in photo 4. Reasonable conclusion — they are either reservists or phonys. And, as you know, city cops don’t have anything to do with Sheriff’s offices.

    As to photo no. 1. That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale. The haircut, the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It’s Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there? Has anyone ever asked him and who was the photographer? Why did he take the pictures? What did he do with them?

    I have examined my own records and find no clue that would help. Suffice to say, it is a fascinating proposition.

    I am returning your pictures.

    Best regards always.


    [signed, Brute Krulak]

    • It is the utter depths of scurrilous bullshit to assert that Fletcher Prouty would forge a letter from a friend and comrade of so many years. Krulak and Prouty had mutual and long lasting respect for one another for decades.
      Bill Clarke makes it a habit of calling anyone he disagrees with a liar. It is simply gross argumentum ad hominem, and narrow minded nonsense from someone who cannot accept that he was a fool to go along to get along and participate in a war of aggression waged by the maniac warmongers of the US military industrial complex. Clarke likely suffers from post traumatic stress from his brutalization of others and himself while in Indochina. He takes this out on the “Camelot shiners” as he calls them, rather than the criminal state he was coerced into serving. He has ended up a damned fool in the process.

  41. The Damage to the Back of President Kennedy’s Head
    “For nearly half a century, we have debated the question of whether the back of President Kennedy’s head was damaged during the attack in Dealey Plaza. Numerous witnesses and nearly every doctor and nurse at Parkland Hospital, who examined the President’s head, reported seeing massive damage there.”
    Dr. Boswell himself, who is the doctor whose hand we see in the above photo. This is from his sworn testimony before the ARRB,

    A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

    Q. Dr. Boswell, I’m sorry to jump in here, but I just want to make sure that the record is going to be clear here. And we can come back to this, and I want you to explain it the best you can. But would it be fair to say first that the diagram that we’re talking about is a drawing of the skull of President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?

    A. Yes.

    MR. GUNN: I’d like to ask the reporter if he could read back Dr. Boswell’s last answer with regard to the transiting and the direction. When you hear this, I would like you to think if this is what you meant to say. I may have heard it differently from what you said, and I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page.

    [The pertinent portion of the record, as recorded, was read by the reporter.]

    BY MR. GUNN:

    Q. Dr. Boswell, you’ve just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

    A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area…

    In this part of the interview, Boswell states that he was the one whose hand we see in the photo, pulling the scalp up, and toward the forehead,

    A. I know this–the flap is stretched forward here, because if this fell back down–with him in this sort of recumbent position, yes, this scalp would fold down and cover this wound.

    Q. So you’re saying that on the fourth view, which are the photographs that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way that they appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Is that fair?

    A. In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In this one, it’s pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead.

    Q. Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp for the photograph to be taken?

    A. There are about three of us involved here, because there are two right hands on that centimeter scale. I think that I probably was pulling the scalp up.

    Boswell’s testimony describing a large piece of scalp which was still attached to broken pieces of the skull, clearly explains the discrepancy between the recollections of the Parkland staff and the autopsy photos. The Parkland doctors saw the back of the head when it was laid open. The photos were taken after Boswell covered up the damage by pulling the scalp up and over the defect, giving the appearance that there was no damage there.

  42. Verdelufe,
    Ballistics analysis deal with trajectory as revealed by the wound inflicted.
    The wound to Kennedy’s head had an entry point at the right temple hitting at a specific angle that continued the trajectory of the entering missile. This missile passed only through the right hemisphere of the brain, causing what is called instant and momentary cavitation. What this means is that the overpressures caused by a missile traveling at supersonic speed, carries a shockwave, much like a sonic-boom caused by aircraft.
    This shockwave creates an explosion of the material it encounters. An explosion in an enclosed container – the skull – will cause that container to shatter. As you see in the X-Rays, Kennedy’s skull looks rather like a boiled egg shell that had been dropped on a hard surface. That is actually the result of an implosion within the skull caused by the overpressure I already mention.
    Now, a shot from the infamous Grassy Knoll, picket fence would have meant a trajectory through Kennedy’s skull from right to left temple, not from front to back.
    See; CSI Sherry Fiester

    • Wait a minute! The idea that the gunshots in Dealey Plaza could not have been picked up on that motorcycle’s open mic “because it hadn’t yet entered Elm Street” is patently stupid. You can hear gunfire from more than a quarter mile away. The fact that those impulses fit perfectly to the hits in the Z-film is irrefutable. The fact that those impulses are signature gun fire wave-forms is irrefutable. Those engaged in attempting to refute the irrefutable are obviously attempting a cover-up.

  43. CE #399 – the Magic Bullet
    Governor Connally’s Wrist Wound and CE-399
    By JFK Lancer’s Debra Conway – Assassination Chronicles magazine.
    Please take your time to read the testimony offered … and make sure you ‘click’ on each of the seven pictures of CE-399 to see the high-resolution copies.

    • Since the 1960s, FBI testimony in thousands of criminal cases has relied on evidence from Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead (CABL), a forensic technique that compares the elemental composition of bullets found at a crime scene to the elemental composition of bullets found in a suspect’s possession. The report assesses the scientific validity of CABL, finding that the FBI should use a different statistical analysis for the technique, and that, given variations in bullets manufacturing processes, expert witnesses should make clear the very limited conclusions that CABL results can support.
      Key Messages
      Although it has been demonstrated that there are a large number of different compositionally indistinguishable volumes of lead (CIVLs), there is evidence that bullets from different CIVLs can sometimes coincidentally be analytically indistinguishable.
      CABL is sufficiently reliable to support testimony that bullets from the same compositionally indistinguishable volume of lead (CIVL) are more likely to be analytically indistinguishable than bullets from different CIVLs. An examiner may also testify that having CABL evidence that two bullets are analytically indistinguishable increases the probability that two bullets came from the same CIVL, versus no evidence of match status.
      Compositional analysis of bullet lead data alone do not permit any definitive statement concerning the date of bullet manufacture.
      Detailed patterns of distribution of ammunition are unknown, and as a result an expert should not testify as to the probability that a crime scene bullet came from the defendant. Geographic distribution data on bullets and ammunition are needed before such testimony can be given.
      The available data do not support any statement that a crime bullet came from, or is likely to have come from, a particular box of ammunition, and references to boxes of ammunition in any form is seriously misleading under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
      The committee’s review of the literature and discussions with manufacturers indicates that the size of a CIVL ranges from 70 lbs in a billet to 200,000 lbs in a melt. That is equivalent to 12,000 to 35 million 40-grain, .22 caliber longrifle bullets from a CIVL compared with a total of 9 billion bullets produced each year.
      The current analytical technology used by the FBI inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) is appropriate and is currently the best available technology for the application.
      Variations among and within lead bullet manufacturers makes any modeling of the general manufacturing process unreliable and potentially misleading in CABL comparisons.

      Click to access bullet_lead_final.pdf


  44. “The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated.” –Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, 1969

    “Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” –Hale Boggs, Warren Commission member

    “There is still a real possibility that Oswald was on his way to meet an accomplice at the time of the Tippit murder. I led the Dallas investigation of that aspect of the case and was never satisfied on the point.” –Assistant District Attorney William Alexander, 1977

    “We have not been told the truth about Oswald.” –Senator Richard Russell, former Warren Commission member, 1970

    “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?” Allen Dulles in concluding a discussion on rumors that Oswald was a paid FBI agent, Warren Commission executive session, January 27, 1964

    “The fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was to not use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up.” Senator Richard Schweiker stated on national television in 1976

    “This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.” — FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on call to President Johnson, 11/23/63

    “Intelligence-gathering activities…have a special and secret character…These activities have their own rules and methods of concealment which seek to mislead and obscure.” –President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960

    “He checked with J. Walton Moore about Oswald.” –Jeanne de Mohrenschildt, 1977

    “Anti-Castro activists and organizations…acquired the means, motive and opportunity to assassinate the President.” –Staff report to the HSCA, 1979

    “My view is that there was, in fact, a relationship between the Cuban connection and the assassination…that more than one person was involved.” –Senator Richard Schweiker, following Senate Intelligence Committee probe, 1976

    “The fact that Oswald was a member of this organization…the Fair Play for Cuba Committee…is a fact that can be viewed from many different ways.” –Wesley Liebeler, Warren Commission lawyer assigned to Cuban aspects of the assassination

    “In the months leading up to the assassination, I think Oswald got in over his head. He was no longer quite sure who he was working for, or why. Somebody was using him, and they knew exactly how and why.” –Staff investigator, HSCA 1979

    “Oswald’s visit to Mexico City in September-October 1963 remains one of the most vexing sub-plots to the assassination story.” –ARRB Final Report, 1998

    “The pattern of contacts did show that individuals who had the motive to kill the President also had knowledge of a man who could be used to get access to Oswald in the custody of the Dallas police.” –HSCA Report, 1979

  45. Mr. SPECTER – Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?
    Dr. AKIN – I assume that the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn’t have any hard and fast opinions about that either.
    – – – – – – – – – – –
    Burkley told his lawyer, William Illig, to quietly contact the HSCA and tell … and explain why he thought there must have been more than one shooter. (HSCA file # 000988. record # 180-10086-10295].
    “HSCA affidavit prepared for, and signed by, Dr. George Burkley”

    Dr Burkley simply signed what the committee prepared for him. That was all they wanted on the record.

    Meanwhile this matter was not addressed:

    TO: FILE
    March 18, 1977
    TO : FILE

    William F. Illig, an attorney from Erie, Pa., contacted me in Philadelphia this date, advising me that he represents Dr. George G. Burkley, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy retired, who had been the personal physician for presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

    Mr. Illig stated that he had a luncheon meeting with his client, Dr. Burkley, this date to take up some tax matters. Dr. Burkley advised him that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he ha never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.

    Illig advised me that his client is a very quiet, unassuming person, not wanting any publicity whatsoever, but he, Illig, was calling me with his client’s consent and that his client would talk to me in Washington.

    (HSCA file # 000988. record # 180-10086-10295)
    Also note; in the Death Certificate, Burkley said the back wound was at the third thoracic level, and he refused to comment when asked if he agreed with the Warren Commission on how many bullets struck Kennedy.

    >>The 3rd thoracic level, Jean, should make it clear that the entry wound was lower by some 6 inches than you have previously argued.

  46. Holland’s Deflection: Ballistics and the Truth

    During a recent speech at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, author Max Holland said that he feared “that someday I’m going to turn into one of those people in Dealey Plaza who has laminated photographs trying to persuade everyone of my view of what happened.”

    It would appear that his “nightmare” has come true, albeit minus the laminated photographs.

    At the invitation of the museum, Holland presented his belief that Oswald’s first shot struck a traffic light mast pole and was deflected down toward the Triple Overpass where it wounded bystander James Tague – a belief that has no basis in fact as shown again and again on the pages of this blog.

    See these previous articles for all the scoop:

    After showing his audience the evidence that supposedly supports his thesis – evidence that has been thoroughly dismantled – Holland insists that you don’t have to believe his conclusions, although from his perspective, if you don’t you’re clearly an idiot.

  47. Ballistics and Baloney: Lucien Haag and the JFK Assassination
    By Martin Hay

    “Lucian Haag first entered the JFK debate in 2013 when he and his son, Michael, were the featured experts
    for the PBS NOVA television special, Cold Case: JFK. As I demonstrated in my review of that show, NOVA and the Haags omitted and misrepresented key facts not only about the assassination but the results of their own experiments as well. And Now Haag is at it again with a series of articles published in The AFTE Journal, focusing on the Single Bullet Theory and President Kennedy’s fatal head wounds. The first of these is titled Tracking the ‘Magic’ Bullet in the JFK assassination and its content will come as no surprise to those who watched the NOVA special.
    What is a surprise is to see a man of Haag’s obvious intelligence fall at the first hurdle.”~Martin Hay

    Click to access HaagCritique.pdf

    This is an excellent article proving that “the Magic Bullet” was a plant. No such bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza, nor found at the Parkland Hospital as the official myth would have it.

    • The pathologists who conducted President Kennedy’s autopsy were presented with the CE 399 bullet by representatives of the Warren Commission and were asked whether they thought it could have caused Connally’s injuries. Dr James Humes, the chief pathologist, replied:

      “I think that is most unlikely. … This missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of those locations. … I doubt if this missile would have left behind it any metallic fragments from its physical appearance at this time. … Metallic fragments were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.374–76)

      The other two pathologists, Dr J. Thornton Boswell (ibid., p.377) and Dr Pierre Finck (“there are too many fragments”: ibid., pp.381f), agreed with Dr Humes.

  48. Roger Craig was on duty in Dallas on 22nd November, 1963. After hearing the firing at President John F. Kennedy he ran towards the Grassy Knoll where he interviewed witnesses to the shooting. About 15 minutes later he saw a man running from the back door of the Texas School Book Depository down the slope to Elm Street. He then got into a Nash station wagon.

    Craig saw the man again in the office of Captain Will Fritz. It was the recently arrested Lee Harvey Oswald. When Craig told his story about the man being picked up by the station wagon, Oswald replied: “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine… Don’t try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it.”

    Craig was also with Seymour Weitzman, Will Fritz, Eugene Boone and Luke Mooney when the rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Craig insisted that the rifle found was a 7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.

    Craig became unpopular with senior police officers in Dallas when he testified before the Warren Commission. He insisted he had seen Lee Harvey Oswald get into the station wagon 15 minutes after the shooting. This was ignored by Earl Warren and his team because it showed that at least two people were involved in the assassination. Craig, unlike Seymour Weitzman, refused to change his mind about finding a 7.65 Mauser rather than a Mannlicher-Carcano in the Texas School Book Depository. Craig was fired from the police department in 1967 after he was found to have discussed his evidence with a journalist.

    In 1967 Craig went to New Orleans and was a prosecution witness at the trial of Clay Shaw. Later that year he was shot at while walking to a car park. The bullet only grazed his head. In 1971 Craig wrote When They Kill A President. [See: (1)]

    In 1973 a car forced Craig’s car off a mountain road. He was badly injured but he survived the accident. In 1974 he surviving another shooting in Waxahachie, Texas. The following year he was seriously wounded when his car engine exploded. Craig told friends that the Mafia had decided to kill him.

    Roger Craig was found dead from on 15th May, 1975. It was later decided he had died as a result of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

    • (1) Roger Craig, When They Kill A President (1971)
      The Dallas County Court House at 505 Main Street was indeed a unique place to come to hear what was WRONG with John F. Kennedy and his policies as President of these United States.

      This building housed the elite troops of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department (of which I was one), who, with blind obedience, followed the orders of their Great White Father: Bill Decker, Sheriff of Dallas County.

      From these elite troops came the most bitter verbal attacks on President Kennedy. They spoke very strongly against his policies concerning the Bay of Pigs incident and the Cuban Missile crisis. They seemed to resent very much the fact that President Kennedy was a Catholic. I do not know why this was such a critical issue with many of the deputies but they did seem to hold this against President Kennedy.

      The concession stand in the lobby of the court house was the best place to get into a discussion concerning the President. The old man who ran the stand evidenced a particular hatred for President Kennedy. He seemed to go out of his way to drag anyone who came by his stand into a discussion about the President. His name is J. C. Kiser.

      “Negroes will soon be allowed to vote in large numbers … people who have never contributed to America in my genetically superior way will be entitled to the same number of votes as me.” — H.L. Hunt
      (“Dallas 1963; Minutaglio and Davis)


    • “Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day’s examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. They did replace it – even if the replacement was made in a different country.”~Roger Craig, When They Kill A President (1971)

  49. This is from a conversation on a YouTube Forum today with someone named Betty Thomas:

    “I lost contact with Uncle Sy in the early 70’s. I was told he later died in a VA hospital in Texas “rambling” about “they” were out to kill him.
    “After the Mauser statement , he was demoted to desk jobs and menial tasks around the Constable’s Office. He left law enforcement after his Warren Commission statement. I never knew if it was voluntary or forced.
    I was in the 5th grade when all this happened. My father was DCSO and at the right hand of Sheriff Bill Decker through most of it. Cops were at our house most hours of the day and night most of my childhood. When my 5th grade teacher told us what had happened , most were shocked. I told her I knew it was going to happen. What’s the lyric from the John Prine song, “little pictures have big ears”? My father (deceased) always though it was a conspiracy and suspected many of his friends died under suspicious circumstances. He cut ties to Uncle Sy to save himself. Another tie I have was my “Uncle Jack” Another friend of my fathers. At age 3 I was sitting in Jack Ruby’s lap. My father spent a lot of time with him when he was in jail. he told my mother many things that to this day she is afraid to tell me. She gave me the travel size chess set that Ruby taught my father how to play chess on through the cell bars. It was said he had cancer. Apparently my father told her Ruby was never sick until 2 weeks before his death when doctors started to come see him. He told her other things she is afraid to tell me.”~Betty Thomas

    **May I ask what your father’s name is?** ~Willy Whitten

    “Chris Ferguson. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff at the time. Uncle Sy was Dallas County Constable under Chief Robie Love. My father had many friends involved that were in many different departments of law enforcement in Dallas. I knew many of them . I knew Capt. Fritz and Buddy Walther as well. I knew Uncle Sy best of all . Loved him like a second father. Spent many, many hours in his home . Over the years since, people don’t want to believe what I have to say. I was only 9 when it happened, yet I knew there was something wrong going on from the beginning.
    My father was a right wing Republican all his life. It took a lot to shake his faith in the government. Believe me he was shook down to his toes.”~Betty Thomas


  50. “How you get into a dissociative state when watching a Limo through binoculars is anyones guess.”~Eddy

    I WANT to like people, but they’re just so fucking stupid.

  51. “Sherry Feister beleives the film is genuine. She states there was no Limo stop and explains all the witnesses who saw this are in a ‘dissociative state’. How you get into a dissociative state when watching a Limo through binoculars is anyones guess.”~Eddy (spelling his own)
    . . . .

    Eddy doesn’t seem to realize the psychology of stage magic. “Why I saw it myself, he cut that lady right in half! And THEN he put her back together again!!”

    How does one get in a dissociative state? The general population spends most of their time on the edge of a dissociative state from the effects of watching television. In a crisis situation, being excited emotionally can plunge most people into such a state. I have spoken to this extensively in the thread ‘Voodoo Ritual 2’:
    @ –

    The unreliability of witness testimony has been gone through deeply in the analysis of the 9/11 Pentagon event. At first glance, it seems that there is a large consensus of eyewitnesses who actually think they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. However when we closely example each witness, accounting for their position of view (POV), distance, obstructions in the field of vision, and other particular details, it is discovered that a very few select group were in a position to see the trajectory of the plane and watch it as it approached the building and it’s supposed impact.

    What is even more remarkable is that many of these witnesses swear to have actually seen the plane hit the building – but the proven trajectory by their own testimony means it is impossible that that plane hit the Pentagon!
    This information can be found on this blog at the following link:

    So now if we take this incredible lesson we learn from the Pentagon analysis, and look at the witnesses at Dealey Plaza with the same discipline, we find exactly what CSI Feister speaks to. And this is also a lesson in trusting the forensic evidence above testimony that contradicts it.

    • Dissociation is a coping skill that disconnects traumatic memories from one’s consciousness, shielding them from the pain or fear associated with the trauma. The traumatic memories still exist but are deeply buried within the mind. The memories may resurface on their own or after being triggered by something in the person’s life, usually appearing as panic, anxiety, flashbacks, and nightmares.

      Dissociation itself does not always suggest a disorder. Everyone has the ability to dissociate. Daydreaming or getting lost in music, a book or movie is a form of dissociation. To cross over into a disorder, the dissociation must interfere with everyday functioning.

      See also:
      Dissociation is technically a defense mechanism by Sandra Brown M.A. on Nov 22, 2012

  52. “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
    ~Sir John Harington

  53. “Jejune”, quaint old Latin term for ‘ insipid cuntery’ …..which is more Anglo Saxon in origin than Latin.

  54. The Sound of Silence

    “Hello darkness, my old friend
    I’ve come to talk with you again
    Because a vision softly creeping
    Left its seeds while I was sleeping
    And the vision that was planted in my brain
    Still remains
    Within the sound of silence

    In restless dreams I walked alone
    Narrow streets of cobblestone
    ‘Neath the halo of a street lamp
    I turned my collar to the cold and damp
    When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
    That split the night
    And touched the sound of silence

    And in the naked light I saw
    Ten thousand people, maybe more
    People talking without speaking
    People hearing without listening
    People writing songs that voices never share
    And no one dared
    Disturb the sound of silence

    “Fools”, said I, “You do not know
    Silence like a cancer grows
    Hear my words that I might teach you
    Take my arms that I might reach you”
    But my words, like silent raindrops fell
    And echoed
    In the wells of silence

    And the people bowed and prayed
    To the neon god they made
    And the sign flashed out its warning
    In the words that it was forming
    And the sign said, “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
    And tenement halls”
    And whispered in the sounds of silence”

    ~Paul Simon

    This ‘Penn & Teller’ video offered by Photon, that is proposed to “prove” the “Jet Effect” has long sense been relegated to the dust bin of history. In a medical or physics context, the assertion is simply hogwash.

    “The path of “missile dust” on the right lateral X-ray shows that a soft lead or frangible round struck near the right temple and exited through the right posterior parietal region, near the midline. We know this bullet was travelling front-to-back because the smaller dust-like particles are found near the temple and the larger ones are located in the upper right rear. This is because the larger fragments, having greater mass, have greater momentum and are carried further away from the point of entry.”

    A DEMONSTRABLE IMPOSSIBILITY: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence ~ by John Hunt

    Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.”


  56. The Warren Commission ignored their own expert witnesses when they concluded that “All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor’s stretcher could have caused all his wounds.

    Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy’s head in Exhibit No. 388?
    Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.

    Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?

    Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely … The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

    Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?

    Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.

    Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399.

    Commander HUMES. 399, sir.

    Colonel Finck was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Medical Corps. He obtained his medical degree at the University of Geneva Medical School in Switzerland in 1948. He experienced 4 years of training in pathology after his internship, 2 years, including 2 years of pathology at the University Institute of Pathology in Geneva, Switzerland, and 2 years at the University of Tennessee Institute of Pathology in Memphis, Tenn. He was in the Army since 1955. From 1955 to 1958, he performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma, including missile wounds, while stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany. He was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, personally reviewing all the cases forwarded by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and forces overseas, totalling approximately 400 cases. Finck was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.

    Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
    Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

    From Mr. Frazier, FBI firearms expert:

    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
    Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.

    Mr. EISENBERG. How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?

    Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains–that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed— 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.

    Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?

    Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.

    . . .

    Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

    Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is–its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

    Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399.

    Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall–2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

    A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”

  57. Within an hour after the assassination, Johnsen was given the bullet by Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright, after orderly Darrell Tomlinson found it by a stretcher. Like Johnsen and Rowley, neither Wright nor Tomlinson could identify the bullet.

    What the WC cult here disingenuously fail to admit, is that the first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found a Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
    They are:

    1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
    2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
    3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
    4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).

    A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.

    Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”

    Warren Commission Testimony vol. VI
    The testimony of Darrell C. Tomlinson was taken on March 20, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission

    The Parkland Bullet is a distinct and different bullet from CE399.

    • “CABL can neither confirm nor refute the single bullet theory. In fact, in 2005 the FBI denounced comparative bullet led analysis. Therefore, scientific testing of ballistic evidence in the Kennedy assassination does not support the Warren Commission in their conclusion that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza.”~Sherry Fiester — (Enemy of Truth – pg.163)

    • Josiah Thompson: The Untrue Fact

      “Thompson then states his 1967 conclusions, which were included in his book, Six Seconds in Dallas, “The only possible conclusion, if his head goes forward 2 inches in 1/18th of a second is that something happened to the back of his head to push it forward 2 inches”. This is wrong. German researcher Bernd Karger published Forensic Ballistics in 2008, which states targets move into the force and against the line of fire prior to moving with the force of the bullet. In Wound Ballistic: Basics and Applications (2011) Robert Coupland used ultra-high-speed photography to document the same findings. In fact, the Harold E. Edgerton’s Death of a Light Bulb photograph, taken in 1936, shows the bulb distortion with bulging into the line of fire (

      Thompson then addresses the blood spatter in the film by saying in 1967 he believed the blood in Zapruder film 313 was the result of the “exit of a bullet out the front”. Thompson now believes Zapruder’s movement in response to hearing a gunshot blurred 313 frame, meaning the apparent movement doesn’t exist. As a result, he has revised his assessment of the blood spatter. He first indicates a bone fragment was expelled and found 25 feet to the left of the limo. He highlights a segment of the spatter visible in frame 313 and states it travels up and backward to the left. He then highlights a second segment of the spatter indicating it travels down and backwards and forward and backwards. Thompson is incomplete in his description of the visible spatter, but is correct in stating the spatter was created as the result of an entry wound. He continues by stating that front impact resulted in the rear movement seen in subsequent frames…
      When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009). The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries. The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI

      This article is worth extended and deep study; as here we have a primer for modern ballistics and crime scene investigation by a veteran investigator.

  58. Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.” *(September 6, 1964, Warren Commission internal memo)

    As it turns out this prediction by Dulles has turned out to be incorrect. Many of us do read. And luckily a certain district attorney read the entire record and realized that the “Summery Report” by the Warren Commission was not supported by the evidence and information contained in the bulk of the voluminous work.

    More information emerged largely due to the original efforts by this district attorney, Jim Garrison. A key piece of evidence brought out in the trial of Clay Shaw was the Zapruder Film. This evidence was never supposed to see the light of day. It had been sequestered almost as soon as it’s existence became known. The lies propagated about the film by the corporation that bought the film where revealed shortly after as bootleg copies of the movie began to circulate…

    So here we are, more than half a century later and the controversy still swirls . The controversy is not maintained so much by the historical researchers and analysts who have proven for many years now that the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963 was a military industrial coup d’etat. No, the controversy is maintained by the Public Relations Regime of that military industrial complex.

    And that controversy is maintained here on this site, JFKfacts, by the hard core agenteur of that military industrial complex, who will deny material facts, and the most sound reasoning to maintain this fiction, this preposterous myth of one lone gunman as the killer. This despite the fact that this “deranged individual” had no clear motive whatsoever. Despite the fact that there is not the slightest bit of real evidence that this individual fired any weapon or killed anybody on November 22, 1963.

    So here we sit at this impasse, just a few short weeks from the 52nd anniversary of the Amerikan Coup D’Etat; stuck on that same lame and tired old carousel of denial propagated by the vile fascist state that came to fruition in Dallas that day.

    For Dulles quote, also see:

  59. Some excellent and perceptive observations here:
    . . . . . . . .
    Charles — November 5, 2015 at 1:17 am
    “I have to be blunt about this. I know I am new here but I see no useful purpose to the debate in the original thread or why Davison’s call for direct quotes in anyway adds to the validity of someone’s opinion about someone else’s opinion. Yes Tom, the ballistics article was a mess but,call me crazy, this comment of the week did not stand out for me at all.

    The feelings of Kennedys about Dulles have little to no probitive value regarding Dulles’ feelings about the Kennedys. This is a class of people who take some pride in their manners and civility but paradoxically will wage war with little or no remorse. Officials publically praise other officials. It’s a private club.

    The idea of evidence to support argument is method but this is not a science, this is politics and the dirtiest kind at that. Defense and security matters are not an ethical arena. Quotes might be useful for a newspaper story but that is not what we are doing here. Newspapers are filled with endless quotes of officials attesting to the presence of WMD in Iraq but so what? The reportage is accurate but the story is false.

    For example, here is a link to first class scholars weighing the validity of Khrushchev quoting Ambassador Dobrynin quoting Robert Kennedy to the effect that the Kennedy’s both feared that the U.S. government was at risk of a military coup in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Did Khrushchev misunderstand Dobrynin? Was Robert Kennedy sincere or was it a negotiating tactic? The scholars draw cautious conclusions. My point is the quote itself is not evidence for their conclusions, their opinions about the context of the quote is their evidence.”

    • Ex Cathedra is Latin for “from the chair.” Roman Catholics believe that the pope speaks infallibly when speaking ex cathedra on questions of faith or morals.”

  60. Martin Fackler Carcano Bullet Tests
    >PURPOSE — To show that a 6.5mm full metal jacketed (FMJ) Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, traveling at the approximate speed of (1000 – 1100 ft/s) it would have possessed after perforating the junction of the neck and torso of one adult human, and the chest of another, would perforate a human radius bone just above the wrist without becoming deformed.
    >METHOD — Bullet velocities were measured while lowering powder charges until the appropriate powder charge was obtained. Cadaver forearms were then shot at this lower velocity and bullets were caught in a bullet trap.
    >RESULTS — One bullet traveling at 1108 ft/s and one at 1335 f/s perforated cadaver radius bones and were caught in the bullet trap. Neither bullet had any deformation whatsoever, except for firing impressions.
    >CONCLUSIONS — The FMJ Italian military 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullets perforated cadaver radius bones travelling at (or slightly higher than) the approximate velocity they would have had when striking Governor Connally’s wrist and remained truly “pristine” undeformed bullets.

    Click to access fackler.pdf


    It is glaringly obvious that Dr. Fackler did not account for the other material that the bullet encountered on the way to the wrist.
    Merely lowering the powder charges to reduce velocity is a clear and willful misrepresentation of the actual circumstances of the bullet that actually hit Connally and is proposed to have traveled through Kennedy’s neck.

    The bullet would have encountered the skin, muscle and gristle of Kennedy’s neck.
    It would have encountered and passed through Connally’s clothing, skin, the muscles of his back, shattered a rib, gone through the muscles and skin, and encountered the clothing on his front side, before ever reaching the wrist.
    Absolutely none of this is taken into account in Flackers experiment.

    Dr. SHAW. I find the point of entry be quite accurate.
    Mr. SPECTER. Is the size and dimension of the hole accurate on scale, or would you care to make any adjustment or modification in that characterization by picture?
    Dr. SHAW. As the wound entry is marked on this figure, I would say that the scale is larger than the actual wound or the actual depicting of the wound should be. As I described it, it was approximately a centimeter and a half in length.
    Dr. SHAW. The bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of the bullet.
    Antiseptic solution was applied for further cleaning of the skin, the whole area was draped so as to permit access to both the wound of exit and the entrance wound. Temporarily, the wound of entrance was covered with a sterile towel.
    First an elliptical incision was made to remove the ragged edges of the wound of exit. This incision was then extended laterally and upward in a curved direction so as to not have the incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissue directly over the wound of exit. This incision was then extended laterally and upward in a curved direction so as to not have the incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissue directly over the line of the trajectory of the bullet where the chest had been softened.
    It was found that approximately 10 cm. of the fifth rib had been shattered and the rib fragments acting as secondary missiles had been the major contributing factor to the damage to the anterior chest wall and to the underlying lung.

    Click to access WH6_Shaw.pdf

    Also see: Melicent Cranor:

    Click to access Item%2006.pdf


    • Cadaveric tissue is relatively inelastic and stiff when compared to live tissue.

      The Warren Commission authorised ballistics tests to be carried out by the Department of Defense at Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. Excerpts from the report on these tests, Wound Ballistics of 6.5–mm Mannlicher–Carcano Ammunition, CRDLR 3264, by Alfred G. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, are given below.
      Also included below is the text of a letter from Dr Joseph Dolce, a senior scientist at Edgewood Arsenal, commenting on the Warren Commission’s treatment of the evidence provided by the scientists.

      Martin L. Fackler was a retired colonel in the US Army’s Medical Corps. He served as a battlefield surgeon and was the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the Letterman Army Medical Center.
      He is credited with a number of contributions to the field of terminal ballistics including:[1][2][3]

    • Proper Assessment of the JFK Assassination Bullet Lead Evidence From Metallurgical and Statistical Perspectives
      Author(s): Erik Randich Ph.D. ; Patrick M. Grant Ph.D.
      Corporate Author: University of California
      Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, United States of America
      Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume:51 Issue:4 Dated:July 2006 Pages:717 to 728
      Date Published: 07/2006
      Page Count:12
      This paper reports on a re-examination of the bullet evidence from the investigation of the JFK (John Fitzgerald Kennedy) assassination, using metallurgical and statistical analyses.
      Abstract: The authors conclude that standard metallurgical analysis and statistical assessment of the fundamental neutron activation analysis (NAA) of the bullet fragments provide no forensic basis for an unequivocal conclusion that only two bullets were fired in the assassination event. Although collateral information from the overall investigation could narrow the choices for the number of bullets fired, as stand-alone primary evidence, an analysis of the recovered bullet fragments indicate that anywhere between two and five different rounds could have been fired. Moreover, the bullet fragments did not necessarily originate from the suspect rifle, a 6.5-mm Mannlicher-Carcano (MC) bolt-action carbine. The antimony compositions of the evidentiary specimens are consistent with any number of jacketed ammunitions that contain unhardened lead. This paper identifies flaws in the various analyses that have drawn firm conclusions about the number of bullets fired in the assassination event and that they came from the same rifle, i.e., the MC carbine with Oswald’s palm print. The conclusions of the current analyses are based on the identification and quantification of the major, minor, and trace elements present in the bullet fragments and interpretation of the data regarding a common origin for the bullet fragments. 1 table, 7 figures, and 36 references.
      To cite this abstract, use the following link:

  61. Chain of Custody
    Paul C. Giannelli
    Case Western University School of Law, (1996)

    Authentication or identification
    of real evidence 1 refers to the requirement that an item of evidence be proved to be genuine, that is, that it is what its proponent claims it to be. McCormick expressed the requirement this way: “[W]hen real evidence is offered an adequate foundation for admission will require testimony first that the object offered is the object which was involved in the incident, and further that the condition of the object is substantially unchanged.”2 Federal Evidence Rule 901(a) codifies this requirement.
    Police Markings
    An object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice, recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals, is well accepted in the cases. Firearms, bullets, currency, laboratory slides, and sundry other objects have been admitted into evidence, at least in part, on this basis.
    Witness Uncertainty
    A witness’s uncertainty in identifying an exhibit, however, affects the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence.
    (Example given here is not an applicable analog to the Parkland Bullet case)
    Need for Chain of Custody
    In some situations the proponent must establish a chain of custody. Such proof may be necessary either because the item of evidence is not readily identifiable, or because more than simple identification is necessary to establish the item’s relevance.
    Lab Analysis
    If the relevance of an exhibit depends on its subsequent laboratory analysis, identification by police markings made at the scene does not provide a sufficient foundation. The markings establish that the exhibit in court was the item seized by the police, but a chain of custody may be necessary to establish that the item seized was the item analyzed at the crime laboratory. For example, in Robinson v. Commonwealth, the court reversed a rape conviction due to a break in the chain of custody: “The mere fact that the blouse and the panties were identified (by the victim at trial] did not prove the chain of possession necessary to validate the F.B.I. analysis of them. ”
    Links in Chain
    The “links” in the chain of custody are those persons who have had physical custody of the object. Persons who have had access to, but not possession of, the evidence generally need not be accounted for. Such persons are not custodians. As noted by one court: “There is no rule requiring the prosecution to produce as witnesses all persons who were in a position to come into contact with the article sought to be introduced in evidence.
    Failure to account for the evidence during possession by a custodian may constitute a critical break in the chain of custody. Some courts have indicated that all the links in the chain of custody must testify at triaJ.58 The prevalent view, however, is that “the fact of a ‘missing link does not prevent the admission of real evidence, so long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be.
    Thus, while a custodian in the chain of possession need not testify under all circumstances, the evidence should be accounted for during the time it was under that custodian’scontrol. Several recurrent examples of “missing link” cases are discussed in this article.
    Burden and Standard of Proof
    The burden of proving the chain of custody rests with the party offering the evidence. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the courts described the standard of proof in various ways. The most common expression of the standard was that the offering party had to establish the identity and condition of the exhibit by a “reasonable probability.” Phrases such as “reasonable certainty” and “reasonable assurance” seem only variants of this standard. The reasonable probability standard appears to require no more than the “preponderance of evidence” or “more probable than not” standard, and some courts have explicitly expressed the standard in those terms. This standard is the typical standard in evidence law. Under this view, chain of custody “requirements go to the competency of the evidence, not merely to its credibility.” Under this view, the trial court determines whether this standard has been satisfied.
    Habit Evidence
    The proponent may also introduce evidence of habit or routine practice to establish the chain of custody. Federal Rule 406 provides that evidence of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the organization “on a particular occasion was in conformity with the … routine practice.” Accordingly, evidence of the standard operating procedures of police departments and laboratories in safeguarding real evidence may be used to establish the chain of custody.

    Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
    Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.


    (Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
    Crime Scene Protocol 1963
    It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
    “Police Markings”
    Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”


    • Email to, Paul C. Giannelli — 11/8/2015 at 8:25 AM

      Dear Professor Giannelli,
      I am reading your paper on Chain of Custody; an online PDF version.
      I am interested to know if you have studied the controversy over the provenance of the chain of custody for CE # 399, the so called “Magic Bullet” that is said to have caused 7 wounds in two adults, and remained essentially a pristine bullet.
      As I read the evidence I find that the first four individuals to handle the bullet found at Parkland Hospital, cannot identify the bullet as the bullet now on exhibit as CE # 399.

      1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
      2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
      3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
      4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).

      Thank you for your time, Willy Whitten
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      • Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.

        Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.

        Figure 11. Recorded interview with FBI Agent Bardwell Odum, in which he denies he ever had C.E. #399 in his possession.

        Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011 claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau’s own once-secret records, don’t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were dissimilar. Thus, Thompson’s surprising discovery about Wright, which might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in #2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides further, indirect corroboration.

  62. The Secret Service and CE 399

    by Vincent Michael Palamara
    The following is a compendium of all the anomolies
    pertaining to what I like to refer to as the “legitimacy” of
    CE399, including the Secret Service’s handling of it:

    [in no particular order]

    1) CE2011-O.P. Wright, Darrel Tomlinson, Chief James J. Rowley,
    and SA Richard Johnsen could NOT identify CE399 as the bullet
    they all allegedly handled on 11/22/63 (“over-the-counter”
    references: “JFK-Conspiracy of Silence”, p. 133; “Crossfire”, p.
    365; “Reasonable Doubt”, p. 70);

    2) 24H412-Although two FBI agents (Todd and Frazier) initialed the
    bullet they received from the Secret Service, Johnsen and Rowley
    did NOT, breaking the legal chain of custody;

    3) CD7-Although the bullet was “officially” found on a stretcher
    in a corridor of Parkland Hospital, the FBI(Sibert and O’Neil)
    reported that it was found in the emergency room!;

    4) a)Sibert and O’Neil interview of SAIC Jerry Behn,
    11/27/63-the same FBI agents bypassed Johnsen and spoke instead
    to Behn(not even IN Dallas) about “the location of a bullet which
    had been found on a stretcher at Parkland”;

    4) b) RIF#180-10104-10481:HSCA interview of SAIC Behn-
    Incredibly, Behn “stated that he was in the chain of custody of
    CE 399-Behn received the bullet from Johnsen, then turned it over
    to the FBI” [WHAT ABOUT ROWLEY?];

  63. Willy Whitten — November 10, 2015 at 12:16 am
    J. Thornton Boswell, revealed three decades later that the Justice Department was greatly concerned by Finck’s testimony. Carl Eardley, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, got in touch with Boswell:
    He was really upset. He says, “J, we got to get somebody in New Orleans quick. Pierre is testifying, and he’s really lousing everything up.” … They showed me the transcript of Pierre’s testimony for the past couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this bit about the general. Jim [Humes, the chief pathologist] said, “Who’s in charge here?” And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy, he says, “Some Army general.”(Boswell’s testimony to the ARRB, pp.208ff)

    X-ray of entry wound in Kennedy’s throat.
    Also see:


  64. Destruction Of Original Autopsy Evidence

    In JFK’s autopsy, as with any post mortem, the contemporaneously gathered data from the examination, usually recorded in hand-written, even bloodstained, autopsy notes, carries the greatest scientific and evidentiary weight. These notes detail the measurements of wound sizes and locations, the organ weights and appearances, all the raw data that serve as the basis for conclusions about the cause of death. It is difficult to overstate the importance of such information. Without a reliable base record of fact, conclusions are less certain.

    Certificate in which Dr. Humes admitted destroying “certain preliminary draft notes” related to JFK’s autopsy. In 1996, Humes admitted under oath that the destruction included original autopsy materials.
    (see ARRB MD #9, and also his 1996 ARRB testimony, p. 128 – 139)

    On August 2, 1998, the Associated Press reported an important new ARRB finding that raised questions about the original autopsy record: “Under oath [before the ARRB], Dr. Humes, finally acknowledged under persistent questioning – in testimony that differs from what he told the Warren Commission – that he had destroyed both his notes taken at the autopsy and the first draft of the autopsy report.”[105] The Review Board had extracted Humes’ sworn admission of something that had long been known: he had burned both a preliminary draft of the autopsy report, which he had told the Warren Commission about, and he had also destroyed original autopsy notes taken on the night of the autopsy, something Humes had kept from the Warren Commission, if not one of the Commission’s lawyers.

    Only three groups of original, hand-written autopsy papers have survived. One of the three is autopsist Boswell’s so-called autopsy “face sheet ” – notes that were made about Kennedy’s wounds by the surgeons during the autopsy. The other two consist of scribbled notes Humes made after the autopsy: the first, after he had called Dallas the day after the autopsy to learn, supposedly for the first time, that JFK had a wound in the throat upon arrival at the hospital; the second, a hand-written draft of the final autopsy report. The surviving hand-written draft of the autopsy report is apparently the second of two drafts. Humes claims that he incinerated the first draft in his fireplace. Except for the first, torched draft of the autopsy report, Humes swore that no other notes ever existed. And he swore that he surrendered all the surviving notes.

    Arlen Specter asked Dr. Humes, “Are there any notes which you made at any time which are not included in this group of [three sets of surviving] notes?”

    Humes: “Yes, sir; there are … In the privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24th, I made a draft of this [autopsy] report which I later revised, and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room.”

    Specter followed with: “And these represent all the notes except those you have already described which you destroyed?”

    Humes: “That is correct, sir.”[106] (author’s emphasis)

    Humes later admitted, on more than one occasion, that in fact this answer was not correct. The ARRB report was but the first official acknowledgement that Humes had destroyed more than a first draft autopsy report. He had also destroyed original notes taken during the post mortem.

    Humes’ concession contradicted not only his testimony in 1964, it also contradicted two affidavits he had signed within 48 hours of the assassination, a fact the ARRB did not acknowledge, and may not have even realized. By affidavit dated 24 November 1963, Humes “certified” over his signature that he had “destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to” JFK’s autopsy,”[107] but that otherwise, “all working papers associated with [JFK’s autopsy] have remained in my personal custody at all times. Autopsy notes and the holograph draft of the final report were handed to Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, at 1700, 24 November 1963.”[108]

    Thus, Humes certified having destroyed “preliminary draft notes” prepared while drafting his autopsy report at home. But this affidavit, the substance of which he repeated to the Warren Commission, does not mention the destruction of original autopsy notes from the night of the autopsy. Humes implies quite the opposite. For “all working papers” and “autopsy notes” had not remained with him until he turned them over to his superior. He destroyed some of them, including notes he took himself on the night of the autopsy, and perhaps also those of his consultant, Finck. (Such an act, of course, would have been medico legally frowned upon had it occurred in a civilian autopsy of even the most undistinguished murder victim.)

    Arlen Specter’s Solution

    Former Commission counsel Senator Arlen Specter believes he recently solved the mystery. The cover of his book, Passion for Truth, published in 2000, announced that the book presented “the first public disclosure of why JFK’s autopsy surgeon burned his notes.” Specter produced a long quote of Humes coming clean. He had torched some, but not all, of the notes written during the autopsy because they were stained with JFK’s blood. He did so, Specter discovered, because Humes feared the stained notes would become objects of morbid curiosity in the same way the doilies on President Lincoln’s chair had so become, stained as they were with the blood of John Wilkes Booth’s treason.[109]

    But this apparently isn’t what Humes told Specter originally. Neither the offensive blood spots nor Lincoln’s name came up at all when Specter premiered Humes’ original justification for his arson in an interview for U.S. News Report in 1966.

    An interviewer asked: “Were there preliminary autopsy reports or memoranda of any kind that were destroyed?”

    Specter: “Yes, the record is plain that there had been a series of notes taken by Dr. Humes at the time of the actual performance of the autopsy which had been destroyed when he made a written-handwritten-autopsy (sic) report on Sunday, November 24 … he did not quite have the perspective of a historian who is culling the premises with a fine-tooth comb. He had never performed an autopsy on a President, and he was using his best judgment under the circumstances never dreaming that loose handwritten notes would become a subject of some concern. That matter was of concern immediately to his superiors, and he was questioned on it. He made a formal report on it, and he explained his reasons fully before the Commission.”

    Interviewer: “Is [Humes’] testimony in the open record – for the public to read?”

    Specter: “It is absolutely.” [This is a lie as well] Read more:

    Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
    (Added Pub. L. 107–204, title VIII, § 802(a),July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 800.)


    • An autopsy—also known as a post-mortem examination, necropsy, autopsia cadaverum, or obduction—is a highly specialized surgical procedure that consists of a thorough examination of a corpse to determine the cause and manner of death and to evaluate any disease or injury that may be present. It is usually performed by a specialized medical doctor called a pathologist.

      The word “autopsy” means to study and directly observe the body (Adkins and Barnes, 317). This includes an external examination of the deceased and the removal and dissection of the brain, kidneys, lungs and heart. When a coroner receives a body, he or she must first review the circumstances of the death and all evidence, then decide what type of autopsy should be performed if any. If an autopsy is recommended, the coroner can choose between an external autopsy (the deceased is examined, fingerprinted, and photographed but not opened; blood and fluid samples are taken), an external and partial internal autopsy (the deceased is opened but only affected organs are removed and examined), or a full external and internal autopsy.

      Autopsies are performed for either legal or medical purposes. For example, a forensic autopsy is carried out when the cause of death may be a criminal matter, while a clinical or academic autopsy is performed to find the medical cause of death and is used in cases of unknown or uncertain death, or for research purposes. Autopsies can be further classified into cases where external examination suffices, and those where the body is dissected and internal examination is conducted. Permission from next of kin may be required for internal autopsy in some cases. Once an internal autopsy is complete the body is reconstituted by sewing it back together.

  65. At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:

    “John McCloy: … the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .

    Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .

    Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.

    Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it. (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)”[130]
    January 1964 Warren Commission Meeting Transcript:

  66. Willy Whitten — November 11, 2015 at 2:49 am
    It is not only Josiah Thompson that claims that neither Tomlinson nor Wright could identify the bullet, but the FBI itself. And further, the two Secret Service agents the Parkland Bullet were given could not identify it either:

    According to WC Exhibit No. 2011, Chief James Rowley could not identify CE 399 as the bullet he received from Special Agent Johnsen and given to Special Agent Todd.
    Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”

    Photon also asks this:
    “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”

    There is no background to the photo with the pointed tipped bullet photographed by Thompson that has anything similar to any photo of CE933 I have ever seen. Ask him what he means by that.

    It should be noted that neither Rowley nor Johnsen marked the Parkland Bullet, despite the fact that it was standard law enforcement protocol at the time.

    I cannot name the two witnesses that were with Josiah Thompson during the interview with Wright. But I see no ‘pattern’ of deceit, or proofs of him lying about anything about the JFK case. The same can hardly be said for the authorities; especially the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA.

    Note the utterly phony angle of the rod in Specter’s hand in this shot.

    Dr Burkley statement on the JFK death certificate:

  67. Connally’s testimony: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.135f. He was quoted in the Washington Post, 21 November 1966, saying that “there is my absolute knowledge that … one bullet caused the president’s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.” It was Connally’s testimony that persuaded one of the Warren Commissioners, Senator Richard Russell, that the single–bullet theory was untenable; see Richard Russell and the Warren Report.

  68. Now so far we have only discussed the problems of the chain of custody for the slug designated CE399. But there are other problems as well, and that is with the shell hulls said to have been found in the so-called “snipers nest” on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building.
    We pick up that story, reading from the article by Bill Simpich, ‘How the Warren Commission Covered Up JFK’s Murder. See:

    “The chief of the Dallas police crime lab, Carl Day, said he initialed all three hulls found on the sixth floor at about 1 pm on the afternoon of November 22.

    When Day testified on 4/22/64 to the Warren Commission, he had to admit that he did not initial any of them during the time that they were found at the 6th floor of the book depository.

    As the hulls are nondescript, initialing them is essential if anyone hopes to recognize such an item again. Detective Richard Sims wrote that after Day took pictures of the hulls, he picked up the “empty hulls”, Day held open an envelope, Sims dropped them in. Sims held onto an unsealed envelope with three hulls in it at 2 pm; at some point, homicide chief Will Fritz was given the envelope by Sims. Fritz later gave the envelope to a sergeant, who eventually brought one hull back to Fritz and the other two hulls back to Day.

    Day admitted during his Warren Commission testimony that he only initialed the two hulls in the unsealed envelope when he got it back at 10 that night. Day passed the shells on to FBI agent VinceDrain in the early morning, and I am similarly unaware of any record of Drain initialing any of these materials before he passed them on to firearms expert Robert Frazier at the FBI lab. Frazier’s testimony doesn’t mention anything about these shells being initialed by either of these men.

    These hulls should have been excluded based on the failure to have a reliable chain of custody.”~Bill Simpich

  69. Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
    Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

    Notes:(Pub. L. 93–595, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1932; Apr. 26, 2011, eff. Dec. 1, 2011.)
    . . . . . . . . . .
    This is an important rule to keep in mind as a general concept when considering malfeasance of certain government agencies (indeed the entire so-called “government” itself)

    Rule 406, is based on the older term of forensic investigation, MO, Modus Operandi – the known routine practices of individuals and organizations. The reason that this concept should be kept in mind, is that there are several organizations; agencies of the “United States Government” that have well established MO’s or habitual routine practices, that have to do with covert operations, domestic and abroad. These practices are well enough known historically. And despite statutory restrictions of many of these ‘habitual routine practices’; the real world of Realpolitik is clearly seen for what it is. At least by those willing to look with their own eyes unencumbered by indoctrination.

    Of course, there is no case in-which the consideration of Rule 406 becomes more of a wholesale context, than the JFK Assassination.

    Unless all of the activities of all the authorities are inspected with this MO of the intelligence services in mind, a realistic assessment will be impossible, and the jejune naiveté of those deluded by state indoctrination will prevail in obscuring the facts of the “Crime of the Century”.

    • The importance of Rule 406 cannot be overstated. It has the potential to explain much in the JFK case; in particular how certain individuals who changed their testimony under obvious outside pressure; Boswell, Perry, Finck, and Humes.
      Humes is a very special case, in that he actually committed felonious crimes in the blatant act of destroying material evidence in a case of Homicide 1st degree. This is known as ‘Obstruction of Justice’. And the JFK case is strewn with many instances of such, from Crime Scene fabrication, to the fabrication of Chains of Custody, to destruction of evidence concerning the Presidential Limousine.

      There is a clear line of such habitual activities and testimonies indicating such coercive pressure from above, that the known routine practices of the Intelligence Services simply must be taken into consideration.

      The agenda of the cover-up was run through the White House, where Lyndon Johnson was under the control of the military and intelligence operatives that actually carried out the murder of Kennedy. The principals designated for such coercive pressure would be first and foremost, the doctors and others with intimate knowledge of dangerous details of the case.

  70. Conclusion

    “We have rebutted the central ten points used by the Warren Commission as the heart of its case. We have identified a large amount of possible evidence tampering and alteration. I believe that a reasonable judge would come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not met the basic test required for a case to go to a jury: Would a reasonable juror be able to make a finding that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

    I think the prosecution would be unable to make any basic case. We have looked at the primary evidence identified by the Warren Commission. We haven’t blinked. If you have questions, go to and take your own independent look at the facts, attend the Dallas conference hosted by JFK Lancer on November 21-22, or take citizen action at

    After reviewing this evidence, I think you will agree that there’s no way that a reasonable case can be made against Oswald for the murder of either JFK or Officer Tippit.

    What we need now is a citizens’ board with subpoena power, similar to the Assassination Records Review Board of the 1990s. The Board freed millions of documents that have transformed our ability to analyze the JFK case. A new board can provide an opportunity to resolve the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X and many others. “~Bill Simpich, Attorney at Law

  71. The Devil’s Details

    “In my view, all of the forensic problems are the created by the conclusion of a single shooter dictating the evidence, rather than letting the evidence dictate a different conclusion.”~Charles

    Yes! Start fresh on everything. Reject the WC nomenclature as well.

    Recognize that the ‘Parkland Bullet’ is not ‘CE399’, so do not refer to it as CE399.
    Recognize that the Book Depository Building is only one of many behind the limo during the shots in Dealey that day, additionally nothing necessitates a building as the spot for a sniper. Both Kennedy and Connally suffered shots from the rear, and both shots seem to come from a trajectory that is somewhat level with the targets, not shots from extreme high spots.

    Kennedy’s throat and head shots seem to be fairly level trajectories as well. The throat shot seems the most level trajectory. The head shot seems to be from a slightly elevated position. This wouldn’t necessarily mean different shooters though. As the car was coming toward that shooter down a slight incline – so as the car came toward the shooter’s position at the S/W end of Dealey just before the RR overpass, the angle of the trajectory would change accordingly for that single shooter.

    I think the throat shot went through the front windshield from a shot from that position. The head shot being the same sniper firing now over the windshield. I think the many small pin like holes in Kennedy’s face the coroner mentions filling with morticians wax, was from his face being peppered with tiny pebble sized shards of windshield glass.

    • Z-271 Connally turning to look at Kennedy who has already been hit in the throat:
      Kenndy hit Connally not

      Connally is fully conscious and able to move around freely; meaning he isn’t hit yet.
      This cinches it, and proves the Magic Bullet theory to be total bullshit.


    • It is not only Josiah Thompson that claims that neither Tomlinson nor Wright could identify the bullet, but the FBI itself. And further, the two Secret Service agents the Parkland Bullet were given could not identify it either:

      According to WC Exhibit No. 2011, Chief James Rowley could not identify CE 399 as the bullet he received from Special Agent Johnsen and given to Special Agent Todd.
      Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”

      Photon has also asked this:
      “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”

      There is no background to the photo with the pointed tipped bullet photographed by Thompson that has anything similar to any photo of CE933 I have ever seen. Ask him what he means by that.

      It should be noted that neither Rowley nor Johnsen marked the Parkland Bullet, despite the fact that it was standard law enforcement protocol at the time.
      So even if we discount Tink Thompson’s input in its entirety; just from the government’s input on this matter, there is no valid chain of custody from the Parkland Bullet to CE399

      • Josiah Thompson – November 14, 2015 at 4:34 pm
        Photon asks, “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”

        Of course, the background is not the same because one photo was taken by the Archives staff and the other by me in my room at the Sheraton Hotel in Dallas. Proof? I happen to have the original Polaroid photo and, if staff can figure out how I can get it on the website, I’ll send it to them to publish on the website.

        Photon writes: “Please refer to Thompson’s interview from the assassination conference recorded on the Mary Ferrell site concerning this-as referred to by JFK Facts. He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ”pointed nose.”

        I call attention to the claim that “he [Thompson} makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet..” Please refer to the long footnote accompanying the photo on page 175 of Six Seconds published in 1967. “I asked him what the bullet looked like, and he replied that it had a pointed tip like the one I held in my hand (earlier he had procured a .30 caliber unfired projectile that we had placed on the stretcher cart in our reenactment).

        Do you have any other purported “contradictions” or “factual errors” you would like me to comment on?

  72. Gaeton Fonzi quotes Vince Salandria:
    “Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one – not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official – no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless.”

  73. What Photon has inadvertently done there is prove that it was not a Carcano bullet that hit Connally in the back! He wants to ascribe the larger hole to yawning. The hole is actually the size of a 30 caliber bullet:

    0.5 inch = 1.27cm: A 30 caliber bullet head is almost exactly 1/4 inch in diameter; just slightly larger.

  74. We seem to have a very pointed .30 caliber bullet here:

    7.62 mm caliber is a nominal caliber used for a number of different cartridges. Historically, this class of cartridge was commonly known as .30 caliber, the Imperial unit equivalent, and was most commonly used for indicating a class of full power military main battle rifle (MBR) cartridges. The measurement equals 0.30 inches or 3 decimal lines, written .3″ and read as Three-Line.[1]

    7.62 mm refers to the internal diameter of the barrel at the lands (the raised helical ridges in rifled gun barrels). The actual bullet caliber is normally 7.82 mm (.308 in.)

    • Problems with President Kennedy’s Autopsy

      The assassination of President Kennedy remains a mystery partly because the nature of his wounds remains a mystery. This in turn is due largely to problems with the president’s autopsy, which took place at Bethesda Naval Hospital Center, a military teaching institution near Washington:

      The autopsy was carried out by three pathologists, all of them middle–ranking military officers whose only practical experience of forensic autopsies was a one–week course taken by one of the pathologists ten years earlier.

      The room in which they worked was crowded with a variety of non–medical onlookers, several of whom were giving orders to the pathologists.

      The written records from the autopsy are incomplete, and perhaps corrupt. The original autopsy report was deliberately destroyed by Dr James Humes, the senior pathologist, after the murder of Lee Oswald. The rewritten autopsy report includes measurements and other data that do not exist in the pathologists’ surviving notes and diagrams.

      The photographic record is incomplete. The pathologists and photographers recalled ordering and taking photographs which appear no longer to exist.

      Although all three pathologists testified under oath before several official inquiries, there was only one occasion on which any of their testimony was seriously questioned. In the criminal trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans in 1969, one of the pathologists, Dr Pierre Finck, was cross–examined by an assistant district attorney, Alvin Oser. His testimony, part of which is reproduced below, is remarkable for two reasons:
      He states that senior military officers had taken an active part in proceedings, and he implies that they were in charge of the autopsy.

      He admits, after trying hard to avoid the question, that the pathologists were forbidden to dissect the president’s back and throat wounds and the connecting tissue.

  75. “The FBI Preliminary Report handed down December 9 1963 failed to completely list all the wounds of casualties (that occurred on the day of the assassination), including the experience of James Tague (FBI cover-up).
    Until James Tague’s persistence (along with publicity of his story from a US Attorney and a newspaper) in early June of 1964, the WC had no intention of seriously investigating this evidence.
    Minutes after the assassination both Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers and patrolman Clyde Haygood (who radioed information to the DPD) witnessed his injury and concluded a bullet had struck the curb near the underpass; on the weekend photographer Thomas Dillard took a pictures of the section of curb which would appear in The Dallas Morning News (the FBI subsequently took some of these pictures); 24 November 1963 Virginia Baker provides testimony to WC re bullet shot to curb; and December 14 1963 FBI interviews Tague, yet the WC had not engaged with this evidence 6 month’s after the assassination, a time when the Commission was giving out many signals that it was ready to conclude a verdict.
    By this time the WC could no longer keep this genie in the bottle, hence Tague was called to testify July 23 1964.
    In August (after an initial false report from Dallas FBI that there was no nick in the curb, the section was indentified, cut out and taken for spectrographic analysis (traces of lead and animony were found).
    The SBT was born out of a frenzied desire to avoid the possibility that there were more than 3 shots (a scenario that would not fit the time frame nor the lone assassin blueprint).”~Mariano

  76. “ far as the whole wound ballistics field, there are very few experts.”~Larry M. Sturdivan
    HSCA Testimony

    Mr. EDGAR – Would it not be elliptical if it entered at an angle?
    Mr. STURDIVAN – Yes, but if you make some geometrical drawings, you will find that in order for the ellipse to be roughly twice the diameter in one direction that it is in the other, it would have had to have entered at an angle that was 60 degrees from the normal. In other words, if this is a normal entry wound, it would had to have been tilted 60 degrees from that or only 30 degrees parallel to the surface. A bullet entering at that angle would had to have roughly turned a 60-degree angle upon entry in order to exit out the front of the Governor and bullets just don’t make abrupt 60-degree angle turns. Consequently, I can conclude from that, since the path was predominantly forward, that it was not an acute angle but a yawed bullet that entered him.
    Mr. EDGAR – Thank you. Just one final comment. I think it was unfortunate that you had not seen directly the physical evidence that we shared with you, the actual bullet that we have been discussing for most of the day. I do think, for the record, we should indicate that later today, we will have before us four members of a panel who will be able to talk in more detail about ballistics and deal with a number of other factors relating to the bullet itself, and they have had the opportunity to see that bullet as well as the guns that were used in this event. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. STURDIVAN – If I may. No, I had not held the bullet in my hand before, but I had studied, of course, the photographs and had access to the amount of deformation, and so forth, information on the amount of deformation.
    Mr. EDGAR – Thank you.

    Also see, Pat Speer:

    Sturdivan replied: “I guess Mathews corrected the exhibit numbers.” (Mathews refers to I. Charles Mathews, the HSCA Special Counsel responsible for Sturdivan’s testimony.) When I asked why some of the questions asked Sturdivan had been changed, Sturdivan’s response surprised me. He replied: “In the case of (Congressmen) Fauntroy and Ford, the staff probably published the questions as phrased on the script they were supposed to follow. Some of the Congressmen had trouble following the script — or just did what politicians do; i.e., speak without thinking what they are trying to say, just because they like the sound of their own voices…” “When I asked him WHAT script he was talking about, he clued me in on how the HSCA conducted its “public” hearings. (Dr. Baden had previously mentioned the use of scripts in his 1989 book Unnatural Death, but it had fallen below my radar). Sturdivan replied: “A couple of weeks before the open hearings, I got a copy of the questions to be asked, keyed to each Congressman in turn. I prepared my “probable answer” to each so that the staff and/or Congressman could pre-prepare any follow-up questions. I.e., the Committee’s staff did it. I suggested a few changes to questions and a few additional questions to make the story more complete. However, the Congressmen had a lot of trouble following the script. Some asked questions I had already been asked by another person and did not ask some of the questions they were scripted to ask. As a result the story got scrambled and less understandable.”

    The most important thing we discover in this article is that testimony before these committees are SCRIPTED. They are not spontaneous questions and answers. As I have posited before, these hearings are simply burlesque: Staged theater.

  77. Testimony of Gary Aguilar
    Dallas, Texas — November 18, 1994 Hearing [HSCA]

    “ name is Gary Aguilar. I am a practicing pathologist in San Francisco. I am on the faculty of the University of California in San Francisco, and on the faculty of the Stanford University Medical Center. I am the Chairman of the Department of Surgery at St. Francis Memorial Hospital..”

  78. JFK Assassination – 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 33
    The Commission and “Agent Oswald”
    Author Gerald McKnight discusses a cluster of Warren Commission meetings in January 1964, scheduled to engage rumors that Lee Oswald was a paid informant for the FBI. Recognizing that these rumors could undermine the official story, the Commission was also realizing the FBI had its own vested interests at stake.


  79. The Case for a Bunched Jacket — by John Hunt, Jr.
    “The death certificate, signed by the President’s physician, Admiral George C. Burkley, describes the wound as follows:

    “A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebrae [T3]”.

    (I list the Death Certificate as eyewitness testimony for the reason that Admiral Burkley attended the autopsy of John Kennedy but did not actively participate.)

    Notice that Admiral Burkley said “about” T3. “About” what? About one vertebra? Up or down the spine one vertebra? Two vertebrae, perhaps?”~Hunt
    . . . . . .
    I find this type of needless sarcasm disingenuous. Burkley said T3, he did not say, ‘about T1, or about T2’ He said “T3”

    Now the photo evidence Hunt presents that proposes JFK’s coat is “bunched up” is a misnomer in my view. JFK’s coat is bunch outward more than it is upward. Not “higher” but puffing out back further. And these photo’s are not proven to be representative of the moment the bullet hit Kennedy, they are shots from other moments in the trip down Elm. Hunt’s own standards for exactitude are not consistent.

    My measurements conclude that a bullet striking Kennedy in the back at the angle he was actually sitting (straight up), would mean an exit in the mid-sternum. And this would hold true for a hit anywhere within the range of T1, T2, or T3. There is no possibility whatsoever of the bullet exiting from Kennedy’s throat.

    The WC Cultists can poke me with their beef-jerky that the T3 position cited on the Death Cert, the Boswell face-sheet, the coat, the shirt, and SS Sibert’s

    • ARRB Testimony of James W. Sibert
      …unloaded from the casket?
      A: Oh, that was alter the body was removed it
      was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in
      progress. Because the mason I made that call was
      that the pathologists said, ‘There’s no exit to
      this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove
      and a chrome probe.
      A: okay.
      A: So, that’s when I called and thought maybe
      then was some type of bullet that would
      disintegrate. There just was no bullet that could
      be located
      your signature and do you remember either of those
      figures at appears to be your writing? And do you
      remember any of those figures at all?
      Page 71
      A: Yes. I think there was some mention made
      of that back wound.
      Q: When you say “back wound, you’re
      referring to –
      A: I’m referring to this wound below the
      shoulders here marked with the dot.
      […] Page 74
      Q: Did you see any wounds or injuries on the
      A: The tint of the neck, you’re speaking of?
      Q: Any part of the neck. A: Yes. This tracheotomy incision was very
      Q: Okay. Were there any other wounds that
      you noticed at that time on the body?
      A: No.
      Q: Later in – during the course of the
      autopsy, did you ever see any additional wounds?
      So, maybe you did not see them before the first
      A: No.
      Q: You referred earlier in this deposition to
      a wound on – I think you said below the shoulders.
      Q: Do you recall that?
      A: Yes.
      Q: Can you tell me where that wound was, or
      describe that for me?
      A: Well, that drawing you gave me there. it
      was below the scapula or the shoulders. And down
      far below the base of the neck.
      A: Now, Hums, as I recall, didn’t give any
      measurement on that. He did on this piece of skull
      that was brought in and the fragments. It was
      below the shoulders and to the right of the midline
      of the body.
      Q: Okay.When you said just a moment ago the
      drawing that I had shown you, you were referring to
      the drawings that were attached to Exhibit No. 85;
      is that correct?
      A: Right.The back wound.

      A: When I talked with Killion that night,
      rt “Chuck,” I said, “is there any kind of a bullet
      that would completely fragmentise? Maybe hit a
      bone and go down in the lower extremities of
      the body?” And I said, ‘They – the doctors, can’t
      find a buIIet”. and “they’re at a loss to account
      for the bullet causing the back wound.

      Click to access Sibert_9-11-97.pdf

  80. Sibert: Well I-that single-bullet theory-when they had me come up to the ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, “Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I’m not an advocate of the single-bullet theory.” I said, “I don’t believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302.” And I said, “Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas.”–IN THE EYE OF HISTORY: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence. by William Law

  81. “How would you know?”~Photon

    I can read.

    On the original page with Thomson’s remarks you asked this question;
    ““Why do you completely discount the autopsy findings when they are the only real scientific way to determine cause of death and establish direction of missiles transiting a body after a firearm injury?”

    Now the key issue you raise here is establishing the direction of missiles transiting a body, which is in fact one of the main points of criticism of the so-called “autopsy”.

    Every single person here who is even vaguely familiar with this issues knows that the dissection of the muscles necessary to track the paths of the missiles in question was NOT performed.

    Anyone who has followed this case know exactly WHY this standard autopsy procedure was NOT performed. Col Finck spilled the beans at the Garrison trial. The procedure was prevented on orders of the general officers in the gallery.

    And this is precisely what I mean by “puppeting” the doctors who were supposed to be prosecuting the autopsy.

    It is therefore a fact that the assertion of a missile transiting the body is NOT established; it is merely an assertion based on empty presumption.

    Whether I have attended an autopsy is immaterial to understanding these facts on record.

    Where bungled autopsies are concerned, President Kennedy’s is the exemplar,” is how the chairman of the 1978 House Select Committee’s (HSCA) forensic panel, former New York Coroner Michael Baden, put it. The HSCA’s criticisms included the fact that JFK’s wounds were not properly dissected, nor were they properly described relative to standard anatomic landmarks. The pathologists did not examine JFK’s clothes. The angles of the bullet tracks through the body were not measured relative to the body axis. The brain was not properly examined. Original autopsy notes were destroyed. Proper autopsy photographs were not taken, etc.

    Moreover, the autopsy report says there was a trail of fragments visible on the lateral X-ray from the inshoot in OCCIPITAL bone, anteriorly. Having seen the originals myself, and as the HSCA’s radiologists have pointed out, that trail of fragments is at more than 10-cm higher than any line joining the claimed occipital bone entrance and JFK’s anterior skull. The trail is nowhere near where the autopsy report says it is.

  82. The Carousel of Relitigation on JFKfacts reaches the level of absurdity at times.

    To be forced into re-arguing settled facts time and again seems to be the major tactic of the WC apologists.
    Jean asks if we, the dissenters of the WC are going to act as the Defense of Oswald for another 50 years.
    The more applicable question is; Is Jean and her cohorts going to act as the Prosecutors of Oswald for another 50 years?

  83. Dr. SHAW – Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew Just how the Governor was wounded until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain.
    I felt that the wound had been caused by the same bullet that came out through the chest with the Governor’s arm held in approximately this position.
    Mr. SPECTER – Indicating the right hand held close to the body?
    Dr. SHAW – Yes, and this is still a possibility. But I don’t feel that it is the only possibility.
    Senator COOPER – Why do you say you don’t think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location—-
    Dr. SHAW – This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
    Mr. DULLES – Or whether it was one or two wounds?
    Dr. SHAW – Yes.
    Mr. DULLES – Or two bullets?
    Dr. SHAW – Yes; or three.
    Mr. DULLES – Why do you say three?
    Dr. SHAW – He has three separate wounds. He has a wound in the chest, a wound of the wrist, a wound of the thigh.
    Mr. DULLES – Oh, yes; we haven’t. come to the wound of the thigh yet, have we?
    Mr. McCLOY – You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?
    Dr. SHAW – I have no firm opinion.
    Now we get down to the trickery of Specter in mixing speculation with the actual bullet in evidence [CE399] whent he asks this of Dr Shaw:
    “Mr. SPECTER – “Now, without respect to whether or not the bullet identified as Commission Exhibit 399 is or is not the one which inflicted the wound on the Governor, is it possible that a missile similar to the one which I have just described in the hypothetical question could have inflicted all of the Governor’s wounds in accordance with the theory which you have outlined on Commission Exhibit No. 689? ”

  84. “In 1963 the Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that there was a clean trail.”~Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine
    Agent Blaine’s info posted on JFKfacts:
    SAVE to post on JFKfacts later:
    “The Right Mastoid Process. Tucked right behind your ear lobe.”~Bill

    Why would any experienced pathologist use a movable point as a Landmark? You can lean your head from side to side and the distance from the Mastoid process changes distance to your shoulder.

    My mastoid process is 4 1/2 with my head straight up. If I lean my head down sideways that distance becomes about 1 1/2 inches. I am far from double jointed, nor particularly limber at my age.

  85. The only appropriate reply to OINKINSTUFF, is to point out that this is exactly what it is; an attempt at Cognitive Infiltration, to hijack a thread, to distract with woowoo drawn from the Warren Commission Grimoire fantasy.
    I refer you to my comment of November 17, 2015 at 8:43 am:

    “CE399 may seem like a “magic bullet” to the lay person, but these experts have no problem with it. Something to think about, isn’t it?”~Jean Davison — March 23, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Yes, indeed, it is something to think about. How is it that so many so-called experts would go along with that which is provably patently false, not merely to the lay person, but to anyone who actually uncovers and discovers the actual facts of this “magic bullet”. And as it is, that this preposterous tale of CE399 has been torn asunder on the pages of this blog; the question Jean Davison poses above must be seriously considered. How is it that so many simply fold under pressure and go along to get along.

    This question of “Obedience to Authority” was address by Stanley Milgram in an important study published in 1974:
    The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, mostly young male students from Yale, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

    The experiments began in July 1961, in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies, although not with the same percentages around the globe. [See Wiki]

    It is in considering studies such as these that give us the proximate clues to the situation faced in 1963 when a coup d’etat took place in broad daylight on the streets of Dallas, Texas. There are obviously systemic forces underlying the organized denial of truth and fact surrounding this and subsequent events. It is therefore incumbent on each and every sincere individual to come to grips with this hybrid paradigm of a blatantly obvious military police state that is the direct consequence of the 1963 Amerikan coup d’etat.
    Number of words: 413

    • Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, “The Perils of Obedience”, writing:

      The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

      Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.[7]

  86. Willy Whitten — November 20, 2015 at 12:33 pm
    “It’s at C7/T1.”~John McAdams
    . . . . .

    The picture McAdams provides clearly shows that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back is NOT at C7/T1.

    C7/T1 is at the beginning of the “Leatherneck” just at the the first deep crease just above the top of the ruler.

    This picture shows the wound at T3.
    The same location on the Death Certificate, the shirt and coat, the ‘dot’ on Boswell’s face-sheet, and the testimony of SSA Sibert, who attended the so-called “autopsy” and stood less than an arms length from that wound while it was measured.
    back wound

    • I will put my visual acuity and knowledge of comparative anatomy up against ANYONE, doctor, lawyer or Indian chief.


  87. Forensic Autopsy Protocol

    7. (vi) With all injuries, record the size and shape, pattern, location (related to obvious anatomic landmarks), color, course odirection, depth and structure involved. Attempt to distinguish injuries from thereputic measures from those unrelated to medical treatment. In the descriptiion of projectile wounds, note the absence of soot, gunpoweder, of singing. If gunshot residue is present. document it photographically and save for analysis. Attempt to determine whether the gunshot wound is and entry of exit. If an entry wound is present and no exit wound is seen , the projectile must be saved and accounted for. Excise wound track samples to be saved for microscopic examination. Tape together knife wounds to assess the blade size and characteristics.

    • Q.E.D. is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, meaning “which is what had to be proven”.

      The National Association of Medical Examiners


      Standard F22 Neck
      The muscles, soft tissues, airways, and vascular structures of the anterior neck must be examined to identify signs of disease, injury, and therapy. A layer-by-layer dissection is necessary for proper evaluation of trauma to the anterior neck. Removal and ex situ dissection of the upper airway, pharynx, and upper esophagus is a necessary component of this evaluation. A dissection of the posterior neck is necessary when occult neck injury is suspected. The forensic pathologist shall:

      F22.1 examine in situ muscles and soft tissues of the anterior neck.
      F22.2 ensure proper removal of neck organs and airways.
      F22.3 examine neck organs and airways.
      F22.4 dissect the posterior neck in cases of suspected occult neck injury.
      F22.5 perform anterior neck dissection in neck trauma cases.

      Standard F23 Penetrating Injuries, Including Gunshot and Sharp Force Injuries
      Documentation of penetrating injuries as listed below should include detail sufficient to provide meaningful information to users of the forensic autopsy report, and to permit another forensic pathologist to draw independent conclusions based on the documentation. The recovery and documentation of foreign bodies is important for evidentiary purposes. Internal wound pathway(s) shall be described according to organs and tissues and size of defects of these organs and tissues. The forensic pathologist shall:

      F23.1 correlate internal injury to external injury
      F23.2 describe and document the track of wound
      F23.3 describe and document the direction of wound
      F23.4 recover foreign bodies of evidentiary value
      F23.5 describe and document recovered foreign body

      Standard G30 Evidence Processing
      Custodial maintenance and chain of custody are legally required elements for documenting the handling of
      evidence. The forensic pathologist or representative shall:

      G30.1 collect, package, label, and preserve all evidentiary items.
      G30.2 document chain of custody of all evidentiary items

      Click to access name_standards_2006.pdf


      • It is preposterous for Photon to keep arguing the point of whether it was mandated forensic protocol to dissect gunshot wounds to track the path of a bullet.

        In the first instance, it was not done with the throat and back wounds on JFK. That is the simple fact of the matter. It is therefore empty presumption to propose that the back wound, having all the hallmarks of an entry wound exited through the throat.

        It is especially preposterous due to the fact that the throat wound – regardless of any knowledge of the original nature of it as a bullet wound of entry, has all the hallmarks of a knife wound. For any pathologist, even as incompetent as Humes and Boswell, to conclude that that wound in the throat could possibly be an exit wound caused by a bullet is simply ludicrous. Even once informed of the original bullet wound, the concept is unsound.

        Which brings us full circle to the first instance stated above; the dissection was not done, the bullet tracks are unknown, Thus it is empty speculation to claim that any bullets passed through Kennedy. Period.

  88. For frangible bullets designed to fragment upon impact, the wounding capacity depends upon the nature of the surface impacted, the material comprising the bullet, and the velocity. If the compacted material, often copper powder, is very fine (ultra-frangible), then disintegration may occur upon impact or soon after penetration of soft tissues, creating many small tracks similar to an explosive projectile. If the bullet is composed of less fragile particles that are more compact, then disintegration may not occur until impact with harder tissues such as bones, teeth, or fibrous fascia. Fragments less than a gram may penetrate soft tissues to a depth of 10 to 15 cm. If an intermediate target is present, such as clothing, then fragmentation may occur even before tissue entry. If fragmentation does not occur readily, then the bullet may produce cavitation similar to a jacketed projectile of the same caliber. Even though frangible rounds are designed to minimize ricochet and collateral injury to other persons nearby, variability in fragmentation, and impact upon intermediate targets such as glass, may produce a shower of secondary fragments with enough energy to cause injury. (Komenda et al, 2013)

    For shotgun slugs, a large amount of energy is transmitted to the tissues. The slug has a large mass and large diameter, deforming (“pancaking”) upon impact, or breaking into fragments, so that most of the kinetic energy is absorbed by tissues. The “sabot slug” has an hour-glass shape with hollow base and is designed for use with a rifled barrel for more accuracy at greater distance because of its smaller mass than the standard rifled slug. Its shape causes it to tumble upon impact to produce a larger wound (Gestring et al, 1996).

    Wounding is an extremely complex situation with variables of bullet size, velocity, shape, spin, distance from muzzle to target, and nature of tissue. These factors are interrelated, and the wounding potential may be difficult to predict even under controlled test conditions. In an actual forensic case, few of the variables may be known, and it is up to the medical examiner to determine what can be known from examination of the evidence.

    • High-Powered Rifle Calibers = 2,000 to 3,400 + fps (supersonic speeds).

      The degree of tissue disruption caused by a projectile is related to the size of the temporary versus permanent cavity it creates as it passes through tissue.[3] The extent of cavitation, in turn, is related to the following characteristics of the projectile:

      Kinetic energy: KE = mv2/2 (where m is mass and v is velocity). This helps to explain why wounds produced by missiles of higher mass and/or higher velocity produce greater tissue disruption than missiles of lower mass and velocity.

  89. If it is true that CE399 was fired from the Manlicher-Carcano, which is not certain, as we know the depths of chicanery the FBI in this matter; but if it is true, then the FBI had to have had possession of that rifle to shoot that round. Because we KNOW that CE399 was not the Parkland Bullet and only shows up in one place that can be documented with any certainty; FBI headquarters in Washington, DC,

    CE399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza. If it was fired from the Carcano, then it was fired by the FBI. Therefore the FBI had the rifle, not Oswald.
    throat shot

  90. Murder by Cartoon: Old Crone Analysis

    In recent years, the work of digital animator Dale Myers has repeatedly been used to demonstrate the feasibility of the single bullet. The problem: his work is deliberately deceptive at best, and an absolute fraud at worst. Since his animation has so effectively re-invigorated the single bullet theory for so many, we need take a closer look at his work, and clearly demonstrate its deceptiveness.

    We’ll start by examining what appears to be a contradiction. On the 2003 version of his website, before he decided to single-handedly turn the single-bullet theory into what he has since called the single-bullet fact, Myers portrayed the back wound above his animated figure’s shoulder line, in the discredited location of the Rydberg drawings. He even acknowledged he derived this location by projecting Connally’s wounds back through Kennedy’s throat wound, and that this entrance didn’t match the location of Kennedy’s back wound on the autopsy photos. Within the next year or so, however, around the time he began supplying ABC with animation for their Beyond Conspiracy special, Myers’ website was changed to state that the back wound location used in his animation had been established through exact measurements, etc.

    Now this was not surprising, seeing as the views of Kennedy from behind in Myers new animation demonstrated beyond any doubt that the back wound was now on the back.

    • Dale Myers is obviously a hack. He is promoted and lauded by the MSM because he ‘goes along to get along’ – the prime directive for advancement in this pathological society.
      Myers doesn’t even have a Jr HS grasp of human anatomy. He wouldn’t even be considered an artist were it not for the computer assisted skills that bridge the gap between his lack of innate skills and barely passable CGI presentations.

    • Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton
      and David Von Pein

      Reviewed by Martin Hay

      Posted April 2, 2015

      I can honestly say that Beyond Reasonable Doubt fully lived up to my expectations. I expected that authors Mel Ayton and David Von Pein would add nothing to our understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy, and that is precisely what they did. I expected they would regurgitate the same tired old arguments and trot out the usual roster of long-discredited witnesses, and they did just that. And I expected that they would pontificate on the evils of “conspiracy theorists” at every available opportunity and, lo and behold!, they did.

      Beyond Reasonable Doubt is a standard format lone nut book, cut from the same cloth as Reclaiming History, Case Closed, and Conspiracy of One. It spends half its time trying desperately to convince readers that the Warren Commission was right all along and the other half-blaming conspiracy theorists for the confusion. Von Pein suggests in the book’s preface that for the last fifty years JFK’s murder has been “falsely shrouded in mystery” and those pesky conspiracy theorists are to blame. Which is ridiculous. Conspiracy theorists are not to blame for the Dallas Police Department’s mishandling of both its suspect and the physical evidence against him. Nor are they responsible for J. Edgar Hoover’s rush to judgement and his decision to limit the FBI’s investigation to Lee Harvey Oswald. It was not the conspiracy theorists who illegally removed Kennedy’s body from Dallas so that it could be flown to a military hospital where under-qualified and inexperienced pathologists bungled the autopsy. And no mere conspiracy theorist is accountable for crucial autopsy photos, X-rays and even the President’s brain being surreptitiously removed from the archive never to be seen again. The sad truth is that every confusion at the core of this case was created by those in officialdom who failed or refused to conduct a proper investigation and chose instead to cover their own butts whilst papering over the holes in the case against Oswald.
      Beginning with the Warren Commission who, as historian Gerald McKnight put it, “went through the motions of an investigation that was little more than an improvised exercise in public relations,” (Breach of Trust, p. 361) the twisting and misrepresenting of evidence in the Kennedy assassination has been carried out by those with an agenda. And Ayton and Von Pein have such a massive agenda that they manage to one-up the Commission by making not even a pretense of objectivity. The authors shamelessly omit important facts contradicting their position whilst promoting any scrap of information that appears to support it without giving consideration to the reliability of its source. As such, they happily rely not only upon disgraced authors like the aforementioned perjurer Gerald Posner, but also on the likes of Priscilla Johnson McMillan, whom the CIA describes as a “witting collaborator,” and Max Holland; recipient of the Agency’s “Studies in Intelligence” award. In light of the fact that internal documents have shown that as far back as 1967 the CIA has committed itself to employing “propaganda assets to answer and refute” critics of the Warren Report, no objective scholar would overlook these relationships.

      Of course, Ayton and Von Pein have little choice but to rely on dubious sources because if they were to employ a more rigorous standard they would not be able to write a book like Beyond Reasonable Doubt. For as we shall see, the lone gunman theory is simply not in accord with the evidence and, no matter how “damning” they may want you to believe it is, the case against Oswald cannot survive scrutiny.

  91. “others besides Oswald must have participated.”~Dr. George Burkley

    One man was best suited to address these conflicting accounts – the President’s personal physician Dr. George Burkley. Burkley rode in the Dallas motorcade, was present at Parkland Hospital, rode Air Force One to Washington with the body, and was present at the autopsy, by some accounts running it. He signed the White House Death Certificate, wrote “verified” on a “face sheet” created during the autopsy, and took physical possession of JFK’s brain and tissue slides.
    The Warren Commission never interviewed him.
    Though Burkley was continually mentioned by other Commission witnesses, the only statements from the doctor himself to appear in the Warren Commission’s 26 volumes is CE 1126, a report Burkley wrote 2 days before the Commission was announced.
    In 1976, Burkley’s lawyer William Illig contacted Richard Sprague of the HSCA, saying that his client had information that “others besides Oswald must have participated.” Sprague was ousted days later, and the reconstituted HSCA and its medical panel never took Burkley’s testimony. Instead, a short phone contact the following year was followed up yet months later, when the HSCA was done with all its public medical presentations, with an strange affidavit signed by Burkley. The affidavit, in which Burkley attested to his constant presence with Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital on, seemed almost solely devoted to refuting David Lifton’s as yet-unpublished Best Evidence.
    The ARRB in the mid 1990s contacted the family of the now-deceased Burkley, and initially received verbal permission to obtain the lawyer Illig’s files. But Burkley’s daughter subsequently changed her mind and in the end declined to sign the necessary waiver.

  92. Tippit was shot by a shorter stocky man with shaggy hair wearing a long coat.He was firing a 380 auto pistol. The 38 Sp. was a plant, and the cartridges were switched while in evidence.

    Policeman J.M. Poe received two cartridge cases from witness Benavides at the scene. In an FBI report, Poe firmly stated that he marked the case with his initials, “J.M.P.” before turning them over to Dallas Crime Lab personnel. However, on June 12, 1964, the FBI showed Poe the four .38 Special cases used as evidence of Oswald’s guilt by the Warren Commission.

    The Bureau reported:

    “…He (Poe) recalled marking these cases before giving them to (lab personnel), but he stated after a thorough examination of the four cartridges shown to him…he cannot locate his marks; therefore, he cannot positively identify any of these cartridges as being the same ones he received from Benavides.”
    * * * *
    Oswald’s .38 S&W shooting .38 special ammo left skips in rifling marks left on fired bullets:

    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cunningham, could you explain to us the difference be tween a .38 S&W and a .38 Special?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are completely different cartridges. One cartridge is a .38 Special, and the other cartridge is a .38 S&W, or actually written out it would be Smith and Wesson. It was developed for their weapons, and it is quite an old cartridge, and it is known–usually as appears on a box of ammunition as merely a .38 S&W. However, there are many differences in the cartridges.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Have you brought two–an example of each type of cartridge with you?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have. First of all, this is actually a Western .38 S&W cartridge. You will see the head stamping on the base of this cartridge signifies it to be a .38 S&W.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Before you go any further–Mr. Chairman, may I have this marked as an exhibit– this specimen?
    I am holding a cartridge marked Western .38 S&W, and it is submitted as Commission Exhibit 587.
    The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 587, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you would care to see one broken down, I have one with me. That is the same cartridge where the bullet has been pulled and the powder has been dumped out.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is also a .38 S&W cartridge, but it has been disassembled into a bullet and a cartridge case?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The bullet has been pulled out of the cartridge case and the powder removed.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted as an exhibit?
    The CHAIRMAN. It may be. What is the number?
    Mr. EISENBERG. That will be 588.
    The CHAIRMAN. It will be admitted as Commission Exhibit 588.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 588, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular cartridge, which is one complete cartridge, is a Remington- Peters .38 S&W. These two components actually are of the same cartridge. All I have done is pull the bullet, and it is also a Remington-Peters .38 S&W.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is the same cartridge as Exhibits 588 and 587?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. The only difference is that they are different brands. They were made by two different manufacturers.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show that to the Chairman for his examination?
    The CHAIRMAN. These appear to be lead bullets.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are, sir.
    The CHAIRMAN. The others appeared to be jacketed.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are not, sir. It is known as gilding metal. They are copper-coated lead bullets. Actually, it is an alloy–it is not pure copper. They have been flash coated, for sales appeal, more than anything else.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Does that coating serve to prevent distortion to any measurable extent when the bullet has penetrated a body?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it would not, to any appreciable amount. It is such a thin coat, as you can see. Later on I will show you the ones that have been fired, and also the bullets removed from Officer Tippit’s body. You can see the coating comes off–it flakes off–it is very thin.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that Exhibits 587 and 588 are substantially similar to the R-P cartridge you have just been discussing?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. They are both loaded to the same specifications, even though there are two manufacturers. All commercially made ammunition in this country is loaded to a specific muzzle velocity.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this R-P cartridge which Mr. Cunningham has been discussing admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 589?
    The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 589, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. You have been showing us a .38 S&W, Mr. Cunningham?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an example of a .38 Special?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I do. The first one is a Western .38 Special copper-coated lead bullet of Western manufacture, a .38 Special. The other components I have here are components of the same cartridge from which the bullet has been pulled.
    Mr. EISENBERG. May I have the cartridge case, bullet, and cartridge admitted into evidence as 590?
    The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 590, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, could you describe to us briefly the difference
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want the Remington-Peters?
    Mr. EISENBERG. You are holding in your hand a Remington-Peters disassembled and assembled .38 Special?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Would you hand that to the Chief Justice? May this be admitted into evidence as Exhibit 591?
    The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
    (The article referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 591, and received in evidence.)
    Mr. EISENBERG. This consists of an assembled R-P .38 Special and a disassembled R-P .38 Special.
    Again, I notice, Mr. Cunningham, that the R-P bullet has a lead-colored look, whereas Exhibit 590 had a copper-colored look.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The Western coating is known by the trade name “Lubaloy.” It is a trade name of the Western Cartridge Co., and it is nothing more than a gilding metal–actually, it is just a flash coating on the outside of the bullet. There is some advantage, a very small advantage, as to leading. But it is mostly for sales appeal, because with Winchester bullets, some do and some don’t have the coating. Most of Winchesters which is the same bullet, have not been copper coated–that they are selling today.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, can you explain the difference in terms of dimensions and contour, weight, and so forth, between the .38 Special bullets which you have just shown us and the .38 S&W bullets which you have shown to us?

    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. The complete .38 Special cartridges, both brands, they are approximately the same they are made to specifications, and they are within–just 1/1000th difference between the two of them. They are very close. In some cases, there is a slight difference, but generally they are the same size.
    The .38 Special cartridges are a little over 1 1/2 inches in length. The .38 S&W cartridges are approximately 1.2 inches in length. In other words, there is about 4/10ths of an inch difference in their length.
    The bullets of the .38 Special weigh 158 grains–both brands. The bullets in the .38 S&W cartridges–there is one grain difference–Western Lubaloy bullets weigh 145 grains, and Remington’s bullets weigh 146 grains, which is very close, When you figure there are 7,000 grains to the pound.
    The length of the bullets themselves–the .38 Special bullets are approximately .72 plus inch. The .38 S&W bullets are approximately .6 plus inch. The lengths of the cartridge cases are also different. A .38 Special is approximately 1.15 inches for both brands. The .38 S&W cartridge cases are approximately .77 inch. And there you have approximately a quarter of an inch difference between the lengths of the cartridge cases.
    The diameters of the bullets–the .38 Special bullets, at the portion of the bullet where the case is crimped into the bullet are approximately .357″.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is the groove around the base of the bullet, also known as the cannelure?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is just above the two grooves, which are known as cannelures, where the bullet is crimped. It is known as the crimp ring. It is nothing more than where the case has been crimped in.
    Mr. EISENBERG. I have pulled out the bullet from Exhibit 591, and there is a little groove running above the second groove from the top–from the bottom, the base, of the bullet.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That would be your crimping groove. Up at approximately that area, both .38 Specials are approximately .357″. However, the base of the .38 Specials, both brands, are about .350″
    In other words, there is about 7/l000ths difference between the base and where they are crimped, and both brands of .38 Specials seem to run–slightly under sized at the base.
    On the .38 Special the diameter of the bullets where they are crimped is .357″. The .38 S&W Remington- Peters bullets run about .360″, or just slightly less, which is about 3/1000ths larger. Their bases, both brands, run about .356”. In other words, they run about 6/1000ths larger at the base even though the bullets are shorter overall in the .38 S&W.
    Mr. EISENBERG. To summarize that, in terms of the diameter, do I understand that the .38 Special and the .38 S&W have a similar diameter as you approached the nose of the bullet, but that the .38 has a somewhat larger diameter at the base than the .38 Special?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. .38 S&W.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, why would the gun be rechambered from the original chamber, which was designed for the .38 S&W, to the chamber as it stands now, which you tell us is designed for the .38 Special?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In this country, the .38 S&W is not a popular cartridge at the present time. In years gone by, many, many, many weapons have been made for that particular cartridge. But they are usually the top-break, the cheaper type of weapon. The .38 Special cartridge is a better cartridge. There is a higher velocity and everything about the cartridge is better than the .38 S&W, ballistically.
    The .38 Special has become popular in this country for revolvers. And the reason it was chambered, in .38 S&W originally is because in England and on the Continent it is a popular cartridge. The .38 S&W in England is the .38-200. They loaded a 200-grain bullet into the same cartridge case, and it was the standard British Army load for this particular weapon and others. Why they took that particular cartridge, I do not know.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Was the gun rebarreled as well as rechambered?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it was not. The barrel of this weapon has been cut off approximately 2 3/4 inches. The original barrel was 5 inches for this model.

  93. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you describe the bullets in Exhibit 592, Mr. Cunningham?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; all five of them are Western .38 Special cartridges, which are loaded with copper-coated lead bullets.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that of a total of–you have examined a total of 11 bullets, and three. are Remington-Peter–well, at any rate, of the 11 they are divided 3 and 8 into Remington- Peter and Western .38 Special bullets?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cunningham, I hand you four cartridge cases in an envelope marked Q- 74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77. And I ask you whether you are familiar with these cartridge cases.
    Mr. Cunningham, before going on to the cartridge cases I just handed you, could you explain when you received the bullets which are comprised in the last three exhibits, and who you received them from, and how they were presented to you?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. Commission Exhibit 145 consists of the two cartridges that we received–the FBI received from the U.S. Secret Service. We received them on December 3, 1963.
    That is correct. They were personally delivered to the laboratory by Special Agent Orrin Bartlett of the FBI, who is a liaison agent with the Secret Service. And he delivered them. to us on December 3, 1963.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And did he identify them in any way to you when he delivered them? Did he describe their origin to you?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; he did not describe them to us.
    Mr. EISENBERG. All right. Could you go on to the next group of five cartridges?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. I don’t know the exhibit number.
    Mr. EISENBERG. That is Exhibit 592.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 592 was received in the FBI Laboratory from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us who you received them from?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Dallas office of the FBI. I have no first-hand knowledge. I know that they were received from the Dallas Police Department–but that was due to what I have read in an FBI investigative report. The laboratory received them from the Dallas office on November 30.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you go on to the last group of four bullets?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Commission Exhibit 518 was also received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, for the record, I would like to state that to the best of my knowledge the group of two and the group of four bullets, which together total six, were taken by the Dallas Police from the chamber of the revolver which is Exhibit 143, after the apprehension of Lee Harvey Oswald. They were then split into two groups of two and four as we have them now, two bullets being given to the Secret Service and eventually, as Mr. Cunningham relates, to the FBI, and four bullets going to the Dallas office of the FBI.
    The group of five bullets was taken from a pocket of Lee Harvey Oswald, following his apprehension on November 22 and was kept separated from the remaining bullets, I believe, merely because they had been taken from a different source that is, the pocket rather than the chamber of the revolver.
    Mr. Cunningham, returning to Exhibit 145, do either of the two cartridges in Exhibit 145 bear any signs of having suffered an impact from the firing pin in the revolver, Exhibit 143?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. An examination of these two cartridges, the primers of these two cartridges, reveals no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143, or any other weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin.
    First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Did you microscopically examine the bases of both cartridge cases?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, turning to Exhibit 518, consisting of four bullets,
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, were you able to determine whether those bullets have been fired in this weapon?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; I was not.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
    First of all, Commission Exhibit No. 602 was too mutilated. There were not sufficient microscopic marks remaining on the surface of this bullet, due to the mutilation, to determine whether or not it had been fired from this weapon.
    However, Commission Exhibits 603, 604, and 605 do bear microscopic marks for comparison purposes, but it was not possible from an examination and comparison of these bullets to determine whether or not they had been fired–these bullets themselves–had been fired from one weapon, or whether or not they had been fired from Oswald’s revolver.
    Further, it was not possible, using .38 Special ammunition, to determine whether or not consecutive test bullets obtained from this revolver had been fired in this weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Do you have an opinion as to why it was impossible to make either type of determination?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir; this weapon, using .38 Special bullets, was not producing marks consistent with each other. Each time it was fired, the bullet would seem to pass down the barrel in a different way, which could be due to the slightly undersized bullets in the oversized .38 S&W barrel. It would cause an erratic passage down the barrel, and thereby, cause inconsistent individual characteristic marks to be impressed or scratched into the surface of the bullets.
    Representative FORD. When you say this weapon, will you identify what you mean by “this weapon”?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. This particular revolver, Commission Exhibit 143.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So this brings us back to your earlier testimony, that the
    gun had been rechambered for a .38 Special, which is slightly smaller in one respect than the .38 S&W, but it had not been rebarreled for the .38 Special?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
    The original .38 Smith and Wesson barrel is still on the weapon.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that the .38 Special, when fired in that gun, might wobble slightly as it passes through the barrel?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t know if wobble is the correct word. But as the bullet is passing down this shortened .38 barrel, we are probably getting an erratic passage, so the marks won’t reproduce.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Is it possible to say that the bullets were not fired from this weapon, No. 143?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it is not; since the rifling characteristics of Commission Exhibit 143–this revolver–are the same as those present on the four bullets.
    Mr. EISENBERG. Now, you said that there were three bullets of Winchester-Western manufacture, those are 602, 603, and 605, and one bullet of R.-P. manufacture.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
    Mr. EISENBERG. However, as to the cartridge cases, Exhibit 594, you told us there were two R.-P. cartridge cases and two Western cartridge cases.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
    Mr. EISENBERG. So that the recovered cartridge cases, there is one more recovered R.-P. cartridge case than there was recovered bullet?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
    Mr. EISENBERG. And as to the bullets, there is one more recovered Winchester-Western bullet than there is Winchester-Western cartridges?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
    Representative BOGGS. How would you account for that?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The possibility exists that one bullet is missing. Also, they may not have found one of the cartridge cases.
    Representative BOGGS. Are you able to match the bullet with the cartridge case?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not possible.
    Representative BOGGS. So that while you can establish the fact that the cartridge case, the four that we have, were fired in that gun–
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
    Representative BOGGS. You cannot establish the fact that the bullets were fired in that gun?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.
    Representative BOGGS. And you cannot–having the cartridge case and the bullet–you cannot match them up?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, you cannot.
    Representative BOGGS. There is no way to do it?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No; other than what I have said. In other words, you can tell manufacture. But there is no way of–that I know of–of connecting or identifying a particular bullet having been loaded into a particular cartridge case.
    Representative BOGGS. But there is no doubt about the fact that the four cartridge cases came from firing in that weapon?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were fired in that weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.
    Mr. RHYNE. Yes; you said that you were positive that these cartridge cases that were found near where Officer Tippit was killed and which are over in front of Representative Boggs now, were fired in this gun.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I stated the first time, in my opinion those cartridge cases were fired in that particular weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons.
    Mr. RHYNE. And with respect to the bullets that were found in the body of Officer Tippit, you testified that you could not be positive that they were fired by this weapon, Exhibit 143.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I could not identify those bullets as having been fired from that gun. However, the rifling characteristics on the bullets are the same as produced by that weapon. Also, I could not identify consecutive tests obtained from that revolver, using .38 Special ammunition, and I could not identify, even though there are microscopic marks on three of these bullets for comparison purposes–I could not identify them with each other.
    Mr. RHYNE. Now, based on your many, many years of experience, is this usual or unusual, that you are unable to identify bullets from such a gun under these circumstances?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is not unusual in this particular case. I have had other cases with these rechambered .38 S&W revolvers, that are rechambered to a .38 Special; it is not unusual to not be able to identify them. And especially when the barrel has been cut off 23 3/4 inches, it even cuts down the possibility a little bit more.
    Mr. RHYNE. I was under the impression that you people down at the FBI could identify almost any bullet as coming from almost any gun. That is not strictly true, then?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, but it is not.
    Representative BOGGS. How much has this barrel been cut off?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. About 2 3/4 inches. You measure the length of the barrel from–you see the cylinder—
    Representative BOGGS. Yes.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And the portion coming out from the frame, that is a portion of the barrel. And the barrel is measured from there to the muzzle. And the barrel now is 2 1/4 inches long. The original barrel was 5 inches long–or at least it is similar to the model that would have a 5-inch barrel.
    Representative BOGGS. What is the advantage of reducing the length of the barrel?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two things–sales appeal and concealment.
    Representative BOGGS. Does it affect the firing quality of the weapon?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It affects your accuracy inasmuch as it cuts down on your sight radius. Your longer barrel will be more accurate than a shorter barrel, due to the longer sight radius. The reason that rifles are inherently more accurate than a hand weapon is due, in part, to the longer sight radius. That is the reason the farther you can get away from the sight when you are firing a revolver, the more accurate. Lengthening your sight radius will increase the accuracy.
    Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.
    Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they could have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics–they could. have been. However, no conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.
    Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. There are not sufficient similarities to effect an identification.
    Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne’s question negatively, these bullets could have been fired by another weapon?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Either this weapon or another weapon which has the same rifling characteristics.
    Representative FORD. You are limiting that to the bullets now?
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.
    Mr. RHYNE. Yes; my question related just to the bullets.
    Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.
    Mr. RHYNE. He was positive about the cartridge cases, but not about the bullets.

    • Officer Tippit was struck by four bullets.

      The two hulls found by Domingo Benavides at the Tippit crime scene would never be admitted. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials “JMP”. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.

      Detective Jim Leavelle, a veteran of the force, told researcher Joe McBride that the hulls were useless as evidence. (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare). The question should be asked, however – did Poe initially lie, or were the hulls switched?

      Officer Jerry Hill complicated matters still further by claiming that Poe showed him three hulls.

      What really threw a spanner into the works was when Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm[*] and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base – Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

      [*] > 1:40 pm (550-2)

      Hill then threw gasoline on the fire. In the face of a very carefully phrased question by attorney Belin, Hill denied under oath that he made the radio call about the finding of 38 automatic hulls at 1:40 pm. Hill claimed that he wasn’t using his call number “550-2” as much as another officer.

      In 1986, Hill admitted to researcher Dale Myers that he made the call. When he was asked how he determined that the hulls were 38 caliber, Hill said, “Thirty-eight’s stamped on the bottom of it. I looked on the bottom.” Hill’s problem is that the bottom of the hull will spell out for you what type of 38 it is! (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 261).

      It could be argued that the two hulls found by two sisters, Barbara and Virginia Davis should be admitted because of the clear stories about two different officers that received them from the Davis sisters.

      However, there are several problems. The hulls provided to the police were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day – they could have been planted. Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

      The biggest problem is the way that Jerry Hill poisoned the well with his lies and his widely varying stories. The history of alteration would probably result in none of the hulls being admitted into evidence.
      Also see:

    • Why did Oswald…strike Patrolman McDonald with one hand and fire the revolver with the other?

      Dallas officer Jerry Hill and other policemen always insisted that Oswald fired his revolver in the theater in an effort to kill, but that the revolver misfired.
      Hill wrote in his report that one of the shells had a hammer mark on the primer.

      Firearms and toolmark expert Cortland Cunningham testified to the Warren Commission, “We found nothing to indicate that this weapon’s firing pin had struck the primer of any of these cartridges.” In other words, Cunningham called Hill a liar.

      The Warren Commission agreed with Cunningham’s finding.

      On this basis, the court would have excluded this evidence.

    • Benavides was driving his yellow pick-up truck west along 10th Street when he spotted Tippit exiting his patrol car. Startled by the sound of the shots, Benavides pulled his pick-up truck to the curb, almost directly across the Street from Tippit’s car. Benavides was the closet witness to the murder, but never viewed a line-up of Oswald.

      Despite being the closet witness to the shooting, Benavides failed to positively identify Oswald as the killer. The best Benavides could state is that the killer resembled Oswald. From Benavides Warren Commission testimony:

      Mr. Belin
      You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?

      Mr. Benavides
      From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.

      Lacuna (law), the lack of a law or legal source addressing a situation.

    • The shells found at the scene were marked by Officer JM Poe, but when
      Poe was shown the shells during his testimony before the WC, he would
      not identify them as the ones he initialled.
      In fact, no one–not Poe, Sgt. Hill, the Davises or Domingo
      Benevides—would identify the shells shown to them as the same ones
      they found at the Tippit murder scene.

      When the Dallas Police were ordered to turn over their evidence to the
      FBI, they turned over one shell and only after the FBI inquired to the
      whereabouts of the remaining shells were three shells “found” in a
      desk drawer at Police Headquarters.

      So the “chain of possession” was broken.
      . . . . .
      Mr. BALL.Now I have here a package from the lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?
      Mr. POE. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn’t swear to it.
      Mr. BALL. Did you make a mark?
      Mr. POD. I can’t swear to it; no, sir.
      Mr. BALL. But there is a mark on two of these?
      Mr. POE. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn’t swear to
      it. I couldn’t make them out any more.

      Click to access WH7_Poe.pdf


    • Acquilla Clemons – Tippit Murder Witness

      Acquilla Clemons lived on the north side of Tenth Street in Dallas. On 22nd November, 1963, Clemons was sitting on the porch of her house when she saw Officer J. D. Tippit killed.

      Afterwards she claimed that there were two men involved in the attack on Tippit. She later testified in a television documentary that the gunman was a “short guy and kind of heavy”. The other man was tall and thin in khaki trousers and a white shirt. She also claimed that Dallas Police warned her not to repeat this story to others or “she might get hurt”.

      Anthony Summers, the author of The Kennedy Conspiracy (1980): “Obviously, Mrs. Clemons should have been questioned more thoroughly than in a television interview. She said she had been visited by the FBI, who decided not to take a statement because of her poor health. Mrs. Clemons suffered from diabetes, hardly a condition to deter efficient investigators from taking a statement. According to two reporters, who visited Mrs. Clemons several years after the assassination, she and her family still spoke with conviction of seeing two men at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Mrs. Clemons’ story finds corroboration from another witness, and he too was ignored.”

      Acquilla Clemons was not called to give evidence to the Warren Commission.

      • Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, heard someone enter the theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. Oswald had apparently entered the theater and gone to the balcony without being seen by Burroughs. About 1:15 PM Oswald came down from the balcony and bought popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watched him walk down the aisle and take a seat on the main floor. He sat next to Jack Davis during the opening credits of the first movie, several minutes before 1:20 PM. Oswald then moved across the aisle and sat next to another man. A few minutes later Davis noticed he moved again and sat next to a pregnant woman. Just before the police arrived, the pregnant woman went to the balcony and was never seen again. In addition to Oswald there were seven people watching the movie on the main level (six after the pregnant woman left). Within 10 minutes, he had sat next to half of them.

        “According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M., several minutes before Officer Tippit was slain seven blocks away.[428] If true, Butch Burroughs’s observation would eliminate Oswald as a candidate for Tippet’s murder. Perhaps for that reason, Burroughs was asked by a Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, “Did you see [Oswald] come in the theater?” and answered honestly, “No, sir; I didn’t.”[429] What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand.[430] That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater “between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.” because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.[431]—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death[432]—evidently by someone else.”~Jim Douglass – JFK and the Unspeakable

  94. “Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
    ~Sir John Harington


    • It seems to be a general situation all’round, that the military was unhappy with John Kennedy on grounds of “who’s in control here?”

      It reminds of Alice’s conversation with Humpty Dumpty as he sat on his wall (Lewis Carroll)

      “‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
      Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
      ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
      ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
      ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
      ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

  95. Dr Burkley HSCA signed statement:
    * * * * * * * * * *
    Did the bullet that hit Kennedy in the throat cause damage to the bottom of his skull?
    This analysis by Pat Speer throws some light on the subject:

    “A second witness of interest was Tom Robinson, who worked at Gawler’s Funeral Home. He helped clean up and reconstruct the President’s skull after the autopsy. While his recollections of many of the details of that night were foggy—some changed dramatically between his 1977 interview with the HSCA and his 1996 interview with the ARRB—he nevertheless made several relevant statements. As we’ve seen he told the HSCA that “The inside of the skull was badly smashed.” But that’s just the start of it. He also remembered something about the bullet exiting from the throat, that the bullet “might have been coming from the head and down,” and that he remembers the doctors probing “at the base of the head,’ with an “18 inch piece of metal.” He told the ARRB, 19 years later that, “there were fractures all over the cranium, including the floor of the skull,” and that he had “vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere.”

    While some have sought to discredit Robinson’s statements by pointing out their inconsistencies, they can not be wholly discounted. His memories on some details have proved accurate. For instance, he told the ARRB that “he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and discoloration began to occur.” These wounds, not mentioned in the autopsy report, and rarely mentioned elsewhere, are indeed visible in the “stare of death” autopsy photo. While such wounds are consistent with a bullet’s exploding near Kennedy’s temple while his head was leaning 25 degrees to its left, its difficult to see how they could be caused by a fragmenting bullet sailing upwards from his cranium, as proposed in Larry Sturdivan’s scenario.

  96. Warren Commission TESTIMONY OF J. C. DAY

    Mr. BELIN. Well, you are asking with regard to Exhibit 482? We know it was taken, I would say, not more than a minute after the shooting. This is our best recollection based on testimony of the two people in the window below, because this was their position as they saw the shooting, and the photographer himself says that after the shots were fired, he jumped out of the motorcade and took two shots of the building. This could have been the first or the second shot he took. He used two different cameras, so I don’t imagine it would have been very long after the actual shots were fired. For the record, I should add one other thing at this point. There is testimony by the deputy sheriff that found the shells, that after he found them he leaned out of the window to call down to try and tell someone that he found something, and it is conceivable that he moved a box, although he did not so testify. In other words, I don’t want you to take this as the testimony of anyone—-
    Mr. DAY. What I am getting at, this box doesn’t jibe with my picture of the inside.
    Mr. BELIN. You are pointing now to the other box on Exhibit 482. You say that does not jibe with the chart that you have here that you brought with you of boxes that you had inside. Let me ask you this: When did you prepare your chart of boxes inside?
    Mr. DAY. This chart here was prepared on the 25th. However, pictures were made immediately after my arrival.
    Mr. BELIN. You are talking now about Exhibit 715 and Exhibit 716?
    Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; don’t jibe with that box there.
    Mr. BELIN. What I am asking you then is this: Is it possible that the box that is shown on Exhibit 482 is not shown on Exhibit 715 and Exhibit 716? By that I mean not the box that you see a corner of, but I am talking about the other box that is clear to the west of the easternmost window.
    Mr. DAY. I just don’t know. I can’t explain that box there depicted from the outside as related to the pictures that I took inside.
    Mr. BELIN. In other words, what you are saying is that on the sixth floor window the westernmost box on Exhibit 482, you cannot then relate to any of the boxes shown on Exhibits 715 or 716?
    Mr. DAY. That is correct.
    Mr. BELIN. Do you wish to correct your testimony with regard to the X you placed on the fourth box on the stack in Exhibit 716?
    Mr. DAY. Yes; that is just not the same box. It is not the same box. This is the first time I have seen No. 482.
    Mr. BELIN. All right. We will substitute for 716 then a copy of the picture without the X mark on it.
    Mr. McCLOY. 482 was taken by the news photographer?
    Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. Immediately after the shooting?
    Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCLOY. The two colored men were still in the position where they were?
    Mr. BELIN. Yes, sir. He actually took two pictures. He took one of the building—that showed most of the south side of the building, and another with a different kind of lens that was aimed up to that particular corner. I will check to see if I can find the other picture, Mr. McCloy. Commission Exhibit 480 is the first picture that he took, or I shouldn’t say the first–one of the two pictures he took. You can see the southeast corner window on the sixth floor, and I will show you, Lieutenant Day, that you can still see two of those boxes there, and you can see on the window below, at least you can see, one of the Negro men. The other picture was Exhibit 481, and I believe 482 was actually an enlargement of 481.
    Mr. DAY. I still don’t quite understand that one in relation to pictures here unless something was moved after this was taken before I got there.
    Mr. BELIN. What you are saying is on that southeast corner window, on the sixth floor, you do not understand the box that is the westernmost box of the two boxes in the window unless it was moved by someone before you got there to take the pictures?
    Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BELIN. What about the other box as shown on Exhibit 482, does that appear to be in substantially the same position as the box in the window shown on your Exhibit 715?
    Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it appears to be the same.
    Mr. BELIN. Now, on Exhibit 715, that box appears to be almost resting against the east part of the window where it does not so appear on Exhibit 482. Is this an optical illusion on 715?
    Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I don’t think it was up against the window sill. It was over as indicated on 482.

    • Cont:
      Warren Commission TESTIMONY OF J. C. DAY — Shell Hull Discrepancies

      Mr. BELIN. Lieutenant Day, you took some two pictures of those shell casings. Let me first get you through all the pictures you took. Where did you next take pictures on the sixth floor after you took the pictures of the shell casing; what did you do then?
      Mr. DAY. I went, after these were taken–after your number.
      Mr. BELIN. 715 and 716.
      Mr. DAY. Were taken, I processed these three hulls for fingerprints, using a powder. Mr. Sims picked them up by the ends and handed them to me. I processed each of the three; did not find fingerprints. As I had finished that, Captain Fritz sent word for me to come to the northwest part of the building, the rifle had been found, and he wanted photographs.
      Mr. BELIN. All right. You have mentioned these three hulls. Did you put any initials on those at all, any means of identification?
      Mr. DAY. At that time they were placed in an envelope and the envelope marked. The three hulls were not marked at that time. Mr. Sims took possession of them.
      Mr. BELIN. Well, did you at any time put any mark on the shells?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. All right. Let me first hand you what has been marked as “Commission Exhibit,” part of “Commission Exhibit 543-544,” and ask you to state if you know what that is.
      Mr. DAY. This is the envelope the shells were placed in.
      Mr. BELIN. How many shells were placed in that envelope?
      Mr. DAY. Three.
      Mr. BELIN. It says here that, it is written on here, “Two of the three spent hulls under window on sixth floor.”
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. Did you put all three there?
      Mr. DAY. Three were in there when they were turned over to Detective Sims at that time. The only writing on it was, “Lieut. J. C. Day.” Down here at the bottom.
      Mr. BELIN. I see.
      Mr. DAY. “Dallas Police Department,” and the date.
      Mr. BELIN. In other words, you didn’t put the writing in that says, “Two of the three spent hulls.”
      Mr. DAY. Not then. About 10 o’clock in the evening this envelope came back to me with two hulls in it. I say it came to me, it was in a group of stuff, a group of evidence, we were getting ready to release to the FBI. I don’t know who brought them back. Vince Drain, FBI, was present with the stuff, the first I noticed it. At that time there were two hulls inside. I was advised the homicide division was retaining the third for their use. At that time I marked the two hulls inside of this, still inside this envelope.
      Mr. BELIN. That envelope, which is a part of Commission Exhibits 543 and 544?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I put the additional marking on at that time.
      Mr. BELIN. I see.
      Mr. DAY. You will notice there is a little difference in the ink writing.
      Mr. BELIN. But all of the writing there is yours?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. Now, at what time did you put any initials, if you did put any such initials, on the hull itself?
      Mr. DAY. At about 10 o’clock when I noticed it back in the identification bureau in this envelope.
      Mr. BELIN. Had the envelope been opened yet or not?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; it had been opened.
      Mr. BELIN. Had the shells been out of your possession then?
      Mr. DAY. Mr. Sims had the shells from the time they were moved from the building or he took them from me at that time, and the shells I did not see again until around 10 o’clock.
      Mr. BELIN. Who gave them to you at 10 o’clock?
      Mr. DAY. They were in this group of evidence being collected to turn over to the FBI. I don’t know who brought them back.
      Mr. BELIN. Was the envelope sealed?
      Mr. DAY. No, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. Had it been sealed when you gave it to Mr. Sims?
      Mr. DAY. No, sir; no.
      Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked “Exhibit 545,” I will ask you to state if you know what this is.
      Mr. DAY. This is one of the hulls in the envelope which I opened at 10 o’clock. It has my name written on the end of it.
      Mr. BELIN. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it?
      Mr. DAY. On the small end where the slug would go.
      Mr. BELIN. And it has “Day” on it?
      Mr. DAY. Scratched on there; yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. With what instrument did you scratch it on?
      Mr. DAY. A diamond point pencil.
      Mr. BELIN. Did anyone else scratch any initials on it that you know of?
      Mr. DAY. I didn’t see them. I didn’t examine it too close at that time.
      Mr. BELIN. Do you know what kind of a cartridge case that is?
      Mr. DAY. It is a 6.5.
      Mr. BELIN. Is that the same kind of a cartridge case that you saw when you first saw these cartridge cases?
      Mr. DAY. Yes.
      Mr. BELIN. Is there any other testimony you have with regard to the chain of possession of this shell from the time it was first found until the time it got back to your office?
      Mr. DAY. No, sir; I told you in our conversation in Dallas that I marked those at the scene. After reviewing my records, I didn’t think I was on all three of those hulls that you have, indicating I did not mark them at the scene, then I remembered putting them in the envelope, and Sims taking them. It was further confirmed today when I noticed that the third hull, which I did not give you, or come to me through you, does not have my mark on it.
      Mr. BELIN. Now, I did interview you approximately 2 weeks ago in Dallas, more or less?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. At that time what is the fact as to whether or not I went into extended questions and answers as contrasted with just asking you to tell me about certain areas as to what happened? I mean, I questioned you, of course, but was it more along the lines of just asking you to tell me what happened, or more along the lines of interrogation, the interrogation we are doing now?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. Which one?
      Mr. DAY. Wait a minute now. Say that again. I am at a loss.
      Mr. BELIN. Maybe it would be easier if I just struck the question and started all over again.
      Mr. DAY. I remember you asking me if I marked them.
      Mr. BELIN. Yes.
      Mr. DAY. I remember I told you I did.
      Mr. BELIN. All right.
      Mr. DAY. I got to reviewing this, and I got to wondering about whether I did mark those at the scene.
      Mr. BELIN. Your testimony now is that you did not mark any of the hulls at the scene?
      Mr. DAY. Those three; no, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. I believe you said that you examined the three shells today?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. While you were waiting to have your testimony taken here?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; that is what confirmed my thinking on this. The envelope now was marked.
      Mr. BELIN. And the shells were in the same envelope that it was marked?
      Mr. DAY. Yes.
      Mr. BELIN. Now, I am going to ask you to state if you know what Commission Exhibit 543 is?
      Mr. DAY. That is a hull that does not have my marking on it.
      Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not this was one of the hulls that was found at the School Book Depository Building?
      Mr. DAY. I think it is.
      Mr. BELIN. What makes you think it is?
      Mr. DAY. It has the initials “G. D.” on it, which is George Doughty, the captain that I worked under.
      Mr. BELIN. Was he there at the scene?
      Mr. DAY. No, sir; this hull came up, this hull that is not marked came up, later. I didn’t send that.
      Mr. BELIN. This was—-
      Mr. DAY. That was retained. That is the hull that was retained by homicide division when the other two were originally sent in with the gun.
      Mr. BELIN. You are referring now to Commission Exhibit 543 as being the one that was retained in your possession for a while?
      Mr. DAY. It is the one that I did not see again.
      Mr. BELIN. It appears to be flattened out here. Do you know or have you any independent recollection as to whether or not it was flattened out at the small end when you saw it?
      Mr. DAY. No, sir; I don’t.
      Mr. BELIN. Now, handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 544, I will ask you to state if you know what this is.
      Mr. DAY. This is the second hull that was in the envelope when I marked the two hulls that night on November 22.
      Mr. BELIN. I have now marked this envelope, which was formerly a part of Commission Exhibits 543 and 544 with a separate Commission Exhibit No. 717, and I believe you testify now that Commission Exhibit 544 was the other shell that was in the envelope which has now been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 717.
      Mr. DAY. Yes.
      Mr. BELIN. Does that cartridge case, Exhibit 544, have your name on it again?
      Mr. DAY. It has my name on the small end where the slug would go into the shell.
      Mr. BELIN. Are all of the three shells of the same caliber?
      Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BELIN. Is there any other testimony you have with regard to the cartridge cases themselves?
      Mr. DAY. No, sir.
      * * * * * * * * * *

  97. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars — But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
    (Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene III, L. 140-141).
    Those who subscribe to the bumbling view of history, who see “happenstance” and “coincidence” or “Fate” as the primal active force in the world of man, are as jejune as Brutus.

  98. MEMORANDUM – April 27, 1964
    TO: J. Lee Rankin
    FROM: Norman Redlich

    ” Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.”~Redlich

    At no time after a final bullet snuffed out the life of the young President did any agency conduct an investigation not based on the premise of Oswald’s guilt. Despite the many noble assurances of impartiality, the fact remains that from the time when he was in police custody, Oswald was officially thought to be Kennedy’s sole assassin. In violation of his every right and as a guarantee that virtually no citizen would think otherwise, the official belief of Oswald’s guilt was shamefully offered to a public grieved by the violent death of its leader, and anxious to find and prosecute the perpetrator of the crime.
    * * * * *
    “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”~Edward R. Murrow

  99. May 7, 1964 memo from Rankin to Hoover:

    Mr. J. Edgar Hoover
    Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Department of Justice
    Washington, D.C. 20535


    “From each of the ground points established in parts I and II trigonometric readings should be taken from a point on either end of the overpass to chart the path which a bullet would travel if fired from those points on the overpass to the rear seat of the car. It should be determined whether a bullet could reach the rear seat without hitting the windshield, and the angle with the horizontal which would be made by a bullet fired from these points to a car located at each of the points to a car located at each of the points on the ground as determined in parts I and II.”
    J. Lee Rankin
    General Counsel
    * * * * *
    Of course this is exactly what Sherry Fiester finally has done … all these years later.

    • Willy Whitten — December 5, 2015 at 10:20 pm

      “Out of context” McAdams??

      Here is the context in the very text you use to show it is “out of context”:

      “The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.”~Redlich

      The Commission HAS their prefab conclusion, now they just need the data to juggle around to try to make that conclusion at least appear to be reasonable.

      This is simply too obvious to deny for any lucid thinking person.
      * * * * * *
      Full paragraph:
      “[1] Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. [2]The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.”

      1. The predicate. 2. The conclusion. The predicate never extinguishes the conclusion in the structure of a text. Here the predicate is ‘presumptive’, it is the conclusion that is ‘declaratory’.

  100. MEMORANDUM – April 27, 1964
    TO: J. Lee Rankin
    FROM: Norman Redlich
    * * * *
    Tague Testimony — July 23, 1964
    ” I left the area down there at about a quarter to one [11/22/1963], and the officer there told me to go to the police headquarters and report to somebody down there and tell them what I had seen.”~ Tague
    Mr. LIEBELER. Did you do that?
    Mr. TAGUE. I did that.
    Mr. LIEBELER. I understand. Did you have any idea where these shots came from when you heard them ringing out?
    Mr. TAGUE. Yes; I thought they were coming from my left.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place.
    Mr. TAGUE. To recall everything is almost impossible. Just an impression is all I recall, is the fact that my first impression was that up by the, whatever you call the monument, or whatever it was—-
    Mr. LIEBELER. Up above No. 7?
    Mr. TAGUE. That somebody was throwing firecrackers up there, that the police were running up there to see what was going on, and this was my first impression. Somebody was causing a disturbance, that somebody had drawn a gun and was shooting at the crowd, and the police were running up to it. When I saw the people throwing themselves on the ground is when I realized there was serious trouble, and I believe that was after the third shot was fired.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression of where the shots came from was much the result of the activity near No. 7?
    Mr. TAGUE. Not when I heard the shots.
    Mr. LIEBELER. You thought they had come from the area between Nos. 7 and 5?
    Mr. TAGUE. I believe they came from up in here.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Back in the area”C”?
    Mr. TAGUE. Right.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Behind the concrete monument here between Nos. 5 and 7, toward the general area of “C”?
    Mr. TAGUE. Yes.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Did you look up near the railroad tracks in that area after you heard the shots?
    Mr. TAGUE. I looked all around. I looked at the complete area to try to find out where the disturbance was. And for some reason, after the third shot, I believe I ducked down back in here.
    * * * *
    At this point Liebeler begins leading the witness towards the Texas School Book Depository:
    * * * *
    Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
    Mr. TAGUE. Yes.
    Mr. LIEBELER. There was in fact a considerable echo in that area?
    Mr. TAGUE. There was no echo from where I stood. I was asked this question before, and there was no echo. It was just a loud, oh, not a cannon, but definitely louder and more solid than a rifleshot.
    Mr. LIEBELER. So you, being in a place where there was no echo, you were able to recognize how many shots there were quite clearly?
    Mr. TAGUE. I believe so.
    Mr. LIEBELER. And you say you heard three shots?
    Mr. TAGUE. That is right.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember seeing anything else or observing anything else that day that you think would be helpful to the Commission, that I haven’t asked you about?
    Mr. TAGUE. Not that I can think of. There is lots of things that you recall about something like that, that you don’t recall for certain. What struck me the most was that everybody said all three shots were accounted for. I felt very strongly that the third shot hit down there, and there was the deputy sheriff and the patrolman down under the bridge right there with me.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Now you say you thought it was the third shot that hit down there?
    Mr. TAGUE. No; I said I thought that all three shots were accounted for. All the newspaper accounts for months said all the shots were accounted for.
    Mr. LIEBELER. In terms of hitting in the car?
    Mr. TAGUE. Hitting into the car; yes.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Well, there was a story in the paper more recently that indicated that one of them might have missed.
    Mr. TAGUE. That’s right.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see that?
    Mr. TAGUE. That’s right; yes.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Other than that, is there anything that you can think of that you think the Commission should know about of what you heard and saw that day?
    Mr. TAGUE. No; I don’t know a thing. The only thing that I saw that I thought was wrong. was that there was about 5 or 6 or 7 minutes in there before anybody done anything about anything.
    Mr. LIEBELER. That was after the shots were fired?
    Mr. TAGUE. That was after the shots were fired.
    Mr. LIEBELER. What do you mean, “Before they did anything”?
    Mr. TAGUE. There was no action taken except for the one policeman that I could see that stopped his motorcycle, and it fell over on him at first, and he got it standing upright and drew his gun, and he was the only one doing anything about it.
    Mr. LIEBELER. You didn’t see any other policemen around in the area?
    Mr. TAGUE. Not for 4 or 5 minutes. If Oswald was in that building, he had all the time in the world to calmly walk out of there.
    Mr. LIEBELER. Apparently that is just what he did do. Well, if you can’t think of anything else, Mr. Tague, I want to thank you for coming in and for the cooperation you have given us. We appreciate it very much.
    Mr. TAGUE. Okay.

    • Soon after the shots were fired, Tague was approached by Dallas sheriff detective Buddy Walthers. The detective asked Tague where he had been standing. The two men then examined the area and discovered — on the upper part of the Main Street south curb — a “very fresh scar” impact that, to each of them, looked like a bullet had struck there and taken a small chip out of the curb’s concrete. They came to the conclusion that one bullet ricocheted off the curb and the debris hit Tague.
      June 5, 1964 Jim Lehrer put the Tague story in the Dallas Times Herald ans the story went out on the wire services. Lehrer stated he was getting calls “from all over,” including the Warren Commission, wanting to know who I was, and he had to tell them. He assured me he was not using my name in the story in the local paper.
      See also:

  101. Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

    A: I did not dissect the track in the neck.

    Q: Why?

    A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

    MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would as the Court so to direct.

    THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

    THE WITNESS: We didn’t remove the organs of the neck.

    BY MR. OSER:
    Q: Why not, Doctor?

    A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the —

    Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

    THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

    THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

    BY MR. OSER:
    Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn’t you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

    A: I had the cause of death.

    Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

    A: As I recall I didn’t remove these organs from the neck.

    Q: I didn’t hear you.

    A: I examined the wounds but I didn’t remove the organs of the neck.

    Q: You said you didn’t do this; I am asking you why didn’t do this as a pathologist?

    A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn’t dissect or remove these organs.

    MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.

    BY MR. OSER:
    Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

    A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.

    Q: You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?

    A: Right.

    Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

    A: I don’t recall.

    Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

    A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.

    Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

    A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

    Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

    A: From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.

  102. “graduate student, James Gochenaur, revealed to both the Church Committee and to the HSCA in the mid-1970s that Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore had confessed to him in 1970 that he had “leaned on Dr. Perry” shortly after the Bethesda autopsy to get him to stop describing the bullet wound in President Kennedy’s throat as an entrance wound. (The Bethesda autopsy report concluded it was an exit wound.) According to Gochenaur, Moore also told him that the Secret Service had to investigate the assassination in an expected, predetermined way or they would “get their heads chopped off.” Moore, unfortunately, also told Gochenaur that sometimes he thought President Kennedy was “a traitor” because he was “giving things away to the Russians.”

  103. Monday, March 30, 1964
    Mr. SPECTER. What, in your opinion, was the cause of death?
    Dr. CARRICO. The head wound, the head injury.
    Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound
    which you have already mentioned briefly?
    Dr. CARRICO. Sure.
    This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region.
    There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded
    tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after
    we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this
    Mr. SPECTER Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this
    large opening where the skull was absent?
    Dr. CARRICO. No other wound on the head.
    Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opportunity specifically ta look for a small
    wound which was below the large opening of the skull on the right side of the
    Dr. CARRICO. No, sir; at least initially there was no time to examine the
    patient completely for all small wounds. As we said before, this was an acutely
    ill patient and all we had time to do was to determine what things were life
    threatening right then and attempt to resuscitate him and after which a more
    complete examination would be carried out and we didn’t have time to examine
    for other wounds.

    Click to access wh3_carrico.pdf


    • The Master of Leading a Witness, Mr Specter:

      Mr SPECTER: Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.

      First of all, assume that the President was struck by a a 6 mm. copper jacketed
      bullet from a rifle having a muscle velocity of approximately 2,000
      feet per second at a .time when the President was approximately 160 to 250
      feet from the weapon, with the President being struck from the rear at a
      downward angle of approximately 45 degrees, being struck on the upper right
      posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula 14 centimeters from
      the tip of the right acromlon process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right
      mastoid process.
      Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President
      striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in
      the posterior aspect of the President’s body through a fascia channel without
      violating the pleural cavity, but bruising only the apex of the right pleural
      cavity and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung, then causing a
      hematoma to the right of the larynx which you have described, and creating
      a jagged wound in the trachea, then exiting precisely at the point where you
      observe the puncture wound to exist.
      Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion
      consistent with being an exit wound?”

      Click to access wh3_carrico.pdf


      • Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in a press conference or press conferences
        following the death of the President?
        Dr. PERRY. Yes.
        Mr. SPECTER:Well, what questions were asked of you and what responses did you give at that press conference?
        Dr. PERRY :Well, there were numerous questions asked, all the questions of course I cannot remember of course. Specifically, the thing that seemed to be of most interest at that point was actually trying to get me to speculate as to direction of the bullets, the number of bullets, and the exact cause of death.
        “I did not know, if there were one or two bullets, and I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound, whether it was an entrance or an exit wound, not having examined the President further- I could not comment on any other injuries.”

        Click to access WH6_Perry.pdf

        * * * * * * * *
        Of course even though the actual video of that interview has gone missing. However there is a transcript available in which Dr Perry in fact gives his opinion that the neck wound was one of entrance. He repeats this twice:

        Where was the entrance wound?
        There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
        Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
        It appeared to be coming at him.

  104. One might wonder why Burkley was never called to testify.

    But I don’t, I think Burkley was making noises about the possibility of other shooters before the Commission was ever established. He saw Kennedy’s corpse and the wounds, he was a doctor, he KNEW those wounds were mischaracterized by the autopsy report.
    He knew the autopsy was a sham by incompetent prosecutors under orders to misrepresent what the real findings should be.
    Thus Burkley was isolated and ignored.

  105. Willy Whitten — December 8, 2015 at 4:09 pm
    “2. Frangible bullets – the x-rays show metal particles bunched together where the bullet entered, and a spray of them on the other side of the skull”~DG Michael

    Absolutely. A standard indication of the path of a frangible bullet__present in the JFK autopsy X-rays, a “constellation” of particles at the rear of the skull indicates a frontal entry of said bullet.

    This is simply modern forensic science. The same analysis given by CSI Fiester.

    JFK was struck by a frangible bullet fired from in front of the limousine, from a shooter firing from a rise just forward of the south-west side of the triple underpass.

  106. “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
    I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”~Antony

    And don’t forget…Brutus is an honourable man!!


    • Julius Caesar | Act 3, Scene 2 |Shakespeare

      Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
      I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
      The evil that men do lives after them;
      The good is oft interred with their bones;
      So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
      Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
      If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
      And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
      Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
      For Brutus is an honourable man;
      So are they all, all honourable men–
      Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
      He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
      But Brutus says he was ambitious;
      And Brutus is an honourable man.
      He hath brought many captives home to Rome
      Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
      Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
      When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
      Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
      Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
      And Brutus is an honourable man.
      You all did see that on the Lupercal
      I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
      Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
      Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
      And, sure, he is an honourable man.
      I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
      But here I am to speak what I do know.
      You all did love him once, not without cause:
      What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
      O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
      And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
      My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
      And I must pause till it come back to me.
      . . . . . . . .

  107. To inform the reader further, in reality their newly praised evidence is actually the altered Ida Dox charcoal pencil drawn medical illustration, having been fraudulently swapped out as that of a supposedly authentic, back autopsy photograph. (Notice the artifact circled in image below, this was left out of Dox’s drawing, and is likely the actual entrance hole. Now it is claimed by SB theorists’ that it was only a spot of blood.)

    There are three points here.

    1. Most importantly, the larger “wound” is in fact too large.
    And not the “round hole” described by the witnesses. It is clearly misshapen and squared off. Human skin is elastic, when it is punctured by a bullet, the bullet sized opening only lasts for the moment of entry, the skin flexes at this point. When the bullet has gone farther in the skin tightens, leaving a much smaller hole than the diameter of the bullet.
    Try puncturing a large width rubber band with a thumbtack. When you pull that thumbtack out again, the pinhole is barely visible. This analogy is not exact, but the principles are the same.

    2. The drawing by Ida Dox leaves this very clear landmark out of her illustration. Why? It is very troubling as on close inspection of the actual photo she used to copy indicates that she left out the actual wound and left the other mark, which is only plausible as the only mark there. But, for the reasons I make in point 1, it is unlikely that is the bullet wound.

    3. Pay close attention to the hand holding the ruler, the spread of the fingers posed as though indicating the wound in the gap made between his fingers just at that point. See how that gap is directly across from the wound? the finger and thumb holding the ruler seem to frame the calibration marks on the ruler at that point, which would make it easier to keep the measurement in focus while the eye scans from the wound to the the calibrations to judge the size.

    Of course the most remarkable claim is that this is the ONLY photograph of Kennedy’s back wound; It is so skewed by angle and posing of the corpse that surely a better set of photos would have seemed essential. So are there photo’s missing? That would not be so unusual in this case.

    • That photo shows the wound at T-3. T-1 is at the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck. This has been gone over time and again with Jean.. The line from the shoulder to the neck runs from the tip of the shoulder where the humerus, the clavicle, and the spatula meet, ending right at T1, the crease in the neck.

      The bullet hole is some 3 inches lower.

  108. “What are you going to argue next-that every surgeon that diagnoses an appendicitis has to be correct? That every appendix removed has to be diseased? That every patient admitted through an ER with chest pain has to have a heart attack?”~Photon

    Your proclivity for the use of Straw Man argumentation is well established, as well as your constant appeals to authority.

    My comment had to do with the propriety of reliance on experts in ballistic science. Not to the exclusion of forensic pathologists, but in conjunction, and notation of how many of these pathologists are behind in their understandings of ballistics compared to the actual ballistic experts.

    Your intimated slur against didactic knowledge is also repugnant to someone such as myself who has put hundreds of hours of research into ballistics. And the modern methods of analysis that I know are being missed by many of your so-called expert witnesses, be they pathologist, or cops, or politicians.

    You photon don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about concerning ballistics. Your pretense at lecturing others on the topic is utter hubris.
    * * * * * * * * * * *
    Photon’s steadfast denial that a frangible bullet traveling at supersonic velocity could not penetrate a human skull is a sure indicator as to his utter lack of knowledge of the physical properties of a frangible bullet.

    These missiles are partially jacketed rounds with a filling of frangible particles often in an acrylic medium or binder. This is not a recent development in ammunition. Such ammo was developed in the early 1900’s, and by the 1960’s was certainly to the point of popularity for massive wounding and stopping power.

    This single point shows how utterly ignorant or disingenuous Photon is in his commentary on the subject.

  109. Injury To The Trachea

    “DR. PERRY: It — as I said the wound was exuding blood slowly, but Dr. Baxter mentioned about ineffective attempts to bag him because of the position of the wound in the trach. And when I opened the neck, there was an injury to the trachea on the right lateral side. There was air and blood in that area of the mediastinum. That’s when I asked that a chest tube be put in place because I didn’t know how many times he’d been shot or from what direction. And, of course, the assumption was that he might have a chest wound as well when I saw the hair [sic. = “air”] around the trachea — the injury to the trachea, which I subsequently enlarged for the tracheostomy tube.
    But I asked the chest tubes be put in because once you start pressure-assisted respiration, if he had a chest tube he might have a tension pneumothorax. And not knowing the extent of his head injury with any certainty, as Dr. Jones said, we didn’t look at that. We were busy trying to get an airway. And so as it turned out, the chest tubes were not necessary. There was no injury to the chest cavity, but I didn’t know that at the time. Not knowing how many shots there were and what was going on, as Dr. Baxter said, put the full-court press on; otherwise, we might lose him.”

  110. And the Dance Macabre continues:

    Willy Whitten — December 10, 2015 at 12:08 am
    “But by referring to Fiester aren’t you doing exactly what you criticize me for doing? Unfortunately you appeal to the wrong authority. What experts in ballistics do you accept as accurate?”Photon

    Cut the crap Photon, I have already given you links to the forensic literature. This forensic literature speaks to the exact analysis and procedures used by Fiester.
    The the blood splatter analysis and the attendant ‘backspatter’ experiments and conclusions by renown forensic experts, all in concurrence with the same conclusions reached by Fiester.

    The trajectory analysis is coupled with the blood splatter analysis as well as photogrammetric 3D trigonometry measurements, to create a cone of trajectory.

    Kennedy’s forward nod and backspatter event indicate a shot from the front. Thus the cone developed presents the trajectory from an incoming missile that struck Kennedy in the high right temple/parietal at a tangential angle and plowed a trough through the right side of Kennedy’s head, the bullet fragmented leaving a trail of dust culminating in a “galaxy’ of dust in the rear of the shattered skull and brain. Almost the entire right side of the brain was pureed to a pudding consistency that oozed from the wound. causing a sticky mass of hair brain matter and shards of bone.

    As the doctors of both Parkland and Bethesda testified that right occipital-parietal was blasted with a smaller temporal-parietal wound just forward of Kennedy’s right ear.

    Fiester’s trajectory analysis proves the temporal-parietal wound to be one of entrance.
    The shooter located directly ahead of Kennedy, some 200 feet distant on a rise just in front of the south-west corner of the triple underpass.

    incidentally this was but a couple of yards from where Tague was standing, when he heard a loud solid boom to the left of where he was standing — looking towards the north-east. In other words; to his left was the triple underpass.

    This analysis is based on sound ballistic science. And backed up by an ear/eye witness standing close to the snipers position.
    . . . . . . .
    Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 10, 2015 at 12:29 am
    “Insults are not an argument..”~Photon

    That is correct Photon. However the following is not:

    “only an admission that the facts available are contrary to your opinion and you have nothing to support that opinion.”

    I have already made sound counterarguments to Von Pien. It was he who was bouncing from thread to thread avoiding confronting those arguments.

    I consider my observations as to his character valid under these circumstances, which have not only been remarked upon by myself but others here.

    So, you are insulted for my remarks to Von Pien … well I and others here are subjected to your constantly insulting our intelligence with your jejune and arrogant argumentation.

    So don’t play the innocent victim here Photon. Your egregious nonsense is as insulting as any slur made against you or Von Pien.

    Your prancing about as if you are an authority in all things is equally obnoxious. If we tire of this cheesy burlesque, there is no one to blame but yourself.

    • Frangible Bullets
      Within the British Indian Army, the Dum Dum arsenal produced a solution: the jacketing was removed from the nose of the bullet, creating the first soft point bullets. Since the Mark II jacket did not cover the base of the round this could potentially lead to the jacketing being left in the barrel. This potential problem resulted in the rejection of the Dum-dum design and led to independent development of the Mark III, Mark IV (1897) and Mark V (1899) .303 British rounds, which were of the hollow-point design, with the jacket covering the base; while these were made in Britain, not at the Dum-Dum arsenal, the name “Dum-dum” had already become associated with expanding bullets, and continued to be used to refer to any expanding bullets. The expanding bullets expanded upon impact to a diameter significantly greater than the original .312 inch (7.92 mm) bullet diameter, producing larger diameter wounds than the full-metal-jacketed versions. The Mark IV was successful enough in its first use in the battle of Omdurman that British soldiers issued with the standard Mark II bullets began to remove the top of the jacket, converting the Mark II bullets into improvised Dum-dum types.[15]
      Critical cartridge specifications include neck size, bullet weight and caliber, …. (1871), a later drawn brass .577/450 Martini-Henry cartridge, and a .303 British Mk VII SAA …. These are offered in supersonic and subsonic types, as well as target.

  111. I suppose you might think that “the right to bear arms’ refers to the right of US citizens to wear shirts without sleeves.
    “Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER’S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE.”George Orwell (Evening Standard, 8 January 1941)

  112. NIST Disclaimers
    Use in Legal Proceedings
    No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation can be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a; as amended by P.L. 107-231).

    No part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a structural failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.

    In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the investigation has been provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.

  113. On Frangible Bullets in JFK Assassination

    I received two replies, one from Dr. Jimmy W. Green and the other from Dr. Eric Berg, both of whom, as mentioned, are medical examiners. Dr. Green said that “almost all” FMJ bullets fired from medium-to-high-velocity rifles “do not fragment with numerous pieces.” He cited one exception, and that was a .223 bullet traveling at a high velocity, and he noted that “hunting ammunition” will produce a “lead snowstorm.” Of course, the 6.5 mm FMJ ammunition that Oswald allegedly used is much different than hunting ammunition. With regard to the shearing scenario, Dr. Green said “it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone.” He added he would be “surprised” that an FMJ missile would behave in this manner. I quote Dr. Green’s reply:

    1. Almost all FMJ bullets fired from rifles of medium to high velocity do not fragment with numerous pieces as you have described. Having said that, it is known that the .223 bullet as used in an M-16 rifle will produce multiple fragmentation even though it is an FMJ bullet. This is due to its high velocity (about 3200 fps) and inherent instability when it enters the body. These combined effects tear open the jacket and expose the lead core. Most centerfire rifle bullets from hunting ammunition will cause a “lead snowstorm” effect with numerous small metallic fragments breaking off the lead core as the bullet passes thru the body. I don’t see why this couldn’t happen with the skull and brain as well as the trunk.

    2. In answer to your second question, I think that it generally would not occur that an FMJ bullet would shear in pieces as it entered the skull or other bone. But it could potentially be possible for a small piece of bullet to break off as it enters the skull depending on several factors, such as caliber, i.e., .223 and intermediary targets. This effect may produce a “keyhole” entrance wound if the trajectory is somewhat tangential to the skull, part of the bullet would be sheared off and exit or remain in the tissue while the other part enters the cranial cavity. This generally only happens with exposed lead core bullets though and with lower velocity. So my first thought is that the bullet type would not be FMJ to cause this effect and I would be surprised that one would do this unless there were confounding factors as noted above.

    Considerations should include whether or not there were any intermediary targets prior to entering the body or head and whether or not the actual bullets were FMJ or some other construction. (E-mail to author, 3/19/2002)

    Dr. Berg was even more skeptical that an FMJ bullet would leave numerous fragments in a skull. With regard to the question about an FMJ bullet depositing a fragment on the outer table of the skull, he said, “No, not with a full metal jacket.” I quote Dr. Berg’s reply:

    QUESTION #1: No. “In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a ‘lead snowstorm’. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug.” (Page 318)

    QUESTION #2: No, not with a full metal jacket.

    REFERENCE: VJM DiMaio, Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999. ISBN 0-8493-8163-0. (E-mail to author, 3/19/2002)

    Dr. Michael Kurtz has done considerable research on the wound ballistics aspects of the case. Dr. Kurtz argues that the skull fracturing and bullet fragmentation visible on the autopsy x-rays indicate high-velocity ammunition struck the president’s skull, not low-velocity or medium-velocity ammunition as supposed by the single-assassin theory:

    The x-rays of the skull reveal massive multiple fractures of the skull on both the right and left sides. There is extensive fragmentation of the bone, and several pieces of the skull are missing. This type of damage is not produced by ammunition like that allegedly used by Oswald. Copper-jacketed bullet commonly penetrate straight through objects, leaving only small tracks and causing little in the way of bone fractures. Wounds ballistics tests performed for the commission confirmed this. Bullets from Oswald’s rifle, from a .257 Roberts soft-point hunting rifle, and from a United States Army M-14 rifle were fired into blocks of gelatin covered with masonite. The Mannlicher-Carcano bullet went straight through the gelatin, leaving a tiny track and causing little damage to the substance. The soft-point hunting bullet expanded rapidly upon entering and considerably more damage. The M-14 bullet caused more destruction than the others. . . .

    The skull x-rays also depicted extensive bullet fragmentation within the skull. This type of fragmentation is not typical of full-jacketed military ammunition. That ammunition was specifically designed to remain intact when passing through a body. Lead, or hollow-point, ammunition is the type that causes fragmentation. . . .

    World War II films of men being shot in the head by Mannlicher-Carcano rifles reveal absolutely no massive explosion of brain tissue and also show quite graphically that the men invariably fell in the same direction as the trajectory of the bullets that struck them. Autopsy photographs and x-rays of some of the victims of Mannlicher-Carcano-inflicted head wounds also showed no bullet fragmentation, no serious disruption of brain tissue, and very small exit wounds. (Crime of the Century, pp. 91, 104)

    The x-rays of two of the skulls used in the Warren Commission’s wound ballistics tests pose another problem for the lone-gunman theory. The fragmentation seen on these x-rays differs markedly from the fragmentation seen on the autopsy x-rays, in location, nature, and number. Howard Roffman explains:

    These X rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald’s rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the X rays: “The whole head looked like a little mass of stars.” The fragmentation depicted on these test X rays obviously differs from that described in the president’s head. The upper X ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic, suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy. (Photo: National Archives) (Presumed Guilty, 1976, photo pages 8 and 9, chapter 5)

    Another wound ballistics problem for the lone-gunman theory is that the number of known and unknown fragments from the head shot appears to add up to much more than one Carcano missile, which means more than one bullet struck Kennedy in the head. Dr. Kurtz explains:

    The known fragments both inside and outside the head total more than two-thirds of an intact Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. This does not account for the fact that a sizable number of fragments exploded completely out of the head and were propelled out of the limousine on to the street. . . . The Ramsey Clark panel states specifically that most of the bullet that struck the president “emerged from the head.” Dr. Lattimer estimated that 95 grains of the bullet which struck the head “apparently went completely over the windshield to strike the street further along.” His calculation is based on the fact that 65 grains of the bullet were recovered. This calculation, however, is based entirely upon the total weight of the limousine fragments. He does not include the weight of the two fragments recovered from the head nor those remaining in the head.

    Dr. Lattimer estimated that 70 percent of the right half of the brain as well as 50 percent of the right half of the skull was missing. Over thirty-five fragments, many over 1 mm. in diameter, two over 6 mm., remained in that portion of the brain and skull which did not explode out of the head. It is not unreasonable to postulate that at least as many fragments must have been blown out of the head as remained in it.

    Wounds ballistics tests conducted for the Warren Commission by Dr. Alfred Olivier confirmed this. A bullet from Oswald’s rifle fired into a test skull fragmented extensively, ejecting over thirty fragments outside the skull. Two very large fragments composing approximately 70 percent of the test bullet were found outside the skull. Twenty-nine smaller fragments, some as large as 6 mm. in diameter, were also discovered outside the test skull. Collectively, these fragments total about 95 percent of the total size of the test bullet. Dr. Lattimer also performed ballistics tests that verified the fact that most of the intact size and weight of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets were blown out of the skulls.

    The results of these tests indicate that the total number of known and unknown fragments add up to substantially more than one of Oswald’s bullets. The bullet fragments remaining in the brain plus those in the skull plus those removed from the brain plus those the limousine fragments plus those never recovered strongly suggest that more than one bullet struck President Kennedy in the head. (Crime of the Century, pp. 97-98, emphasis added)

    As mentioned, the extensive skull fracturing and bullet fragmentation visible on the autopsy skull x-rays indicate the ammunition that struck the president’s head was not the same kind of ammunition that Oswald allegedly used. Even the Clark Panel concluded the missile that struck the back of the president’s head was a high-velocity bullet. Said the panel,

    These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet travelling at high velocity. . . . (Clark Panel Report, “Examination of Photographs of Head,” reproduced in Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 316, emphasis added)

    However, Oswald used low-to-medium-velocity ammunition. FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier explained to the commission that the Carcano rifle (the alleged murder weapon) was a low-velocity weapon:

    Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?

    Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.

    Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?

    Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

    Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?

    Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
    . . . . .
    Dr. Vincent DiMaio’s book Gunshot Wounds. That quote is worth repeating, and note that Dr. DiMaio says that even in cases where an FMJ bullet perforates bone only rarely will the missile leave fragments, and that even then the fragments will be “few”:

    In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm”. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318,

    • Frangible
      adjective formal
      fragile; brittle.
      A material is said to be frangible if through deformation it tends to break up into fragments, rather than deforming elastically and retaining its cohesion as a single object.


    • Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio

      Dr. Vincent J. M. Di Maio is an American pathologist and a nationally renowned expert on the subject of gunshot wounds.[1][2] Di Maio is a board-certified anatomic, clinical and forensic pathologist, and a private forensic pathology consultant.[3] He attended St. John’s University and the State University of New York (SUNY), and received postgraduate training at Duke University, SUNY, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Maryland.[4]

      Di Maio is a veteran of the U.S. Army Medical Corps, and served as chief medical examiner of San Antonio, Texas until 2006, when he retired; Di Maio has more than 40 years of experience as a forensic pathologist.[4][5] He has been editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, and a professor of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.[4] Di Maio is a fellow of the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME) and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences…


      > Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques (1992) (2e: 1999)
      > Forensic Pathology (1992) (2e: 2001)
      > Handbook of Forensic Pathology (1998) (2e: 2007)
      > Excited Delirium Syndrome: Cause of Death and Prevention (2005)

    • Gunshot Wounds
      Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques

      Second Edition
      Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.

      “If a bullet with a diameter smaller than that intended for the specific weapon is fired down a barrel, the bullet will be unable to follow the rifling sufficiently to produce repetitive markings. Comparisons cannot be made, as it is highly unlikely that two bullets will “slip” down the barrel in the same identical manner” (pg. 58) –Relevant to .38 Sp ammo fired from .38 S&W standard — the case of Oswald’s alleged revolver.
      . . . . .
      Wound Ballistics

      Ballistics is the science of the motion of projectiles. It is divided into interior ballistics, external ballistics, and terminal ballistics. Interior ballistics is the study of the projectile in the gun; exterior ballistics, the study of the projectile through air; and terminal ballistics, the study of penetration of solids by the missile. Wound ballistics can be considered a subdivision of terminal ballistics concerned with the motions and effects of the projectile in tissue. In this chapter we shall review wound ballistics.
      A moving projectile, by virtue of its movement, possesses kinetic energy. For a bullet, this energy is determined by its weight and velocity:
      K.E. = WV 2 /2 g
      where g is gravitational acceleration, W is the weight of the bullet, and V is the velocity.
      From this formula, it can be seen that velocity plays a greater role in determining the amount of kinetic energy possessed by a bullet than does weight. Doubling the weight doubles the kinetic energy, but doubling the velocity quadruples the kinetic energy.
      (pg. 71)

      Click to access Gunshot_wounds._Practical_aspects_of_firearms,_ballistics,_and_forensic_techniques.pdf


      • The concept of a gunshot wound held by most individuals is that of a bullet going through a person like a drill bit through wood, “drilling” a neat hole through structures that it passes through. This picture is erroneous. As a bullet moves through the body, it crushes and shreds the tissue in its path, while at the same time flinging outward (radially) the surrounding tissue from the path of the bullet, producing a temporary cavity considerably larger than the diameter of the bullet. This temporary cavity, which has a lifetime of 5 to 10 msec from initial rapid growth until collapse, undergoes a series of gradually smaller pulsations and contractions before it finally disappears, leaving the permanent wound track (Figure 3.1). It is the combination of the crushed and shredded tissue and the effects of the temporary cavity on tissue adjacent to the bullet path (shearing, compression, and stretching) that determines the final extent of a wound.
        The location, size, and the shape of the temporary cavity in a body depend on the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its path through the tissue, how rapidly the energy is lost, and the elasticity and cohesiveness of the tissue.
        (pg. 71/72)
        The picture is radically different in the case of a high-velocity rifle bullet. As the bullet enters the body, there is a “tail splash,” or backward hurling of injured tissue. This material may be ejected from the entrance. The bullet passes through the target, creating a large temporary cavity whose maximum diameter is up to 11 to 12.5 times the diameter of the projectile.3 The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This occurs at the point where the bullet is at maximum yaw, i.e., turned sideways (at a 90° angle to the path) and/or when it fragments. If fragmentation does not occur and the path is long enough, the yawing continues until the bullet rotates 180° and ends up in a base-forward position. The bullet will continue traveling base first with little or no yaw as this position puts the center of mass forward.
        The temporary cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a permanent track. Positive and negative pressures alternate in the wound track, with resultant sucking of foreign material and bacteria into the track from both entrance and exit. In high-velocity centerfire rifle wounds, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. There is compression, stretching and shearing of the displaced tissue.
        Injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs not struck by the bullet, and a distance from the path, can occur as can fractures of bones, though, in the case of fractures, this is relatively rare.3 In the author’s experience, fractures usually occur when the bullet perforates an intercostal space fracturing ribs above and below the bullet path.
        The size of both the temporary and the permanent cavities is determined not only by the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue but also by the density and elastic cohesiveness of the tissue. Because liver and muscle have similar densities (1.01 to 1.02 and 1.02 to 1.04), both tissues absorb the same amount of kinetic energy per centimeter of tissue traversed by a bullet.

        “Iron — Cold Iron — is master of men all!”~Rudyard Kipling

      • Head Wounds

        Centerfire rifle wounds of the head are especially destructive because of the formation of a temporary cavity within the cranial cavity. The brain is enclosed by the skull, a closed, rigid structure that can relieve pressure only by “bursting.”Thus, high-velocity missile wounds of the head tend to produce bursting injuries. That these bursting injuries are the result of temporary cavity formation can be demonstrated by shooting through empty skulls. A high-velocity bullet fired through an empty skull produces small entrance and exit holes with no fractures. The same missile fired through a skull containing brain causes extensive fracturing and bursting injuries.
        Wounds due to hunting bullets are more destructive to the structure of the head than wounds produced by military ammunition even if the same weapon is used.
        This is because, even though both bullets may possess the same amount of energy on impact, the hunting bullet will lose more energy in the head due to its construction. (pg. 76)

        The severity of a wound, as determined by the size of the temporary cavity, is directly related to the amount of kinetic energy lost in the tissue, not the total energy possessed by the bullet. If a bullet penetrates a body but does not exit, all the kinetic energy will be utilized in wound formation. On the other hand, if the bullet perforates the body and goes through it, only part of the kinetic energy is used in wound formation. (pg. 77)

        Soft-point and hollow-point centerfire rifle bullets not only tend to expand as they go through the body, but also shed lead fragments from the core (see Chapter 7, “Lead Snowstorm”). This shedding occurs whether or not they strike bone. The pieces of lead fly off the main bullet mass, acting as secondary missiles, contacting more and more tissue, increasing the size of the wound cavity and thus the severity of the wound. (pg. 78)

      • Gunshot wounds are either penetrating or perforating. Penetrating wounds occur when a bullet enters an object and does not exit; in perforating wounds, the bullet passes completely through the object. A wound, however, can be both penetrating and perforating. A bullet striking the head may pass through the skull and brain before coming to rest under the scalp, thus producing a penetrating wound of the head, but a perforating wound of the skull and brain.
        Gunshot wounds can be divided into four broad categories, depending on the range from the muzzle to target: contact, near contact, intermediate, and distant. (pg. 82)

        Thus, the bullet may be fired perpendicular to the body but strike a projecting surface, e.g., the breast so that an eccentric abrasion ring wound is produced even though the bullet is going straight into the body. Thus, it is never possible to say with certainty in which direction a bullet has traveled through the body from examination of the entrance wound alone. (pg. 102)

        In a tangential wound, the injury extends down through to the subcutaneous tissue (Figure 4.26B). The skin is torn, or “lacerated,” by the bullet.
        In both graze and tangential wounds, it may be difficult to tell the direction in which the bullet was traveling when it produced the wound.
        Examination of the two ends of a tangential wound will often but not always reveal the entrance end to have a partially abraded margin, i.e., a cap of abraded tissue, while the exit end will be split. Tears along the margin of a tangential wound point in the direction the bullet moved (Figure 4.26B). In both types of wounds, piling up of tissue may occur at the exit end. (pg. 113)

        Tangential wounds of the skull have classically been called “gutter wounds.”
        In first-degree gutter wounds only the outer table of the skull is grooved by the bullet, with resultant carrying away of small bone fragments. In second degree wounds pressure waves generated by the bullet fracture the inner table.
        In third-degree wounds the bullet perforates the skull in the center of the tangential wound (Figure 4.40). The outer table is fragmented, and there are depressed fragments of the internal table if not comminution and pulverization of both tables in the center of the wound track. Fragments of bone can be driven into the brain causing death. After third-degree wounds come “superficial perforating wounds.” Here there is production of separate entrance and exit wounds in the bone. (pg. 133)

        In distant wounds, gas plays no part in the production of fractures. These fractures are produced by the pressure built up in the skull as a result of temporary cavity formation. The size of this cavity is proportional to the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its passage through the head.
        The greater the amount of kinetic energy lost, the larger the cavity; the larger the cavity, the greater the pressure produced on the walls of the cranial chamber and the more likely a fracture is to occur.
        The fact that the fractures in a skull are due to temporary cavity formation was demonstrated by a series of experiments with skulls.
        When the skulls were empty, the bullets “drilled” neat entrances and exits without any
        fractures. When the skulls were filled with gelatin to simulate the brain, massive secondary skull fractures were produced.
        On occasion one will be presented with what initially appears to be a perforating gunshot wound of the head but in fact is a penetrating wound. There will be both an entrance and an “exit” wound in the scalp. The autopsy reveals the bullet still to be in the head. What happens is that the bullet, after perforating the brain, strikes the opposite side of the skull with sufficient force to fracture it and propel a piece of bone out through the scalp. The bullet itself had insufficient velocity to exit the head.
        (pg. 135)

        Di Maio – ©1999 CRC Press LLC

  114. The caliber of the bullet that caused an entrance wound in the skin cannot
    be determined by the diameter of the entrance. A .38-caliber (9-mm) bullet
    can produce a hole having the diameter of a .32 caliber (7.65-mm) bullet and
    vice versa. The size of the hole is due not only to the diameter of the bullet
    but also to the elasticity of the skin and the location of the wound. An entrance
    wound in an area where the skin is tightly stretched will have a diameter
    different from that of a wound in an area where the skin is lax. Bullet wounds
    in areas where the skin lies in folds or creases may be slit-shaped.

    Back spatter is the ejection of blood and tissue from a gunshot wound of
    entrance. While blood and tissue are often ejected from exit wounds, this is
    not the case for entrance wounds. The occurrence and degree of backspatter
    depends on the anatomical location of the wound, the range and the caliber
    of the weapon. A contact wound of the head from a large-caliber weapon is
    more likely to produce backspatter than a distant wound of the torso from
    a small-caliber weapon. Backspatter is important because the resultant stains
    may be found on the weapon, the shooter and objects in the vicinity.

    There are three possible etiologies for backspatter in the case of head wounds: expansion of gas trapped subcutaneously; intra-cranial pressure generated by the temporary cavity and tail splashing. The last phenomena refers to backward streaming of blood and tissue along the lateral surfaces of the bullet. This may represent an early stage of the temporary cavity effect. The effects of expanding gas subcutaneously is only relevant in close range wounds while the other two etiologies of backspatter are independent of range.
    Karger et al. studied backspatter using live calves shot with 9 × 19-mm pistol. 21-22 The calves were shot in the head at ranges of: tight contact; loose contact; 5 cm, and 10 cm. The resultant backspatter was divided into macrobackspatter (stain diameter of >0.5 mm) and microbackspatter (stain diameter 0.5 mm or less). There was macrospatter after every shot with the maximum distance traveled varying from 72 to 119 cm. The vast majority of stains were between 0 and 50 cm. The direction of the exiting droplets was at every possible angle resulting, overall, in a 180 degree semi-circle spray. For individual shots, the distribution of the droplets is usually uneven and asymmetrical.
    In the case of microbackspatter, there was microspatter after each shot with the maximum distance traveled 69 cm. The vast majority of stains were between 0 and 40 cm. Microspatter stains tended to be more numerous than macrospatter. The stains produced were exclusively circular or slightly oval in contrast to macrostains that showed variations ranging from circular to exclamation mark forms. Just like macrospatter, the direction of the exiting droplets was at every possible angle resulting in a 180 degree semi-circle spray, though the distribution of the individual droplets was uneven and asymmetrical.
    The authors felt that the number of droplets and the maximum distance these droplets would travel would be greater for humans because of the anatomical differences between calf heads and human heads. They also speculated that the maximum shooting distance that would result in backspatter in gunshot wounds of the head is likely more than 10 cm, the maximum range that they shot the calves. (136/137)

    Di Maio – ©1999 CRC Press LLC

  115. Appendix B
    The Forensic Autopsy in Gunshot Wound Cases

    The forensic autopsy differs from the hospital autopsy in its objectives and relevance. In addition to determining the cause of death, the forensic pathologist must establish the manner of death (natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal or undetermined), the identity of the deceased if unknown, and the time of death or injury. The forensic autopsy may involve collection of evidence from the body, which can be used to either incriminate or exonerate an individual charged with a crime; determine that a crime had or had not been committed and provide clues towards a subject if it has.
    Because of the possible medicolegal implications of forensic cases, not only do these determinations have to be made, but the findings or lack of findings must be documented. In many cases the cause and manner of death may be obvious. It is the documentation of the injuries or lack of them as well as the interpretation of how they occurred and the determination or exclusion of other contributory or causative factors that is important.
    The forensic autopsy involves not only the physical examination of the body on the autopsy table, but consideration of other aspects that the general pathologist does not consider as part of the autopsy—the scene, the nature of the weapon (if any), clothing, toxicology, and the results of laboratory tests on evidence. The forensic autopsy begins at the scene. The pathologist should not perform a forensic autopsy unless they know the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death. This is a very basic principle that is often violated.

    The scene should be documented with diagrams or photographs, preferably both. Individuals should be interviewed, and a written report given to the pathologist before the autopsy. At the scene, the body should be handled as little as possible. (pg. 396)

    Examination of the clothing is as much a part of the autopsy as examination of the wounds. The clothing must be examined for bloodstains and trace evidence as well as to determine whether the wounds in the body correlate with the defects in the clothing. (pg. 397)

  116. “How could Oswald have been framed? But that’s what I expected. If there were a plausible frame-up scenario someone would’ve presented it by now.”~Jean Davison

    How about an explanation of how Oswald WAS framed, not how he COULD have been? Isn’t that more precise?

    Oswald being a deep agent of counter espionage, was sent on an assignment to the Soviet Union, perhaps just as a test to see the ways in-which the authorities there would react to the presence of an “American defector” with Oswald’s odd profile; with his fairly obvious ‘sheep dipping’ – to give him the appearance of being a “Marxist”.

    [FFWD>>] Oswald returns to the US with Russian Wife. And his assignment is now augmented with his period in the USSR, he is even more convincing as a “Commie”; his then current mission is to infiltrate the radical anti-Castro Cuban network.

    While on this assignment Oswald is successful enough in his penetration into the midst of the organization that he becomes privy to a plot to kill Kennedy in revenge for their “betrayal” at the Bay of Pigs.

    What neither Oswald nor the Cubans realize is that there is a larger overarching operation guiding the Cubans, stoking their anger and providing them with weapons and organizational direction (Banister et al).

    At this point, the counter intel group that has been penetrated realizes the penetrating org is being tipped off by Oswald of this plot to kill JFK. This is the point at which it is decided by the higher echelon plotters to keep Oswald in place, and use him as the patsy in their plot. Oswald is maneuvered into place from New Orleans to Dallas where DM and the White Russian milieu surrounds, absorbs, and directs his fate. Of course this is where the Paine’s come into Lee and Marina’s life, and the final leg of placing Oswald in the building on the obvious route to the Trademart, the obvious venue for a speech by JFK, who was being manipulated into place concurrently with the manipulation of the patsy.
    * * * * * * *

  117. Transcript–Radio Traffic November 22, 1963
    Air Force-1 and Plane Carrying US Cabinet
    Tape Two — Side One:

    KELLERMAN: Arrival Andrews, 6:05, stand by. [pause] An ambulance from Walter Reed furnished to transport body. Over.

    BEHN: Arrangements have been made for a helicopter for the Bethesda Naval Medical Center. Over.

    KELLERMAN: Stand by, Jerry. I’ll have to get Burkley here.
    BURKLEY: Duplex is on. This is Doctor Burkley. What arrangements have been made in regard to the reception of the President? Over.

    BEHN: Everybody aboard AF-1, everyone aboard AF-1 with the exception of the body, will be choppered to the south grounds. The body will be choppered to the Naval Medical Center at Bethesda. Over.

    BURKLEY: The body will be choppered or will go by ambulance to the Naval Medical Center?

    BEHN: Will be choppered — will be choppered.

    BURKLEY: I have called General Heaton and asked him to call me — the District of Washington — with regard to this. Would you call him and cancel the inference to go to Walter Reed? Haven’t spoken to him. I didn’t know these arrangements were already made.

    BEHN: Say again. Say again, Doctor.

    BURKLEY: His body is in a casket, you know, and will have to taken by ambulance and not by chopper.

    BEHN: Alright, I’ll tell Captain Shephard that. Did you say that–
    CLIFTON: Duplex, this is Watchman. I understand that you have arranged for a mortuary type ambulance to take President and Mrs. Kennedy to Bethesda. Is this correct? Over.

    BEHN: Watchman, it has been arranged to helicopter — helicopter the body to Bethesda. Over.

    CLIFTON: This is Watchman. That’s OK, if it isn’t too dark. What about the First Lady? Over.

    BEHN: Everybody else aboard — everybody else aboard arrangements have been made to helicopter into the south grounds.

    CLIFTON: This is Watchman. Are you sure that the helicopter operation will work? We have a very heavy casket. Over.

    BEHN: According to Witness, yes.

    CLIFTON: This is Watchman. Don’t take a chance on that. Also have a mortuary-type ambulance standby in case the helicopter doesn’t work.
    * * * * * * * * * * *
    Then we have Burkley’s testimony to HSCA that the body was transported by ambulance to Bethesda.

    So it seems pretty clear from all of this that the body of JFK was taken to Bethesda by mortuary-type ambulance with Burkley, Mrs. Kennedy, and Robert Kennedy in attendance.~ww

  118. The Resurrection of the Cold War in the 21st Century

    “Education is a system of imposed ignorance”~Noam Chomsky

  119. Anatomy of an Online Atrocity: Wikipedia, Gamaliel, and the Fletcher Prouty entry.
    A history of the defamation of Fletcher Prouty on his Wiikipedia entry by a team of cognitive infiltrators with an agenda.
    Wikipedia is NOT a trustworthy site to go to for anything to do with disputed historical events, the site is skewed to an “anti-conspiracy” bias, as bad or worse than main stream media — it is in fact an extension of the State run Public Relations Regime. It acts as statist propaganda on sociopolitical topics.

  120. The Devil’s Chessboard
    By David Talbot
    Reviewed by Jim DiEugenio, December 15, 2015

    David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard has a massive scope to it. It deals with three main figures. The first, and the main character, is CIA Director Allen Dulles. The second, and a supporting character, is his brother, Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles. The third major character, who is dealt with in the last 270 pages of the book, is President John F. Kennedy.

    Beyond focusing on three historical giants, because the framework is a biography of Allen Dulles, the book deals with some extraordinarily complex, controversial, even convoluted, historical events. Because, as the subtitle of the book states, perhaps no other single individual did as much to create the so—called “secret government” of the United States. The one that the mainstream media refuses to recognize, but which the public, in growing numbers, has grown to accept as a fact of life. This dichotomy has done much to feed the growing disbelief by the populace in both the American government, and the American media.
    Talbot begins the book with a scene between Prince Maximilian Egon von Hohenlohe and Dulles. This meeting directly contravened FDR’s instructions. For the two men were discussing a possible deal that would sacrifice Hitler, but save a large part of the Nazi government. (pp. 31ff) And—exactly what FDR wanted to prevent—they saw Russia as the enemy, and they wanted to use Germany as a bulwark against Stalin. Meanwhile, they would dispose of the genocide problem by sending the surviving Jews of East Europe to Africa. During these rather bizarre, and definitely insubordinate conversations, Dulles told the prince that he had the president’s complete support. Which, of course, he did not. These discussions went on for over two months. And as the author reveals—in what is probably the most shocking aspect of the entire negotiation—the prince was representing none other than Heinrich Himmler, chief of the SS. In other words, Himmler was betraying Hitler, and Dulles was betraying Roosevelt. But further, the implications are stunning: Dulles had no problem working out a truce with the man who was running the Final Solution, thereby leaving him alive and free and running a largely Nazi state.

    This whole review is well worth reading. This is a book I must get eventually – it seems to be the coup de grâce of all the previous books on US-Nazi relations that I have read.

    • “I am delighted to come to Harlem and I think the whole world should come here and the whole world should recognize we all live right next to each other, whether here in Harlem or on the other side of the globe. We should be glad that Castro and Khrushchev came to the United States. We should not fear the twentieth century, for the worldwide revolution, which we see all around us is part of the original American Revolution.”~John F. Kennedy (1960 at the Hotel Theresa)

  121. But there was one more element to setting up this new imperial order. That was the Dulles connection to the Power Elite. Talbot adroitly introduces this by using the man who actually coined that term, C. Wright Mills. As the author writes, for the Dulles brothers, “Democracy … was an impediment to the smooth functioning of the corporate state.” (p. 197) Franklin Roosevelt was well aware of this oligarchy and its advocates. He once wrote, “The real truth … is that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the day of Andrew Jackson.” (ibid) Therefore, their backing of Nixon, and the creation of the Red Scare, all of this was a great opportunity for them to “prove masters of exploiting the anxious state of permanent vigilance that accompanied the Cold War.” (p. 195) As Mills referred to men like the Dulles brothers and Nixon, they believed in a “crackpot realism”; and in the name of that realism, “they have constructed a paranoid reality of their own.” (p. 198)
    — Jim DiEugenio, December 15, 2015

    • “Talbot’s description of the support by Dulles for the attempted coup against DeGaulle is written in tandem with his summary of Operation Zapata, the failed Bay of Pigs invasion—quite appropriately, since they happened at almost the same time. Talbot here conveys what has now become the accepted wisdom of those who have studied the declassified record of Zapata: namely, that the CIA deliberately tricked Kennedy into going along with it, knowing it had almost no chance of succeeding. Dulles and Bissell misjudged Kennedy. They thought that once he saw the assault crumbling, he would send in the Navy, which Admiral Arleigh Burke had stationed right off the coast of Florida. Unauthorized, he placed two battalions of Marines on board. (p. 401)

      But he does bring in some fresh insights. He writes that the Zapata operation was staffed with some of the lowest graded officers in the CIA. In fact, almost half of them were graded in either the lowest third, and some of them in the lowest tenth percentile. Robert Amory, who wrote a book on amphibious landings, was not asked to join. (p. 397)

      When Kennedy refused to send in American forces, after more than one personal plea, the operation was doomed. Immediately after, two reports were commissioned. One was by General Maxwell Taylor and one by Lyman Kirkpatrick of the CIA. Bobby Kennedy’s presence on the former panel sunk Dulles as a witness, and even Burke. President Kennedy was distraught, and then angry. He ordered a Reduction in Force—almost one in five CIA employees were retired. Afterwards Lyndon Johnson said, “You don’t hardly ever see the chiefs of staff around the White House anymore.” LBJ went on to say that the new first advisor to President Kennedy was RFK: “It isn’t McNamara, the chiefs of staff or anybody like that. Bobby is first in and last out. And Bobby is the boy he listens to.” (p. 412) Which was a keen observation by a man who thoroughly understood the workings of power in Washington.

      When Kennedy digested the results of the two reports, he fired Dulles, Bissell and Deputy Director of the CIA, Charles Cabell. In each instance described above—Congo, the Paris coup, Zapata—Dulles had served his president poorly. More significantly, in each instance, Dulles had actually deceived Kennedy about important matters. It’s as if he did not work for John Kennedy. As a matter of fact, as Talbot points out, Dulles never hung a portrait of Kennedy at CIA Headquarters. (p. 403)

      As the author further indicates, the fundamental problem was that 1.) Kennedy really thought he was president, and he wanted to run his own foreign policy, and 2.) His view of the world did not at all coincide with the Dulles/Nixon/Eisenhower view. Indeed, they were actually opposed on many issues. Therefore, if Kennedy was going to run his own foreign affairs, he had no choice but to fire Dulles. For what is truly remarkable about the above record of insubordination is this: It all happened in just four months! What was to be expected in four more years?

      There was a problem with retiring Dulles, though. Powerful people don’t have to accept retirement. Dulles now set up his own mini government, one that was outside normal channels, and unbeknownst to Kennedy.”
      — Jim DiEugenio, December 15, 2015

      • ”[Maxwell] Taylor was soon to recommend that 8,000 American combat troops be sent to the region at once. After making his report to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff, Taylor was to reflect on the decision to send troops to South Vietnam: “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do…. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.”[4] . . . “Robert Kennedy: His Life and Times” Arthur Schlesinger


    When we go through the litany of the comedy of errors of the so-called crime scene investigation, we are faced with a massive set of happenstance and coincidence that is simply impossible to swallow.

    And for our adversaries here to insist that we go through the check list of all these points again and again, it becomes obvious that theirs is a ‘war of attrition’, meant to wear us down, to create a puddle of mud where there is in fact a clear pool of reasoning showing all of their so called evidence is a bluff. All of it is stacked so precariously that the slightest jiggle of the base it sits upon makes it collapse like a house of cards.

    But the game trudges on, along with the ever hardening police state, morphed from a National Security State to a Panoptic Maximum Security State dedicated to Full Spectrum Dominance in a Global Tyranny.

    Meanwhile in the trenches of this mind-war, the fascist adversary sneers with glee at the seeming impasse they have constructed of rhetorical tripe. But it is all appearances, a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors in a fun-house in the carnival of deceptions.

  123. “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ~Edward Bernays – from his book, PROPAGANDA

  124. Gary Aguilar
    December 20, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    “In his book, “Hear No Evil,” (p.345-6) Don Thomas explores the question of momentum transfer from a Grassy Knoll shot as an explanation for JFK’s rearward jolt after Z-313:

    “For the purposes of this discussion let us suppose that the hypothetical killer on the grassy knoll was armed with a .30-.30 rifle … (which) happens to have a muzzle velocity (2200ft/sec) very close to that of the Carcano, and fires a 170 grain bullet, slightly larger than the Carcano bullet. At 30 yards the projectile would have struck at a velocity of approximately 2100 fps … the momentum on impact with the head would be 50 ft-lb/sec. If one postulates a hunting bullet (in accordance with the X-ray evidence) (sic) which is designed to mushroom and deposit its energy at the wound instead of a fully jacketed bullet, we will allow a deposit of 80% of the momentum, leaving a residual velocity for the exiting bullet. This results in a momentum applied to the target of 40 ft-lb/sec; considerably more than Sturdivan’s stingy allowance of 18.4 ft-lb/sec. It is important to realize that at the time Kennedy was struck with the fatal shot at Z-312-3, he had most likely been paralyzed by the shot through the base of the neck (Sturdivan agrees). Consequently, his head was lolling forward, not supported by the muscles of the neck. This fact tends to minimize any damping effect from the absorption of shock by the neck until after the head has snapped back. Assuming a head weight of 12 lbs, the velocity imparted to the head would be approximately 3.3 feet per second … .” (The same speed of the test skulls that Mr. Sturdivan reported in his book, though in JFK’s case it might have even been faster as most estimates put the weight of a human head at 10-11 lbs.)

    From the study of the Zapruder film by Josiah Thompson, the observed rearward velocity for the head was roughly 1.6 feet per second after frame 313.

    Thomas concludes, “Even given the uncertainty about the exact weight of the President’s head and the residual velocity of the bullet, the observed movement of the President’s head is well within the range, if anything less, than expected from the momentum imparted by the impact of a rifle bullet.” (“Hear No Evil,” p. 345-6.)

    If Sturdivan is right that jacketed MCC shells moved blasted skulls forward at 3 ft/sec, imagine how much faster skulls would move if hit with heavier, higher velocity, soft-nosed bullets; perhaps enough not only to move JFK’s skull “back to the left,” but also enough to even nudge his paralyzed upper body backward. For the Z film shows that JFK’s body doesn’t arch backward, as per the “neuromuscular” reactions that have been proposed by Warren loyalists, his head moves backward, with his upper body following along limply.

    Moreover, such a shot actually better explains that trail of tiny fragments along the upper part of JFK’s skull X-ray than a shot from behind.”

    • Gary Aguilar
      December 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm
      Jean writes, inter alia, “Other experts have agreed with them (about the rearward head snap after Z-313) in testimony to the Rockefeller Commission … .”

      Even without Dalbot’s “Devil’s Chessboard,” how can anyone ignore the absurdity of the govt appointing Rockefeller, of all people, to investigate the CIA’s crimes and misdeeds?

      And who was chosen “exective director?” Why, David Belin, someone who only “patriots” would consider objective.

      But, you may counter, Belin said that, “Since I had served as assistant counsel with the Warren Commission, I removed myself from the direct responsibility for any investigation pertaining to the assassination.” That, per usual, wasn’t precisely true. In 1988 he admitted that when Rockefeller’s medical experts convened to review JFK’s autopsy evidence, the irrepressible Belin personally attended that meeting, examining the autopsy photographs and X-rays right alongside his consultants.

      It was Wecht who first emphasized Belin’s Warren Commission roots. Wecht also charged that, “The (medical) panel itself is made up of people who have been associated with the Baltimore Medical Examiner’s Office, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, three facilities which either supplied the members of the original autopsy team or from which selected members of a previous panel had been appointed by the Justice Department in 1968 to defend the Warren Report.”

      Wecht’s unrestrained assertions were not without foundation. Rockefeller appointee Werner U. Spitz, MD, the Detroit Medical Examiner, was a close professional colleague of one of the Clark Panel members, Baltimore Medical Examiner Russell Fisher, MD, under whom Spitz had served for several years.[227] Richard Lindenberg, MD, a Baltimore-based, State of Maryland neuropathologist, was described in a once-secret Commission memo as having provided “consultation to the Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland [Russell Fisher] – but is subordinate to him.”[228] Panelist Fred Hodges, MD, a neuroradiologist, was picked from Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, the institution that had contributed Russell Morgan, MD, the radiologist who had made the X-ray mistakes discussed above as a Clark Panelist. Pathologist Lt. Col. Robert R. McMeeken, MC was appointed from Pierre Finck’s alma mater, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The Warren Commission consultant who had failed to note the marked discrepancies between the test skulls he shot up and JFK’s skull, Dr. Alfred Olivier, completed Rockefeller’s team of independent and impartial consultants.

      Among “patriots,” there seems to be the view that the rule, He who pays the fiddler calls the tune, just never applies to govt-appointed/paid “experts” who are tasked with investigating the govt. Were we talking about any other country, these same “patriots” would be the first to howl in derision at the conclusions of such a group.

      And that’s without specifying the stupefying errors and omissions that characterized the work of Rockefeller Comm’s “experts.”

      Further discussion, with hot-links to sources available, here:

  125. Mr Ball :Now, then, did you have any impression at that time as to the direction from which the sound came?

    Mr Frazier :Well to be frank with you I thought it come from down there, you know, where that underpass is. There is a series, quite a few number of them railroad tracks running together and from where I was standing it sounded like it was coming from down the railroad tracks there.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.234, 11 March 1964)

  126. Transcript of ARRB Staff Interview of Homer A. McMahon (Former CIA/NPIC Employee) conducted on
    July 14, 1997 at Archives II in College Park, Maryland
    Interviewers: Douglas P. Horne and T. Jeremy Gunn

    P. 22:
    McMahon: “Abraham Zapruder”—I never heard that, or if I did, I don’t
    remember it.
    Gunn (2:54): But, but right now, you’re not certain whether the film that you
    processed, or that you were involved in, ah, working with, was the
    Zapruder film?
    McMahon (3:03): Well, I’m told it was the only coverage they had of it, that that was
    “it.” No one else had photographed it. Now, I don’t know whether
    anyone else had, or whether this is the original, or—historic film.
    Gunn (3:18): OK, and, ah, what did, ah, Mr. Smith say had happened to the film
    prior to the time that he brought it, in terms of processing, where it
    had been, and how it had been processed.
    McMahon (3:33): OK, because of expedite and the, the expedite part, is, is in—they
    wanted to find out what happened, and they had, they had film,
    that was generously turned into them by a very patriotic person,
    and [they were] told that he would give it to them, because they—
    it might help in the investigation. That—this is what, what he was
    told—what I was told—and that it was of the utmost urgency. So
    he hand-carried it through; and flew to Rochester; and got it
    processed at the—the processing division there, and they were
    made aware that he was coming. Ah, and did it immediately for
    him, and I also think they made duplications of that, which I was
    told, and then he came back [to Washington D.C.], because they
    told him they couldn’t do what he wanted to get done, and that
    NPIC could do it. And it fell in our laps, and we did it.
    Gunn (4:55): What—when you said, “They couldn’t get done what needed to be
    done,” did you mean the enlargements, or was there some other—?
    McMahon: They, they didn’t have a, a laboratory that, that could do the
    quality of work that he wanted. He wanted maximum sharpness,
    the most “seeability” that, that he could get of the imagery, and
    that we were set up to do: and we were well beyond the state-ofthe-art
    in, in the quality that was turned out.
    Gunn: For the film of the, the assassination, was it your understanding
    that anything more had been done to it other than developing the
    original film and making some prints of the original film?

    Click to access HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf


      Gunn (20:22): That was—that was my next question—I had assumed that when
      you made the, the negatives, you were focusing just on the, on the
      single frames that would be in the assassination sequence. Do you
      have any recollection now as to anything that was in the other part
      of the, the double 8 picture, the part that is not in the assassination

      McMahon: Ah, I have senile dementia; I, I can’t remember, really—anything.
      Most of, of my reflections are, are, are what I have recalled and
      remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I
      recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works,
      but I do know that I—that I’m not—OK, I’m a recovering drug
      addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a “wet brain” is? You’re
      looking at one. I damn near died, and I’m not a competent witness,
      because I don’t have good recall—absolutely not—absolute recall.

      Gunn (21:41): With, with regard to the other events that you talked about, ah,
      what, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?

      McMahon: I just told you, I don’t, I don’t have a full deck. Ah [chuckling], I
      don’t know how, how accurate I am, I am presenting anything
      here. So, this is not—at the time I did it, I was not—I was not
      impaired, but I later became impaired. So, whether you’re talking
      to a reliable witness or not is up to you to decide [chuckling].

      — P. 29/30

      Click to access HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf


  127. The JFK Assassination: Why CIA’s Richard Helms Lied About Oswald
    Not Ancient History — But Preamble to the Present
    By Prof Peter Dale Scott — Global Research, December 24, 2015

    Why Helms Perjured Himself

    “I wish in this essay to show how Richard Helms first lied to the Warren Commission about the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald. I argue that his performance, and that of other CIA officials up to the present, constituted significant obstruction of justice with respect to one of this country’s most important unsolved murder cases.

    Furthermore, we can deduce from the carefully contrived wording of Helms’s lies what the CIA most needed to hide: namely, that the CIA had recently launched a covert operation involving the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (and perhaps Oswald himself), only five weeks before President Kennedy was killed.

    That operation—either in itself, or because it was somehow exploited by others—would appear to have become a supportive part of the assassination plot. It seems almost certain moreover that the “Oswald operation” became the focal point of the ensuing CIA cover-up, and of Helms’s perjury.

    As I relate in my book Dallas ’63: The First Revolt of the Deep State Against the White House, there was culpable lying and cover-up from many others in high places, including individuals in the FBI, the Secret Service, ONI, and probably still more military intelligence agencies.”

  128. “Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand.” ~ Benjamin Disraeli; Prime Minister of England

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    ~William Casey – 13th CIA Director

    “Everything you know is Wrong”~Elvis Shakespeare

  129. EXCUSES Incorporated
    Fumbling Bumbling Stupidity & Incompetence in the Investigation of the Murder of JFK

    From the beginning to the end, the same lame scenario of utter incompetence.

    From the alleged ‘”crime scene investigation” to the alleged “autopsy” to the alleged “inquiry” by the Warren Commission; a long and uninterrupted series of nonsense presented as the official narrative of the assassination of John F Kennedy. It is simply unbelievable. And anyone who does believe it is a fool.

  130. Loose Ends in Dallas and the House on Harlandale
    –Larry Hancock
    Further information dealing with Benavides, and the ties to DRE, and Tippit entangled as well, is utterly fascinating. It throws a whole new light on the situation.
    Especially the fact that Victor Murillo, who did volunteer translations for DRE, lived in a house with Domingo Benavides.
    A lot of interconnections with the anti-Castro Cuban community here, that are difficult to characterize as happenstance and coincidence.

    Who Was George Joannides?
    George Efthyron Joannides (1922–1990) was a CIA officer who had two significant links to the JFK assassination:
    He oversaw a group of anti–Castro Cubans with whom Lee Harvey Oswald came into contact in New Orleans three months before the assassination.
    In 1978, he was the CIA’s liaison with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
    Joannides’s employers kept his role in the assassination story secret from every official body which had anything to do with the assassination, in particular:
    the Warren Commission in 1964,
    the HSCA in 1977–79,
    and the Assassination Records Review Board in 1994–98.
    At the time of writing, the CIA is still withholding documents relating to Joannides.
    In the early 1960s, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (Revolutionary Student Directorate, also known as the Cuban Student Directorate) was perhaps the largest and most active group within the anti–Castro Cuban exile community in the USA. The DRE’s members deplored President Kennedy’s Cuban policies, which they considered to be insufficiently aggressive. The group’s activities ranged from propaganda within the US to terrorist attacks on the Cuban mainland.

  131. “When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009).

    The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries.

    The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10).

    Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”
    ~Sherry Fiester CSI

    • Penetrating gunshots to the head and lack of immediate incapacitation. I. Wound ballistics and mechanisms of incapacitation.
      Karger B1.

      There are two distinct mechanisms of ballistic injury. Crushing of tissue resulting in a permanent tract is the primary factor in wounding of most tissues and most body regions. Temporary cavitation causes radial tissue displacement and subsequent shearing, compression and especially stretching of tissue analogous to blunt trauma. In contrast to the effect in elastic tissue, temporary cavitation can contribute substantially to wounding of inelastic tissue, such as the brain. This is the case in penetrating gunshot wounds to the head. Additionally, the penetration of the bony cranium can produce secondary missiles in the form of bone or bullet fragments and a tendency of the bullet to deformation and early yaw. Most important, wounding resulting from temporary cavitation is greatly augmented by the confined space provided by the unyielding walls of the skull. Bone contact and enhanced effects of temporary cavitation result in an enlarged zone of disintegrated tissue and in high intracranial peak pressures. Morphological signs of powerful intracranial pressure effects are cortical contusion zones, indirect skull fractures and perivascular haemorrhages remote from the tract. Depending on ballistic and anatomical parameters, the intracranial effect varies from slightly more severe injury than in isolated soft tissue to an “explosive” type of injury with comminuted fractures of the skull and laceration of the brain. Incapacitation is the physiologically based inability to perform complex and longer lasting movements independent of consciousness or intention. Immediate incapacitation is possible following cranio-cerebral gunshot wounds or wounds that disrupt the upper cervical spinal cord only. Rapid incapacitation can be produced by massive bleeding from major vessels or the heart. Immediate incapacitation is the result of primary intracranial effects of the bullet. A mechanism similar to commotion cerebri applied extracranially does not exist in cases of penetrating gunshot wounds to the head.

    • Understanding Backspatter due to Skull Fracture from a Ballistic Projectile
      Raj Das1,*, Justin Fernandez2, Alistair Collins1, Anurag Verma1, Michael Taylor3
      Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 2
      Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 3
      Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR), Christchurch 8041, New Zealand
      * Corresponding author:


      In forensics, a challenge arises from relating observed evidence to the actual events. Specifically,
      in cranial wounds resulting from a gunshot, the study of backspatter patterns (material propagated opposite to the direction of the projectile) can provide information about the cause by linking material to the firearm, shooter or surrounding objects. Firstly, this study investigates the physics during backspatter from a high speed projectile impact by evaluating two skull simulant materials. Secondly, we evaluate the suitability of a mesh-free method called Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) to model the fracturing and splashing mechanism during backspatter.
      The study has shown that projectile impact causes fragmentation of material at the impact site, whilst
      transferring momentum to fragmented particles. The particles travel along the path of least resistance,
      leading to partial material movement in the reverse direction of the projectile causing backspatter. The
      amount of backspatter depends on the strain limit of each material and how rapidly the bullet hole closes.
      The path of resistance is dependent on the constitutive properties of the materials. MDF was found to be a
      better simulant for a human skull than polycarbonate as demonstrated by the backspatter pattern. SPH was a suitable numerical method for modeling the high speed impact fracture, fragmentation during backspatter.
      The simulation predictions agreed well to the experimental data of medium density fiberboard (MDF).
      Following a firearm discharge, “high velocity” blood spatter [4] is created and often characterised
      by a finely spattered pattern [2]. The spatter pattern is usually circular when the projectile is at right
      angles to the surface and a narrow elongated pattern forms when the projectile is at narrower angles
      [5]. These larger elongated patterns may be analysed to determine the angle of impact and origin [5,
      6]. The distance travelled by backspatter is reported as highly variable in the literature. For example,
      close gunshots to the head of live calves produced backspatter between 0-50 cm with a maximum
      distance of 119 cm [6]. A case study of an atypical gunshot wound by Verhoff and Karger [7]
      involved a suicide where extensive backspatter was observed to travel up to 4.6 m. Physical
      experiments from shots to a bloodied sponge covered in a rigid material resulted in backspatter
      travelling 30-60 cm [2, 4].
      The biological contents of backspatter include brain tissue, bone fragments, skin tissue, adipose
      tissues and blood. Factors affecting the pattern include muzzle to target distance, calibre of firearm
      [2] and anatomical location with most studies focused on the cranium.

      • A key series of experiments by German pathologist Bernd Karger stands out as the most comprehensive study of backspatter [3, 6, 9]. Nine live New Jersey calves (5-6 months old) destined for slaughter were shot in the right temple 10 cm horizontally below the right eye. Key findings included that backspatter results varied with each shot despite a controlled environment but the pattern was a consistent fine mist with every shot immediately after bullet impact. Synthetic models [2, 4] consisting of blood soaked sponges encased in outer coatings produced more reproducible baskspatter patterns, were inexpensive and avoided ethical issues. There are several case studies [7, 8, 10, 11] that describe backspatter in non-fatal human shootings, suicides, and homicides. These results can provide a specific situation to validate computational models.

        The three main mechanisms that are thought to contribute to backspatter include; (i) subcutaneous gas effects; (ii) temporary cavitation related to intracranial pressure; and (iii) tail splashing. In general, a combination of all three factors may cause backspatter. Subcutaneous gas effects result from pressurized gases during the muzzle discharge [12]. During close range shots the pressurised muzzle gases enter the wound produced by the bullet and become trapped in the subcutaneous space between the skin and skull. This causes ‘starburst or stellate’ entrance wounds in what is known as a ‘blow-out’ effect where the skin mushrooms and a pocket is created under the skin [2, 9]. The hot, pressurised gases expand within this pocket space and create a backwards streaming of gas escaping out of the entrance wound. The accelerating force from the escaping gas drives blood and soft tissue opposite to the direction of fire [2, 4, 9].

        Temporary cavitation related intracranial pressure occurs as a bullet passes through a medium creating a temporary cavity in its wake, a feature of all missile wounds [13]. In the case of a bullet wound to the head, a large temporary cavity would be created because of the low retentive forces of brain tissue [13]. The brain is contained within the rigid skull, and therefore as a temporary cavity expands a high pressure is created within the cranium. The high pressure within the cranium and the subsequent collapse of the temporary cavity creates a force to drive tissue and blood back out the entrance wound [7, 9]. Karger proposed that anatomical structures similar to liquid filled cavities provide the best conditions for temporary cavitation [14]. Fackler [15] believed that the collapse of a temporary cavity is the only mechanism that creates backspatter.

        The phenomenon of ‘tail-splash’ is the backwards streaming of destroyed material or fluid along the lateral surface of a high velocity bullet as it penetrates a dense medium [9, 13, 14]. Karger [14] suggested that ‘tail-splash’ occurs when a bullet penetrates the brain and lateral streaming of brain matter and blood occurs towards the line of fire. This is most closely related to the mechanism evaluated in this study.
        There have been numerous computational studies of high velocity impacts related to ballistics,

  132. Photon, is it because you are hysterical at this point? Or are you permanently impaired as far as reading comprehension is concerned? The words are on the page right before you:

    “Temporary cavitation related intracranial pressure occurs as a bullet passes through a medium creating a temporary cavity in its wake, A FEATURE OF ALL MISSILE WOUNDS.”

    • Michael Chesser DECEMBER 19, 2015 AT 7:01 PM
      “Let me correct the above – I’m not certain if President Kennedy was diagnosed as having osteoporosis. He was at high risk of having osteoporosis, after years of steroid therapy for Addison’s disease, and I think that I may have read speculation that he could have had osteoporosis. I took a cursory glance at his spinal x-rays at the presidential library, but I don’t remember if they revealed osteopenia. Regardless whether he did or didn’t have osteoporosis, osteoporosis does not affect the skull.”

      Skull Bone’s Resistance To Osteoporosis Opens Way For New Treatment, Prevention:

      Why Skull Bone is Special Bone
      Dr Ian McKay, Queen Mary University of London

  133. According to this “encyclopedia of forensic science”: “The amount of blood in
    the forward spatter will be greater than that of the back spatter and will
    travel a greater distance”~Jean Davison

    This is so, the so-called “forward spatter” from the direction the bullet is traveling is the most dramatic. In the JFK head shot, that is the explosion above his head; not in the direction of the bullet, but from overpressures caused from within the skull: Cavitation of the brain matter and cracking the skull, and then collapse of the skull in what could be termed “implosion” — all attributes of a supersonic missile entering the head.

    “These seem to be two good reasons to doubt that what we see in Z313 is “back spatter.” If I missed anything in the context surrounding these quotes, please point it out.”~Ibid

    Just prior to the large dramatic explosion of Kennedy’s head there is a nod of the head forward and a brief spray of blood that comes from the entry wound in his right temple. That is the BACKSPATTER.
    Both points; the movement into the oncoming bullet just as it first touches the skull, and the resulting backspatter are the signal indicators of a wound of entry at that point.
    Close analysis of the Z-film has shown the nod forward, before the violent movement back of Kennedy’s head, and the fine mist just prior are recognizable in that film sequence.

  134. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on the JFKfacts thread concerning ballistics.

    The most obvious one to me is the matter of a supersonic missile. Most people understand the concept of what causes a “sonic boom” when a supersonic aircraft travels overhead at a speed faster than that of sound — “breaking the sound barrier” – if not they should look up the terms and understand what causes a sonic boom. It is the same mechanism that is involved with a bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound. The bullet is ahead of a pressure wave. By the time the bullet has passed, the pressure wave behind it effects whatever material that bullet may have passed through, creating in effect a “sonic boom” within that material.

    In terms of human flesh, this ‘sonic boom’, the overpressure following the path of the bullet, causes an expansion within the flesh AFTER the bullet has passed through it. It is the collapse of that temporary cavitation that causes BACKSPATTER to be ejected from the entry point of that missile.

    In the case of a head wound that overpressure takes place in an enclosed space, causing the skull to crack from the cavitation, the backspatter ejects from the entry in the same fashion as from a body wound. But the effects on a skull are dramatic because of the “brisance” of the explosion; that is the ‘overpressure’ taking place in a sealed container.

    This is the same mechanics that causes a bullet to fire from the casing, the overpressure within the casing ejects the bullet forward and through the barrel of a gun.

  135. Willy Whitten — December 31, 2015 at 3:10 pm

    “Sorry, Willy, these anatomy diagrams put T1 below the neck crease and T3 below the wound’s location”~Jean Davison

    Sorry Jean,
    T-1 is exactly where I described it:

    The line from the shoulder to the neck runs from the tip of the shoulder where the humerus, the clavicle, and the spatula meet, ending right at T1, the crease in the neck.
    . . .
    You are fooled by the angle of POV and the unnatural way Kennedy’s head is being pulled back. The wound is clearly some three inches from the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck.

    The trapezius makes a smooth arch from deltoid to the occipital which can make it difficult to imagine the underlying bony structures – but in a man of Kennedy’s age, the wrinkles have become deep and permanent giving good hallmarks to see how his neck articulated.

    Put your finger on T-1 while looking forward, hold it there and look up. You will feel the skin of your neck fold over your finger at that point.
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    Kennedy’s back wound was at The Third Thoracic Vertebra.

  136. Rose Cherami

    Rose Cherami. New Orleans arrest photo.
    Rose Cherami.
    New Orleans arrest photo.
    One of the most well-known stories of foreknowledge in the Kennedy assassination is that of Rose Cherami (often spelled “Cheramie”), whose real name was Melba Christine Marcades.
    On November 20, 1963, Cherami was struck by a car on Highway 190 near Eunice, Lousiana. She told police Lt. Francis Fruge she had been traveling with two men from Florida to Dallas, as part of a drug run, but had been thrown out of the Silver Slipper Lounge after an argument, after which she had been run over. After exhibiting drug withdrawal symptoms, Fruge took her to Jackson East Louisiana State Hospital.
    On the journey there, Fruge later told the HSCA, Rose Cherami told the story of her companions and the argument, and then when asked about her business in Dallas, she said she intended to “number one, pick up some money, pick up her baby, and kill Kennedy.” She reportedly subsequently told hospital nurses, moments before JFK was killed, that the murder was about to happen. A few days later, she told Fruge that Oswald was a friend of Jack Ruby, for whom she said she worked as a stripper and dope runner.
    Dr. Victor Weiss, who treated Cherami, told Jim Garrison’s investigators in 1967 that he had heard Rose’s predictions about the Kennedy assassination. In his testimony to the HSCA Dr. Weiss was clear that he had heard this before Kennedy’s assassination, though the initial 1967 contact report notes that “Dr. Weiss states that he doesn’t recall whether this was told to him before or after the assassination.”
    While working for the Garrison investigation, Lt. Francis Fruge tracked down the owner of the Silver Slipper Lounge, Mac Manual. Manual remembered the incident clearly, and picked out as Rose’s companions mug shots of Cuban exile Sergio Arcacha Smith and a man Fruge remembered as “Osanta” (Emilio Santanta?).
    On September 4, 1965, Rose Cherami was again a victim of a car accident. This time her skull was crushed and she was killed, near Big Sandy, Texas.

  137. I counter with this, which is a far more appropriate question; What could be the motive of anyone to disparage the “authenticity of the best visual evidence of Kennedy’s assassination?’

    As I have noted the transparencies used to make these 4K scans are at least three, perhaps four or five generations from the original frames of the film. I asked you if you comprehended the gravity of such compounded contrast that would build up in a 3rd generation copy.

    You did not answer, nor even acknowledge my question. So I will answer now what the results of such compound contrast would to to an image, The darkest portions would get darker. especially black, at the same time the brights would be brighter. As these two properties work together what happens is ‘border-lining’ as the contrast separates the and saturates the light densities. In effect and put to context in our conversation here, what this means is the black areas of Kennedy’s head would become separate “blobs” , shape-shifting as the angle and POV changed.

    I will also add that the issues of the witness testimonies concerning the alleged “Limousine Stop”, are addressed in the long list of commentary following the initial post on the technical matters of the Z-film, on my blog.

    As well I go into the medical issues. All of this is drawn together at one place for a comprehensive defense of the Zapruder Film as an authentic representation of the Kennedy Assassination:

  138. The Harper Fragment Revisited – and JFK’s Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis – Part 2
    By David W. Mantik
    * * * * * *
    After reading this and watching the video above, I have to say I disagree with some substantial points from both of these doctors.
    I do not agree there were two shots to the head. I do not agree that the bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and out through his throat.
    The analysis of the Zapruder film was good though, making some very strong points, especially about Jackie picking up part of JFK’s skull on the trunk and Agent Hill actually sliding it to her before he gets onto the car all the way.


  139. > Experts have skills and knowledge in a topic.

    > Authorities have the power to regulate and create rules, and enforce them. Authorities often are not experts themselves, but rely on select experts for opinions.

  140. Tom S.
    January 15, 2016 at 6:17 pm
    Primary sources? Oh, God! I provided “housed” docs for everything not covered in an obit or
    in a NOLA city directory, verifying every detail I quoted of Joan Mellen, except an association of
    Baldwin’s attorney-brother Edward with CIA, or the actual manuscript of Stephen Tyler’s “saves the
    agency, shoe-leather” from Tyler’s Jesse Core interview, (I do not know the details of Core’s confirmation
    of his CIA status that was actually recorded on film or video by Tyler, but his (Tyler’s) ARRB interview is on
    a page on your website, Dr. McAdams.)
    My intent here is to publicly display, that yours and Photon’s interpretation’s of Shaw’s involvement with
    CIA and CIA’s role in obstructing Garrison’s investigation, is not what a reasonable person, exposed to these details and supporting cites would surmise, and if a reasonable person leaned toward your opinions,
    the confidence asserted by both yourself and Photon, vs. the facts would still seem unreasonable.
    It is troubling to me that Jesse Core provided the most detail to the FBI related to Oswald’s pamphlet
    distribution. My concern, considering the evidence, is reasonable.
    I find Joan Mellen very reliable, especially compared to your confidence about Shaw’s relationship with the CIA. I fact check her claims, and when I have a question, I ask her directly for clarification. You smear her with a wide, dismissive brush, yet the Wikipedia bio of Clay Shaw is what it is, as are all key Wikipedia articles related to the JFK assassination. Connally’s dead daughter, Kathleen, has been spirited completely out of Connally’s Wikipedia bio at least twice, yet permitted to be mentioned on Nellie’s bio page.
    What is your “side” so afraid of? You constantly make white or black demands or “well, that doesn’t mean” dismissals, instead of doing what has been drawn out of you a bit, today. Actual discussion. It is a good thing that you are amenable to at least a mention now, of the CIA in Shaw’s Wikipedia bio. Your “side” is certainly predictable.:
    2012 Garrison smear article.:
    No mention of the CIA until a comment below the article, Garrison’s son comments, complaining that the local newspaper refuses to print his letter to the editor in response to the article smearing his father and beatifying Clay Shaw.
    I get it….your “side” won. You own the outcome, but is accurate information allowed in if inserted with tweezers?

      • In a committee deposition, Gaudet testified that his contact
        > with the CIA was primarily as a source of information (obtained during
        > his trips abroad). In addition, he explained that he occasionally per-
        > formed errands for the Agency. (172) Gaudet stated that his last
        > contact with the CIA was in 1969, although the relationship had never
        > been formally terminated. (173)
        “This very similar to the situation with Clay Shaw and what I have been
        pointing out to certain people who just don’t seem to know much about how
        the intelligence community works. Gaudet’s (Shaw’s) formal relationship
        ends but he maintains a friendly, casual relationship with the CIA, ready,
        willing, and able to perform whatever little errands might be needed. My
        father had the same type of relationship with the CIA after he resigned
        from the NSA in 1955. And it seems that certain people here are not
        familiar with the jargon and dynamics of things like the “old-boy
        network.” Someone does not have to list something in the files when he
        calls up an old friend and asks for a favor.”~Anthony Marsh!msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Grk49Jrf8Dw/wV_pPUlDTMYJ

  141. “give a man a mask and he’ll tell you the truth.”~Oscar Wilde

    “He took a face from the ancient gallery and walked down the hall.”~Jim Morrison

    “I feel like a spring lamb.”~Clay Shaw, upon being found innocent at Garrison trial.

    In December 1973, former CIA officer Victor Marchetti went public with information that fanned the embers. Marchetti, executive assistant to the Deputy Director of CIA before his 1969 resignation, had been present at several high‑level meetings in which DCI Helms expressed sympathy for Shaw’s predicament. Marchetti overheard Helms instructing General Counsel Houston to help Shaw, consistent with the Agency’s interests. Marchetti aired this information shortly before publishing his 1974 exposé.

  142. Walter Sheridan
    Walter James Sheridan (20 November 1925 – 13 January 1995)
    Sheridan was born in 1925 in Utica, New York.[3][4] During World War II he served in the US Navy’s Submarine Service,[3] and according to some sources worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence.[5] After the war he benefited from the G.I. Bill, graduating from Fordham University in 1950.[1]
    Sheridan joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation, resigning after four years over J. Edgar Hoover’s focus on anti-Communism.[4] As Sheridan later put it, “Hoover was more interested in guys who were Communists for 15 minutes in 1931 than he was in guys who were stealing New Jersey.”[1] He was then a National Security Agency investigator for three years.[1][4]

    • Edward M. Baldwin’s former law partner, Judge Malcolm V. O’Hara testified to Orlean’s Parish grand jury:
      “…He (Edward M. Baldwin) enumerated or spelled out his personal dislike for Jim Garrison, that he personally thought he should be destroyed, that Sheridan’s mission in the City of New Orleans with this so-called documentary was to end the problem, destroy Garrison or to get him to resign.”

      >> Let’s repeat that so it sinks in:

      “that Sheridan’s sole mission in the City of New Orleans with this so-called documentary was to end the problem, destroy Garrison or get him to resign….”

  143. After 1953, the network was overseen by Allen W. Dulles, director of the CIA. By this time, Operation Mockingbird had a major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.

    The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan [i.e. the rebuilding of Europe by the U.S. after WWII]. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers.
    In 2008, the New York Times wrote:

    During the early years of the cold war, [prominent writers and artists, from Arthur Schlesinger Jr. to Jackson Pollock] were supported, sometimes lavishly, always secretly, by the C.I.A. as part of its propaganda war against the Soviet Union. It was perhaps the most successful use of “soft power” in American history.

    A CIA operative told Washington Post editor Philip Graham … in a conversation about the willingness of journalists to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories:

    You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.
    Famed Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977:

    More than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty?five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.


    In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.


    Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were [the heads of CBS, Time, the New York Times, the Louisville Courier?Journal, and Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include [ABC, NBC, AP, UPI, Reuters], Hearst Newspapers, Scripps?Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald?Tribune.


    There is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements.


    The CIA even ran a formal training program in the 1950s to teach its agents to be journalists. Intelligence officers were “taught to make noises like reporters,” explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management.


    Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.


    Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.


    In the 1950s and early 1960s, Time magazine’s foreign correspondents attended CIA “briefing” dinners similar to those the CIA held for CBS.


    When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according to CIA sources. “It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,” said a former deputy director of the Agency. “Frank Wisner dealt with him.” Wisner, deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency’s premier orchestrator of “black” operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner liked to boast of his “mighty Wurlitzer,” a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played, with help from the press.)


    In November 1973, after [the CIA claimed to have ended the program], Colby told reporters and editors from theNew York Times and the Washington Star that the Agency had “some three dozen” American newsmen “on the CIA payroll,” including five who worked for “general?circulation news organizations.” Yet even while the Senate Intelligence Committee was holding its hearings in 1976, according to high?level CIA sources, the CIA continued to maintain ties with seventy?five to ninety journalists of every description—executives, reporters, stringers, photographers, columnists, bureau clerks and members of broadcast technical crews. More than half of these had been moved off CIA contracts and payrolls but they were still bound by other secret agreements with the Agency. According to an unpublished report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by Representative Otis Pike, at least fifteen news organizations were still providing cover for CIA operatives as of 1976.


    Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists is on the low side ….

    “There were a lot of representations that if this stuff got out some of the biggest names in journalism would get smeared” ….

      by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, Introduction
      by Melvin L. Wulf
      © 1974, 1980, by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks


      (inscribed on the marble wall of the main lobby

      Click to access The-CIA-and-the-Cult-of-Intelligence.pdf

      It is a peculiarly odious concept: the idea that any government body—even the CIA—should be permitted to exist beyond the reach of the Constitution and public control.


    • “There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult—the cult of intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government. Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important public influence—the academic world and the communications media. The cult of intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy.”~Victor Marchetti & John Marks

  144. Government is more than a territorial monopoly on aggressive force. It’s also the heir to a centuries-old manufactured mystique, reinforced through its schools and other institutions, regarding its sanctity and sacrosanctity. The mystique is generated by and tends to manifest itself in the dogma that one’s State is uniquely virtuous and deserves to be judged by standards applicable to no one and nothing else. This is hardly less true of secular states than it was during the time of the divine right of kings. In some important ways, people have not gotten over that principle.

    It long been recognized that governments cannot reign merely through brute force. There are too few rulers. So they need help in achieving popular compliance, and they find it in ideology. It is state ideology, the indispensable dogma, that creates the aura of sanctity. Where once people believed the ruler was the deity’s representative, in today’s democratic republics, they believe their rulers are their representatives. But it’s the same scam, perpetrated by rulers and their high priests in the intelligentsia, to maximize subordination and minimize resistance.

    Ideology in this context means something much deeper than what is usually meant. It does not refer to the approaches known as “conservatism” and “liberalism,” or the differences between those who want “big government” and those who want “limited government.” It refers rather to the deeper view that The State with its authority to threaten and wield violence is indispensable and intrinsically virtuous, as nothing else can be. Therefore it is not to be judged as we judge other people and institutions. When someone does wrong in office – a Nixon, say – it is chalked up as an abuse of power. Power itself is beyond reproach.

  145. “Since the CIA did not have the power to arrest anyone in the U.S., Murphy, Helms and Houston then went to the Justice Department and asked Deputy U.S. Attorney-General Nicholas Katzenbach for legal approval from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to imprison Nosenko. Nosenko had been brought into the U.S. on “parole” to the CIA, and, on this basis, Kennedy authorized the detention of Nosenko.”

    Horseshit! Nicholas Katzenbach approved it. Katzenbach was considered THE Attorney-General by the fascists, even though RFK was still in office. Just like Abe Fortes referring to the “Attorney-general recommended Alan Dulles to the Warren Commission” he meant Katzenbach – NOT Robert Kennedy. Just like “The President approved…” in NSAM 273, written on November 21st in Hawaii meant Johnson – NOT JFK. The Kennedy’s were already OUT according to the fascist sons-of-bitches who killed them both.

    It is funny – not “haha” but peculiar; that I woke up with these ‘revelations’ in my mind, and then got sent that article on Nosenko with the quote above in it.

    And I am as certain as I am sitting here that I am correct in this ‘interpretation’.

    PS, Who uses the term “factoid”? You KNOW where that article originates!

  146. Grand Jury Questioning of William Gurvich:

    Click to access Gurvich2.pdf

    (This is most interesting, I think it shows the duplicity of this character Gurvich. He has nothing of substance to offer in his charges that Garrison did anything unethical or illegal, and he will NOT state anything for the record under oath here to validate those public charges he had made.~ww)
    . . . .
    Who’s Who in the Jim Garrison Case

  147. This is relevant to the planting of the pistol on Oswald in the Texas Theater in 1963.
    I wouldn`t call that a hammer block safety, that is a transfer bar. Older Smith&Wesson’s with the firing pin on the hammer had a hammer block safety.
    Rossi .38 Sp.
    If, for any reason, the hammer of the revolver needs to be decocked,
    please follow the next steps: first, make sure the barrel is pointed in a
    safe direction. With the thumb, press firmly on the serrated spur of the
    hammer. While pressing on the hammer, carefully squeeze the trigger
    until you feel the hammer release. Then slowly and carefully, return
    the hammer softly to its rest position. This procedure should first be
    tried on an unloaded revolver. The hammer should not be cocked
    unless absolutely ready to shoot.

    Click to access Rossi_Manual_Revolvers.pdf

    . . . . . .
    How a Revolver’s Hammer Block Safety Works

    The video was a demonstration on a .38 special.
    Oswald’s pistol was a .38 SW (Smith&Wesson) those pistols had a similar hammer-block safety mechanism, but the firing pin was actually hit by the hammer. The same manner of setting the hammer-block, of half cocking and letting go of the trigger while easing the hammer back in half-cock position was still the same operation.

    . . . . .
    There is no difference between a .38 ACP and a .308 but the name. They are both the same size bullet built to be fired in an semiautomatic handgun.

    See: C. Cunningham 2 – pg 483 forward…
    Also see:
    The Beretta Model 1934 is a compact, semi-automatic pistol which was issued as a standard service firearm to the Italian armed forces beginning in 1934. It is chambered for the 9 mm Corto, more commonly known as the .380 ACP.

  148. In 1967, before the Clay Shaw trial began, NBC broadcast a documentary on the case, which Garrison defenders generally agree was an attempt to discredit the prosecutor. The documentary’s producer, Walter Sheridan, appeared on the program and said, “In my conversations with Perry Russo he has stated that his testimony against Clay Shaw may be a combination of truth, fantasy, and lies.”

    Russo, however, said Sheridan “was not investigating any facts. His only purpose was – and he stated it pointedly – he said, ‘I’m going to take Garrison out of this.’ He says, ‘You’re going down with him.'”

    Russo said that Sheridan offered to relocate him, get him a job, and protect him from extradition. In exchange for that, Russo said, Sheridan wanted him to retract his identification of Shaw and his testimony about the party attended by Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald, where Russo said an assassination plot was discussed.

    “What Walter Sheridan was asking me to do was an absolute lie,” Russo said. “Shaw was there. Ferrie was there. Oswald was there.”

    Click to access Item%2085.pdf


    • The JFK Assassination; The Jim Garrison Tapes, Part 9

      “Shaw was introduced to me as Bertrand”~Perry Russo @ 4:45

      “The judges in the Clay Shaw trial ruled the Warren Report “hearsay.”~F. Irvin Dymond, the lawyer who attempted to introduce it.
      The JFK Assassination; The Jim Garrison Tapes, Part 10 @ 1:36 into video.


    • The JFK Assassination; The Jim Garrison Tapes, Part 10
      Perry Russo explaining how Sheridan had tried to dupe him into ducking out on Garrison: @ 8:30 min mark.


  149. The Case of Jim Garrison Versus the Free Press
    by Tamara Naccarato

    Yet, the criticism which Stone and the movie have recently undergone suggest that the press is still highly critical of Jim Garrison. Indeed, the Times’ article, which begins with a discussion of the movie JFK, immediately moves on to discuss the theories of a communist and a mafia conspiracy. The article labels Garrison’s government conspiracy as the “most bizarre” and points out that critics argue that it is a “paranoid vision of America, one in which a fascist elite murdered the president.”

    Click to access TheCaseofJimGarrisonVersustheFreePress.pdf


  150. “Helms, who had become Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) in 1966, asked Ray Rocca, chief of Research & Analysis for the CI Staff, to stay abreast of the situation. During the lull, a lively debate took place between the CI Staff and the DCS over what to do. The latter argued against devoting more time and effort to what already seemed to be a “sensational hoax.” Rocca, however, wanted to stay ahead of the disclosure curve, and ultimately his position prevailed. The CIA intensified its monitoring weeks before Garrison actually trained his sights on the Agency. “We regret to have to burden you with this sort of coverage,” wrote DCS Chief Murphy in a 20 March letter to the New Orleans office, “but [it] could be damaging to the Agency if some link could be exploded by enterprising news hounds.”[25]”

    Unbeknownst to the Agency, Garrison had been convinced by the Paese Sera article that Shaw was linked to the CIA; that association, in turn, implicated the CIA in a cover-up of the Kennedy assassination. A diary kept by Richard Billings, a LIFE editor who worked closely with the DA in the early stages of the investigation, corroborates the timing and impact of the foreign disinformation on Garrison. Billings’s entry for 16 March, less than two weeks after the publication of the first Paese Sera article, notes that, “Garrison now interested in possible connections between Shaw and the CIA…article in March issue Humanities [l’Humanité] supposedly mentions Shaw’s company [CIA] work in Italy.”[26] Six days later, the DA had at least one of the articles in hand. Garrison “has copy [of story about Shaw] datelined Rome, March 7th, from la presse Italien [sic],” Billings records. “It explains Shaw working in Rome in ‘58 to ‘60 period.”[27]

    The New Orleans States-Item exclusive confirmed the Agency’s worst fears. Just as the media were beginning to catch on that Garrison’s case was flimsy, the DA was moving to draw the CIA into the maelstrom. In a long memo prepared on 26 April, Rocca concluded that it would be “unwise to dismiss as trivial any attempts by Garrison to link the Agency to his plot.” Though it is impossible to discern what the New Orleans DA “knows or thinks he knows,” wrote Rocca, the grim truth, given the Ramparts exposé, was that the “impact of such charges…will not depend principally upon their veracity or credibility but rather upon their timeliness and the extent of press coverage.”[34] From this point on, Garrison would not utter a word without it being parsed inside Agency headquarters. (Bolding mine)
    Despite the surface placidity of the CIA’s “no comment” responses, internally the Agency was seething. The “Red Flash” and “Red Comet” editions of the New Orleans States-Item, in particular, were received with the kind of enthusiasm normally reserved for Pravda. The CIA had weathered public debacles like the Bay of Pigs and the Ramparts exposé; had deflected criticism in the press and from books; and had resisted attempts to broaden Congressional oversight. Never in its 20-year existence, however, had it confronted such a challenge from an elected public official with legal, albeit limited, authority. Garrison’s allegations— the “grossest we have seen from any responsible American official”—gave the Agency fits, just as they did Shaw and Shaw’s lawyers.[37] For months, the tactics of what Rocca called “that wild man down there” preoccupied senior CIA officers. When Shaw’s trial appeared imminent, DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”[38]
    [38, Memorandum for the Record, Garrison Group Meeting No. 1, 20 September 1967, Box 46, Russell Holmes Papers, JFK NARA.]

    Ray, the New Orleans DCS chief, sent reports back to headquarters about efforts to goad the Agency into a reaction that would be good for a few more headlines. Ray also expressed concern over the possibility that Garrison might bug DCS offices or tap its telephones, so a secure communications link with CIA headquarters was established. As the “bizarre and unsubstantiated” campaign to implicate the CIA reached a fever pitch in the late spring, an Agency internal memo dated 6 June observed that Garrison had “attacked CIA more vehemently, viciously and mendaciously than has any other American official or private citizen whose comments have come to our attention. In fact, he [has] outstripped the foreign Communist press, which is now quoting him delightedly.”[39] Left-leaning and Communist organs presented Garrison’s allegations as affirmation of America’s deeply confused and corrupt political system. The KGB delighted in such Garrison quotes as one saying that the CIA was “infinitely more powerful than the Gestapo [had been] in Nazi Germany.”[40]

    With the benefit of hindsight, it is apparent that the Agency never gained its footing amid Garrison’s blizzard of accusations, even though there were scattered clues as to what was going on behind the scenes.[41] On 1 May, for example, Jack Miller, a former assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, called the CIA’s general counsel to offer some intelligence that had come to Miller “from within Garrison’s office.” Miller’s inside information was that a “left-wing newspaper published in Rome, the Paese Sera,” was the source for the story that Shaw was a director of the CMC and that the CMC was a “CIA organization.” Miller apparently did not know, or did not convey, how much importance Garrison attached to the ostensible revelation. There is no evidence that the CI Staff followed up on his inside information.[42]

    42. Memo for the Record, Report Concerning Garrison-Kennedy-CIA, 1 May 1967, Box 84, HSCA/CIA Collection, JFK NARA. Miller’s source was Walter Sheridan, then a reporter for NBC News and formerly a top aide to Attorney General Robert Kennedy.
    . . . . .

    Russell Holmes Papers
    Background on the Papers of Russell Holmes

    List of Folder Titles in the Holmes Papers
    Background on the Russell Holmes Papers

    The Russell Holmes papers consist of 50,000 pages of CIA documents maintained by Holmes in his role as the custodian of the Oswald 201 file, as well as the Segregated Collection of CIA records compiled for the investigation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Holmes was the CIA liaison for all inquiries on the assassination after the end of the HSCA investigation until his retirement.

    For questions about these records or copying information, please write to the Special Access and FOIA Staff at the National Archives at College Park, Room 6350, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001, call at (301) 837-3190, or e-mail:


    • Under oath in the Clay Shaw trial, Sciambra insisted that Russo had mentioned seeing Shaw a third time — at the “assassination party.” Sciambra explained that he had simply neglected to mention that in the memo.

      “Assistant District Attorney Andrew Sciambra talked to Russo in Baton Rouge on Feb. 25. Back in New Orleans the next day Sciambra gave the following account of what Russo told him:
      Russo said, he had known Ferrie since 1962, when they made a deal to market pornographic films. Ferrie, who often hung around with tough-looking Cubans, talked openly of an assassination during the summer of 1963, but President Kennedy was not named as the target.

      Then, at Ferrie’s apartment in September, Russo was introduced to a roommate. He described this roommate as “a man in his middle 20s with dirty blond hair and a scrubby beard, a typical beatnik.” At the meeting an assassination was discussed, and Kennedy was to be the victim.”
      –Richard Billings article “How ‘JFK plot’ exploded in press” in the April 16, 1968 Chicago Daily News.

    • “Helms’s testimony reveals that the CIA’s Counterintelligence (CI) Staff had a sophisticated understanding of how dezinformatsiya worked by no later than 1961.”

      Of course CIA understood “dezinformatsiya”, the CIA was expert at disinformation themselves, from the days of OSS and the Second World War.
      . . . .
      Modus Operandi
      ˌmōdəs ˌäpəˈrandē/
      a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.
      “the volunteers were instructed to buy specific systems using our usual modus operandi—anonymously and with cash”
      synonyms: method (of working), way, MO, manner, technique, style, procedure, approach, methodology, strategy, plan, formula; formal praxis; the way something operates or works.

  151. Jim Garrison Interview
    Playboy magazine, October 1967

    “President Kennedy was killed for one reason: because he was working for a reconciliation with the U.S.S.R. and Castro’s Cuba. His assassins were a group of fanatic anti-Communists and Cuban exiles.”~Garrison

    “To read the press accounts of my investigation — my “circus,” I should say — I’m a cross between Al Capone and Attila the Hun, ruthlessly hounding innocent men, trampling their legal rights, bribing and threatening witnesses and in general violating every canon of legal ethics. My God, anybody who employs the kind of methods that elements of the news media attribute to me should not only not be a district attorney, he should be disbarred. This case has taught me the difference between image and reality, and the power of the mythmakers. But I know I’ve done everything possible to conduct this investigation with honesty and integrity and with full respect for the civil rights of the defendant. But a blanket denial of charges against me isn’t going to convince anyone, so why don’t we consider them one by one?
    GARRISON: Your faith in NBC’s veracity is touching and indicates that the Age of Innocence is not yet over. NBC does not have the real Clay Bertrand; the man whose name NBC so melodramatically turned over to the Justice Department is that of Eugene Davis, a New Orleans bar owner, who has firmly denied under oath that he has ever used the name Clay, or Clem, Bertrand. We know from incontrovertible evidence in our possession who the real Clay Bertrand is — and we will prove it in court. But to make this whole thing a little clearer, let me tell you the genesis of the whole “Clay Bertrand” story. A New Orleans lawyer, Dean Andrews, told the Warren Commission that a few months before the assassination of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald and a group of “gay Mexicanos” came to his office and requested Andrews’ aid in having Oswald’s Marine Corps undesirable discharge changed to an honorable discharge; Oswald subsequently returned alone with other legal problems. Andrews further testified that the day after President Kennedy was assassinated, he received a call from Clay Bertrand, who asked him to rush to Dallas to represent Oswald. Andrews claims he subsequently saw Bertrand in a New Orleans bar, but Bertrand fled when Andrews approached him. This was intriguing testimony, although the Warren Commission dismissed it out of hand; and in 1964, Mark Lane traveled to New Orleans to speak to Andrews. He found him visibly frightened. “I’ll take you to dinner,” Andrews told Lane, “but I can’t talk about the case. I called Washington and they told me that if I said anything, I might get a bullet in the head.” For the same reason, he has refused to cooperate with my office in this investigation. The New York Times reported on February 26th that “Mr. Andrews said he had not talked to Mr. Garrison because such talk might be dangerous, but added that he believed he was being ‘tailed.'” Andrews told our grand jury that he could not say Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand and he could not say he wasn’t. But the day after NBC’s special, Andrews broke his silence and said, yes, Clay Shaw is not Clem Bertrand and identified the real Clay Bertrand as Eugene Davis. The only trouble is, Andrews and Davis have known each other for years and have been seen frequently in each other’s company. Andrews has lied so often and about so many aspects of this case that the New Orleans Parish grand jury has indicted him for perjury. I feel sorry for him, since he’s afraid of getting a bullet in his head, but he’s going to have to go to trial for perjury. [Andrews has since been convicted.]”~Ibid

    PLAYBOY: You expressed your reaction to the NBC show in concrete terms on July seventh, when you formally charged Walter Sheridan, the network’s special investigator for the broadcast, with attempting to bribe your witness Perry Russo. Do you really have a case against Sheridan, or is this just a form of harassment?

    GARRISON: The reason we haven’t lost a major case in over five years in office is that we do not charge a man unless we can make it stick in court. And I’m not in the business of harassing anybody. Sheridan was charged because evidence was brought to us indicating that he attempted to bribe Perry Russo by offering him free transportation to California, free lodgings and a job once there, payment of all legal fees in any extradition proceedings and immunity from my office. Mr. Russo has stated that Sheridan asked his help “to wreck the Garrison investigation” and “offered to set me up in California, protect my job and guarantee that Garrison would never get me extradited.” According to Russo, Sheridan added that both NBC and the CIA were out to scuttle my case. I think it’s significant that the chief investigator for this ostensibly objective broadcast starts telling people the day he arrives in town that he is going to “destroy Garrison” — this at the same time he is unctuously assuring me that NBC wanted only the truth and he had an entirely open mind on my case. Let me tell you something about Walter Sheridan’s background, and maybe you’ll understand his true role in all this. Sheridan was one of the bright, hard young investigators who entered the Justice Department under Bobby Kennedy. He was assigned to nail Jimmy Hoffa. Sheridan employed a wide variety of highly questionable tactics in the Justice Department’s relentless drive against Hoffa; he was recently subpoenaed to testify in connection with charges that he wire-tapped the offices of Hoffa’s associates and then played back incriminating tapes to them, warning that unless they testified for the Government, they would be destroyed along with Hoffa. A few years ago, Sheridan left the Justice Department — officially, at least — and went to work for NBC. No honest reporter out for a story would have so completely prejudged the situation and been willing to employ such tactics. I think it’s likely that in his zeal to destroy my case, he exceeded the authority granted him by NBC’s executives in New York. I get the impression that the majority of NBC executives probably thought Sheridan’s team came down here in an uncompromising search for the truth. When Sheridan overstepped himself and it became obvious that the broadcast was, to say the least, not objective, NBC realized it was in a touchy position. Cooler heads prevailed and I was allowed to present our case to the American people. For that, at least, I’m singularly grateful to Walter Sheridan.

    • “Finally, I put aside all other business and started to wade through the Warren Commission’s own 26 volumes of supportive evidence and testimony. That was the clincher. It’s impossible for anyone possessed of reasonable objectivity and a fair degree of intelligence to read those 26 volumes and not reach the conclusion that the Warren Commission was wrong in every one of its major conclusions pertaining to the assassination. For me, that was the end of innocence.”~Jim Garrison — Playboy Interview
      PLAYBOY: Can you answer a charge about your case against him? On March second of this year, shortly after Shaw’s arrest, Attorney General Ramsey Clark announced that Shaw “was included in an investigation in November and December of 1963 and on the evidence that the FBI has, there was no connection found between Shaw and the President’s assassination.” Why do you challenge the Attorney General’s statement?

      GARRISON: Because it was not true. The FBI did not clear Clay Shaw after the assassination. You don’t have to take my word for it; The New York Times reported on June third that “The Justice Department said today that Clay Shaw. New Orleans businessman, was not investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation … The statement contradicted Attorney General Ramsey Clark … A Justice Department spokesman said that Mr. Clark’s statement last March second was in error.” Now, the Attorney General’s attempt to whitewash Shaw via the FBI, as you pointed out, was made immediately after our office arrested him, and it really constituted the first salvo of the propaganda barrage laid down against us. The natural reaction of many people across the country to Clark’s statement, which was carried prominently on TV and in the press was, “Well, if the FBI cleared him, there can’t be anything to this whole conspiracy business.” Most defendants have to wait for trial before they’re allowed to produce character witnesses. When, three months later, the Justice Department finally admitted Clark was “in error,” the story appeared in only a few newspapers and wasn’t picked up by the radio or TV networks. But what was even more significant about the Justice Department’s attempt to bail out Shaw was the fact that the day after Clark’s statement, The New York Times’ Washington correspondent. Robert B. Semple, Jr., reported that he had been told by an unnamed Justice Department spokesman that his agency was convinced “that Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Shaw were the same man” — and that was the reason Clark released his untrue story about the FBI’s having cleared Shaw! In other words, knowing that our case was based on fact, the Justice Department deliberately dragged a red herring across the trail.

  152. Now McAdams and the other mountebanks on this forum May continue to spew their scurrilous propaganda here, but as far as I’m concerned this thread, especially the last entry by Mr Sculley is a coup de grâce. No further argument is necessary. But I am just as sure that the spooks will never give up, howsoever their futile creaking round’a’bout grinds and squeals.

  153. MAX HOLLAND — CIA Public Relations Man:

    Anyone who does not grasp that Max Holland is a CIA apologist, and asset needs to take note that Holland is published on the CIA’s very own website:

    a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
    . . . . . .
    After reading the apologia in Holland’s article: ‘The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination’; just try to attempt a denial that this is not “a useful or valuable thing” to assist the public image of CIA.

    And after you try that, try to tell me why we should take Holland’s spin on things seriously? He is obviously a public relations man for CIA. Anyone who can’t see that is utterly naïve.

  154. “Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations that’ve long since bought and paid for, the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pocket, and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and the information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them.”~George Carlin

  155. David Reitzes Meets Michael Shermer:
    Send In the Clowns

    By James DiEugenio

    Posted October 1, 2013

    Apparently, Dave Reitzes has an uncontrollable urge to make a fool out of himself. During those distant, far off years when he did not buy the Warren Commission fairy tale, he was in the Barr McClellan/Craig Zirbel camp i.e. Lyndon Johnson killed President Kennedy. When he inexplicably switched sides, he then became allied with John McAdams and began writing on a variety of subjects, including Jack Ruby. But he began to concentrate on the New Orleans scene and became McAdams’ water carrier on Jim Garrison. The problem was, he was about as good in this area as he was when he was backing his LBJ Texas conspiracy theorem. Which means, he was not very convincing, because the quality of his scholarship and insights is quite shoddy.

    But that did not matter to John McAdams. Because the professor isn’t really interested in scholarship or accuracy. Therefore, Reitzes fit the bill. One of the silliest and stupidest projects that the Dynamic Duo worked on was something called “One Hundred Errors of Fact and Judgment in Oliver Stone’s JFK.” What clearly happened here was that McAdams and his gang (which included Tracy Parnell at the time) were upset at the web site exposing one hundred errors of fact in Gerald Posner’s pitiful book Case Closed. A book they championed even before it came out. So they decided to put together a web site to counter this humiliation. The problem was two fold. In the Posner instance, the authors collaborated with experts in each area of the JFK field and therefore the exposed errors are actually accurate. On the Reitzes creation there is no evidence that the author consulted professionally with anyone. Secondly, Posner was writing a non-fiction book. Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar were writing a dramatic film. In the latter, one is allowed the use of dramatic license. One is not in the former. Yet Posner’s book looks so bad today that it does look like he used dramatic license in the volume. ( Which is not what non-fiction writers are allowed to do. But which the Warren Report did all the time.

    • From the Baton Rouge MORNING ADVOCATE, Feb. 25, 1967

      Perry Raymond Russo, 25, an insurance salesman, said he had
      known Ferrie about 18 months when the statement was made. He
      said he had written New Orleans Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison about
      his contacts with Ferrie in the summer and early fall of 1963.

      Once Ferrie told him that “You know we can get Kennedy if we
      want him,” Russo said.

      Leaves for New Orleans

      The salesman made his statements in an interview with the
      State-Times and then announced he was leaving for New Orleans.
      He was not available Friday night for clarification of his

      The assassination of a President was discussed several times
      with Ferrie before the statements, Russo said. “It was just
      general conversation,” he said.

      Russo said he twice saw Ferrie in the company of Spanish-
      speaking persons dressed in green fatigue uniforms and helmets.
      He said two of them came to his house — at that time in New
      Orleans — and on the second occasion he met the third at
      Ferrie’s home.

      Ferrie, a central figure in Garrison’s probe into the
      Kennedy assassination, was found dead this week. Authorities
      have ruled out suicide or murder.

      Russo said he did not take any of Ferrie’s statements
      seriously until he saw Ferrie’s photograph in the newspaper this

    • Q: The Sciambra Memorandum.

      A: I would say it took anywhere from four to five sessions to complete that memorandum. You see, the way I dictated that memorandum, there were so many things going on at the time that whenever I would get a chance to dictate on the memorandum and whenever the secretary had a chance to receive the dictation, I would call her to my office and would dictate bits and pieces of the memorandum.

      Q: Now, Mr. Sciambra, does that memorandum reflect all that Perry Russo told you on the 25th of February?

      A: It does not. That memorandum was hastily done, it was incomplete, it was inaccurate, there were omissions in it, and it does not reflect what Perry Russo told me during my first interview in Baton Rouge on February 25.

      Q: And does the memorandum that you prepared along with Mr. Oser on the 27th accurately reflect the interview at Mercy Hospital?

      A: The sodium pentothal memorandum, which was the first memorandum that I dictated, reflects the most important thing that Perry Russo told me during our interview on February 25th in Baton Rouge, namely of a meeting.

  156. Ferenc Nagy
    Nagy documented his life and political career in The Struggle behind the Iron Curtain, published by MacMillan in 1948. In 1959, he was reported to have been the president of Permindex, a trade organization headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.

    • According to these articles, the C.I.A.–which apparently had been conducting its own foreign policy for some time–had begun a project in Italy as far back as the early 1960s. The organization, named the Centro Mondiale Commerciale (the World Trade Center), had initially been formed in Montreal, then moved to Rome in 1961. Among the members of its board of directors, we learned, was one Clay Shaw from New Orleans.

      The Centro Mondiale Commerciale’s new headquarters, according to the Roman press, was elegant. Its publicity, announcing the new, creative role it was going to play in world trade, was impressive. The Centro opened an additional office in Switzerland, also an impressive move.

      However, in 1967, the Italian press took a close look at the board of directors of the Centro Mondiale Commerciale and found that it consisted of a very curious collection of individuals. The board contained at least one genuine prince, Gutierrez di Spadaforo, a member of the House of Savoy, whence came Umberto, the last of Italy’s kings. Spadaforo, a man of considerable wealth, with extensive holdings in armaments and petroleum, had once been the undersecretary of agriculture for Il Duce, Benito Musolini. Through his daughter-in-law, Spadaforo was related to the famous Nazi minister of finance, Hjalmar Schacht, who had been tried for war crimes in Nuremberg.
      Another was Ferenc Nagy, the exiled former premier of Hungary and the former head of its leading anti-communist political party. Nagy also was described by the Italian newspapers as the president of Permindex (ostensibly a foundation for a permanent exposition and an offshoot of the Centro Mondiale Commerciale). Nagy, the Italian newspapers said, had been a heavy contributor to Fascist movements in Europe. Yet another director was a man named Giuseppi Zigiotti, the president of something with the congenial title of the Fascist National Association for Military Arms.

      One of the major stockholders of the Centro was a Major L.M. Bloomfield, a Montreal resident originally of American nationality and a former agent with the Office of Strategic Services, out of which the United States had formed the C.I.A. (Note: This was significant not only because of his espionage background but because of a curious non-scheduled air trip taken by Clay Shaw and David Ferrie to Bloomfield’s home city of Montreal in early 1961 or 1962; see Chapter 9.)

      Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, the son of Harry Bloomfield, was born in Canada, about 1910. A Zionist, Bloomfield joined the British military and served in Palestine as an Intelligence Officer under General Charles Orde Wingate. Bloomfield was involved in training the Jewish army, Haganah (1936-1939).

      President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Strategic Services in 1942. Bloomfield was recruited and given the rank of major. In 1947, the OSS evolved into the Central Intelligence Agency, and Bloomfield continued doing contract work for the new organization. He was a regular visitor to Israel and met the Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion on 4th May, 1949.

      A successful lawyer he worked for years at the law firm of Phillips and Vineberg in Montreal. He was also a major stockholder of Permindex, a corporation based in Switzerland. He was also the author on several books on on international law including The British Hondurus Guatemala Dispute (1953) and Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba (1957).
      Also see:

      • Trade Mart Speech (Kennedy’s Last Speech)
        The president was scheduled to deliver this speech at the Dallas Trade Mart the day he was assassinated, November 22, 1963.
        The four-building campus includes the World Trade Center, Trade Mart, International Trade Plaza (The Plaza) and Market Hall. Inside these buildings, nearly 2,300 permanent showrooms offer more than 35,000 product lines from manufacturers around the world.
        Permindex, also referred to as Permanent Industrial Exposition or Permanent Industrial Expositions, was a trade organization headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.[1][2][3] Allegations that Permindex was a front organization for the Central Intelligence Agency have been advanced by advocates of some John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.[4]

        Permindex was described as a holding company built with Canadian, Italian, Swiss, and United States capital.[5] As of 1960, it had 20 stockholders.[5] In 1959, former Prime Minister of Hungary Ferenc Nagy, said to be the president of Permidex, outlined the group’s plans to build “Europe’s first international shopping centre for businessmen” within the previously unfinished Esposizione Universale Roma.[1][2] Permindex occupied 400,000 square feet within the four “palaces” under a nine-year lease with another nine-year option.[5] The project was modeled after and designed to compete with the International Trade Mart in New Orleans.[1][2] The centre opened on January 16, 1960.[6]

        Clay Shaw, Businessman and director of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans
        Businessman Clay Shaw, head of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, represented the United States on the board of directors for Permindex.[5][7] On March 1, 1967, Shaw was arrested and charged with conspiring to assassinate President John F. Kennedy by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.[7] Three days later on March 4, the Italian left-wing newspaper Paese Sera published a story alleging that Shaw was linked to the CIA through his involvement in the Centro Mondiale Commerciale, a subsidiary of Permindex in which Shaw was also said to be a board member.[7] According to Paese Sera, the CMC had been a front organization developed by the CIA for transferring funds to Italy for “illegal political-espionage activities” and had attempted to depose French President Charles de Gaulle in the early 1960s.[7] On March 6, the newspaper printed other allegations about individuals it said were connected to Permindex, including Louis Bloomfield whom it described as “an American agent who now plays the role of a businessman from Canada (who) established secret ties in Rome with Deputies of the Christian Democrats and neo-Fascist parties.”[8] The allegations were retold in various newspapers associated with the Communist parties in Italy (l’Unità), France (L’Humanité), and the Soviet Union (Pravda), as well as leftist papers in Canada and Greece, prior to reaching the American press eight weeks later.

        The New Orleans chapter:
        After World War II Shaw helped start the International Trade Mart in New Orleans which facilitated the sales of both domestic and imported goods. He was known locally for his efforts to preserve buildings in New Orleans’ historic French Quarter.

    • It’s been alleged that Clay Shaw was involved with a CIA operation called QK/ENCHANT, the nature of which the CIA will not reveal. But it turns out that Shaw’s “involvement” is open to interpretation. The source for the claim that Shaw had a “covert security clearance” for QK/ENCHANT appears to be a 1992 CIA release that summarizes Clay Shaw’s contacts with the CIA between 1948 and 1956, then later mentions:
      A memorandum marked only for file, 16 March 1967, signed Marguerite D. Stevens, says that J. Monroe SULLIVAN, #280207, was granted a covert security approval on 10 December 1962 so that he could be used in Project QKENCHANT. SHAW has #402897-A.
      This is quoted in Bill Davy’s book, Let Justice Be Done, p. 195. John McAdams was the first person to post it on-line, in a newsgroup post of October 21, 1998. McAdams also posted another document, which was believed at the time to indicate Shaw’s involvement with QK/ENCHANT. It is a document from the HSCA’s CIA Segregated Collection, Record No. 180-10143-10220, Agency File Number 29-04-01 — a series of notes by an HSCA staffer.

      The document is headed “6/28/78” and “Clay Shaw.” The relevant portion seems to be:

      18 Sept. 68
      memo re: [REDACTED]
      or [REDACTED]
      poss. CIA connection — granted covert
      security approval for use under Project
      [REDACTED] on an unwitting basis
      10 Dec. 62.

      Bill Davy writes, “It is possible that this could be a reference to Project QK/ENCHANT. There is some question as whether this memo actually refers to Shaw or San Francisco Trade Mart Director J. Monroe Sullivan. Since a CIA memo on Sullivan exists and makes reference to Sullivan being security approved for QK/ENCHANT on December 10, 1962, and because the HSCA memo refers to the Executive Director of the San Francisco Trade Mart, the HSCA memo is undoubtedly referring to Sullivan. . . . However, without seeing the unredacted CIA memo in question, it makes it difficult to tell definitively.”

      • The CIA and the JCS plotted to kill JFK part 13
        Expand Messages
        dick.mcmanusJul 8, 2014
        early sixties, Crisman has made many trips to the New Orleans and Dallas areas in connection with his undercover work. He is a former employee of the Boeing Aircraft Company in the sense that one defendant in the case is a former employee of the Lockheed Aircraft Company in Los Angeles. In intelligence terminology, this ordinarily means that the connection still exists, but that the ‘former employee’ has moved into an underground operation.”

        Crisman, Thomas E. Beckham and Albert Osborne were all working for the Defense Industrial Security Command through the American Council of Christian Churches. Crisman was Beckham’s CIA case officer. Osborne was the leader of a group of some 25 to 30 assassins that operated in Mexico and posing as a missionary. He spoke well “with a cultured English accent” and was issued a Canadian passport in New Orleans on October 10, 1963, using his real name. In book Kill Zone, Craig Roberts states that Osborne reportedly ran “the ZR/RIFLE ranch/facility in Oaxaca, Mexico where ” assassins were trained and housed.
        (Source: Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt whose real name is David Copeland) and

        Jerry Brooks said he had worked for Guy Banister on anti-Communist research in 1961 to 1962, and said David Ferrie was a frequent visitor to Banister’s office. Brooks said he had been a trusted Minutemen aide to Guy Banister, before he defected from the group. Jerry Brooks said he had once been a sort of protégé of Maurice B. Gatlin Sr. and was in his confidence. Gatlin Sr. was the attorney to the Anti-Communism League of the Caribbean. Brooks believed Gatlin’s frequent world travels were as a bag man (courier who carried cash) for the CIA. He gave as an example that Gatlin remarked about 1962, in a self- important manner, that he had $100,000 of CIA money earmarked for a French right-wing clique that was going to attempt to assassinate General de Gaulle; shortly afterward Gatlin flew to Paris.

        Following an investigation and accusations by the Italian Press that Permindex was a front company for CIA espionage, the Italian government expelled Permindex and Centro Mondial Comerciale (aka World Trade Centre) in Rome . Permindex was dissolved by the Swiss government when it was proved to be a conduit for OAS financing. Permindex and Centro Mondial Comerciale were alleged to have financed a 1962 attempt on the life of Charles de Gaulle. French intelligence (SDECE) thus determined that the attempts on General DeGaulle’s life were being directed from NATO in Brussels through its various intelligence organizations and specifically, Permindex in Switzerland. Simultaneously, de Gaulle kicked the Israeli Mossad out of France due to its cozy relations with Permindex.

        Shaw’s classification was approved by the CIA’s then covert operations chief, Richard Helms, and we know that clearances were being granted in December 1962 top secret program called QK/ENCHANT. Shaw had a CIA number 402897-A and the number appears to have been associated with Shaw at least as early as 1949. J. Monroe Sullivan, CIA number 280207, was granted a covert security approval on December 10, 1962 so that he could be used in Project QK/ENCHANT. QK/ENCHANT is still classified. A declassified document connects Shaw to the top secret project ZR/CLIFF, which was as part of William Harvey’s operation to kill Castro RZ/RIFLE.

        I think Permindex was the CIA’s operation codenamed QK/ENCHANT. A document surfaced which seemed to imply that Shaw was cleared for project QK/ENCHANT. Other CIA officers read-on for this project include Peter Maheu (son of CIA contact agent, Robert Maheu), and CIA officer E. Howard Hunt.

        Alfred J. Moran a member of the board of the International Trade Mart. He was a CIA officer who worked for CIA’s Domestic Contact Service operation and worked at the Miami CIA station.
        Permindex was incorporated in Basle, Switzerland in 1956 and Dr. Ferenc Nagy become one of Permindex’s directors. This guy may have been the person known as “Imre Nagy” who was a Hungarian who had some association with the CIA in the US’s role in the Hungarian uprising in 1956. He was the last non-Communist premier of Hungary.

        This CIA’s memo dated March 24, 1967 indicated that: “Nagy, Ferenc, (…) was a cleared contact of the (CIA’s) International Organizations Division. His (CIA) 201 file contains a number of references to his association with the World Trade Center.” The memo concluded on those words: “The attached documents are related to an investigation of Permindex initiated in 1959. This was the result of a query from Nagy asking if CIA would be interested in using Permindex in some capacity. The documents did not indicate whether or not CIA decided to use Permindex.”

        Nagy became active in other CIA anti-communist projects, particularly those concerning Latin America and Cuba. Nagy eventually moved to Dallas, Texas where he was residing in 1963, allegedly engaged in anti-Castro activities.

        CIA officer Frank Wisner was Nagy’s case officer. Ferenc Nagy was identified as someone that had visited Guy Banister’s detective office in New Orleans by Bannister’s secretary.

        Dr. Nagy was the initiator of contacts with David Rockefeller at the beginning of year 1960, and that Rockefeller did collaborate with Permindex and CMC in order to speed up the development of his World Trade Center organization.

  157. Priggish: A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner. Jean Davison is a prime example.

  158. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield

    “For everybody interested in the JFK assassination, the information concerning Permindex are the more interesting of all. As you may know, Permindex (a contraction for Permanent Industrial Exhibition) was a subsidiary of the Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC), a company that had on his board of directors Louis Bloomfield and none other than Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman put on trial by Attorney Jim Garrison for conspiracy against President John F. Kennedy. This indictment was the subject of Oliver Stone’s film JFK.

    Since 1968, Louis Bloomfield’s relation with Clay Shaw, through Permindex and CMC, was reported first in newspapers, then in books and now on the Internet. More then anything else, the fact that those Italian companies were considered as fronts for the CIA bring many to identify Bloomfield as Shaw’s co-conspirator. Furthermore, since Bloomfield was registered as Permindex’s main shareholder many saw him as the head of this shadowy corporation and, therefore, as the chief engineer of the JFK assassination.

    A Freemason Genius

    Whatever was Permindex connection with the JFK assassination in 1963, Bloomfield’s documents dating from years 1959 and 1960 show that, at their beginning, CMC and Permindex were trying to capitalize from the real estate boom provoked by the 1960 Olympics held in Rome.”~Maurice Philipps

    Sunday, April 11, 2010


    The Bloomfield Archives : Secret gold mine of historical information

    “Since four years, I have remained silent on this Blog. This absence was partly due to the exigencies of my professional occupations but mainly to the fact that I considered appropriate to refrain from publishing anything while I was taking legal action against Library and Archives Canada (LAC) to have access to the archives of the late Montreal attorney Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. At the time I filed a first review against LAC, I didn’t know that I’ll have to file a total of five different procedures and that this period of legal battle will be five years long.

    Today, I consider that this silence can be broken not only for the reason that an important stage in those procedures is completed but also because they have gave results that I’m eager to share.

    Claiming the gold mine: Five years of legal battle
    I shall expose in more details in future posts the legal actions that took place around the Louis Bloomfield Archives. Some of you may be aware of the result of the first procedure I have introduced in Canada Federal Court in 2005. In this judicial review, Judge Simon Noël ruled that Louis M. Bloomfield clearly expressed his will to have his archives opened 20 years after his death and that this condition should be respected. Consequently, Justice Noël declared invalid LAC’s decision to extend for 25 years the restriction on those documents and ordered the National Archives to make a new decision taking in account the reason of his judgment. (Details of this case were reported in the press and can be read at :…t…k=23786&p=1 )
    Following Justice Noël decision, the National Archivist, Ian E. Wilson, didn’t hurry at all to make his new decision. After six months of waiting, I registered a complaint for contempt of court against Mr Wilson and two LAC directors. This new procedure motivated him to move on and in July 2007 he finally announced his decision in which he applied a five years extension on the original restriction finishing in 2004.

    This decision had the effect to open most of the archives in July 2009, with an important exception for files that may contain information protected by lawyer-client privilege. Those documents were to be closed for 50 years from the last date in the file where they were located. On this arbitrary procedure, LAC was keeping behind closed doors nearly 40% of the collection and particularly those pertaining to the Sixties, and for durations that may finish only in 2028.

    Again, I did contest in Federal Court this decision and, after a first judge declared LAC’s new decision correct, I filed an appeal on this judgement before the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. The audition on this case has been held in Montreal on March 22, 2010, and, a week later, on March 29, the three judges published their decision rejecting this appeal on some petty peculiar argument that I may expose in a future post.

    However, even if I didn’t win this last appeal, all those legal procedures had three interesting results:
    1) 60% of the Bloomfield archives were effectively released in July 2009;
    2) An additional 15% of the Bloomfield papers, consisting of documents dating from year 1960, were opened on January 2010;
    3) The remaining of the documents should be released by parts, in January of every year between 2011 and 2028.”~Maurice Philipps

  159. CIA Cables numbers 66846, 66891 and 66896.

    Found in: Oswald 201 File, Vol 31
    thre cables from the Mexico City Station: IN 66846, dated 22 Novma r IN 66891! dated 23 November IN 66896, dated 23 November He delivered these reports
    Found in: Oswald 201 File, Vol 31
    three cables from the Mexico City Station: IN 66846, dated 22 ‘2 November IN 66891, dated 23 November IN 66896, dated 23 November He delivered these reports
    Found in: Oswald 201 File, Vol 31
    three cables from the Mexico City Station: IN 66846, dated 22 November IN 66891, dated 23 November IN 66896, dated 23 November He delivered these reports
    Found in: Oswald 201 File, Vol 31
    Medium: PAPER Comments: 1 OF 4; HAS COVER SHEET, 3 ATTACHMENTS: IN 66846, IN 66891, AND IN 66896. Sent To NARA: User ID: lindsyh Agency Comments
    Found in: Oswald 201 File (201-289248)
    1993-05-19- 1 OF 4; HAS COVER SHEET, 3 ATTACHMENTS: IN 66846, IN 66891, AND IN 66896.
    see all 24 page hits in Documents »,%2066891%20and%2066896.

    Click to access MFR-re-Oswald-MEXI-Cables-022064.pdf