FORENSICS & BALLISTICS JFK

FORENSICS & BALLISTICS JFK

There are many posts and commentaries on these issues spread between several entries on HR1blog, which I hope to consolidate herein on a single entry.

Federal Rules of Evidence # 406

Habit; Routine Practice

“Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.”
. . . . .
This rule officiates the concept of Modus Operandi as relevant evidence in criminal law.

Subsequently this rule transfers as relevant in discussion on this forum, and has to do with how the term “Fact” is used and a specific form of “information” derived from a reasonable organization of datum.

The epistemologically mature individual grasps that data points are but “beads” to be snapped together into chains in order to bring out the ‘meaning’ of datum.

In tandem with Routine Habit is the construction of the “profile” of a group or individual. That would be a catalog of the habits and routines of individuals or groups.
This can turn from an exacting science to an art form by talented individuals with long experience in such investigation and research.

Chain of Custody
Paul C. Giannelli
Case Western University School of Law, paul.giannelli@case.edu (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.
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=faculty_publications

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.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_406
http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/rules/406.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habit_evidence
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialpractice/articles/summer2014-0914-habit-and-routine-practice-evidence.html

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”
See:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara
************************************************************************************

Crime Scene Investigation
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Homicide/homicide%20investigation%20standard%20operating%20procedures%201999.pdf

http://www.nmsoh.org/homicide_investigator_checklist.htm

https://forensicsciences.columbian.gwu.edu/master-science-crime-scene-investigation

http://science.howstuffworks.com/bloodstain-pattern-analysis.htm
************************************************************************************
Autopsy Protocol
http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/e-book/autopsy
https://i1.wp.com/healthfavo.com/wp-

FORENSIC AUTOPSY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
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

http://www.mtf.org/pdf/name_standards_2006.pdf
\\][//
************************************************************************************

content/uploads/2013/08/annotatedhumanskullanatomysideviewbyshevans-dglgl.png


. . .
The deposition of DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
Re: PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

College Park, Maryland on Tuesday, February 13, 1996

Q. Could you describe how the President’s head looked at the very first time that you saw it after it had been unwrapped?

A. Well, the most obvious thing was a large defect in the right parietal area. The
measurements are in the autopsy protocol, and the hair was matted in that area and bloody and so forth. And there was a suggestion like a contusion in the right frontal area over the right eyebrow. The skin was a little bit discolored in that area, but it wasn’t very remarkable. The most striking thing was this large defect. His face was, for all intents and purposes, normal. Normal as anybody can be in death, I guess. It was not significantly injured in any way.

Q. Were any portions of the brain extruding from any wounds in the head?

A. Well, the wound was so big that–I don’t know what you mean by extruding. It wasn’t really- -it was just a gaping hole and the brain was right there. It wasn’t really being extruded, no.

Q. So you could see it, but it was not as if it were coming out–

A. No.

Q. –sort of just seeing inside a hole–

A. It was a big hole, yeah.
[…]
Q. Right below the middle of the skull, there is the number 17 with, again, arrows pointing, at least on the paper, up and down. Do you see that?
A. Yeah. I would presume that this is the antero-posterior maximum measurement of this defect. Okay?

Q. Okay.

A. So it was 17 centimeters (approx 6.7 in), fore and aft, if you will, and 10 wide (4 in). I got some slightly different measurement, I think, in my written report, but ball park, you know.

Q. Right below the 17 and the arrow, there’s the word, it looks as if it’s “missing.” Do you see that?

A. That much bone is missing. That was a big defect, you see.

Q. Now, when this 10 by 17 centimeters of bone is missing, does that mean that it was present nowhere in the autopsy room during the autopsy?
A. Not until later when part of it was brought to me, which I described, I believe, in the written report.

Q. So would it–

A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I’m talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn’t have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.

Q. So then from the first time that you saw the President’s head without the pieces of skull fragment that came in later, the approximate measurements of the missing scalp would be roughly 10 centimeters to 17 centimeters?

A. By 17, right.

Q. In the autopsy protocol, you referred to the amount as being 10 centimeters by 13 centimeters, and let me show you the protocol.

A. I’m not going to debate it. I mean, it would depend on how you were measuring it, because it wasn’t a–like this room is 25 by 35. It’s got walls and extreme–this was irregular, so you could make any kind of measurement you want…
[…]
Q. Was scalp missing from that same–from those same measurements?

A. Not as much scalp. There was some scalp missing, but we were able to pretty much close the scalp, skin, when we finished everything. So I can’t tell you how much was–but it was not that much skin missing, no.

Q. So mostly skull fragments–

A. Right.

Q. –but not the scalp itself?

A. Right. Right.
[…]
Q. The next question I wanted to ask you would be where, as best you recall, the lacerations were on just the scalp.

A. They went in every direction. They were– I think I described them as stellate. So they went down this way and back, and the whole area was lacerated.

Q. For the scalp?

A. Yes.

Q. In towards the back of the head, so in the occipital–

A. Not really. Not really. The parietal region primarily. Parietal and to some extent occipital, but primarily parietal.

Q. Okay. Just for any scalp lacerations, were there any tears over the occipital bone?

A. No. No.

Q. None whatsoever?

A. No.

Q. There were tears, however, over the temporal–

A. Temporal and parietal
.
Q. And the parietal.

A. Yes.
[…]
Q. Do you have any recollection now about radio-opaque objects being in or appearing in the X-rays?

A. Yes, in the skull. There were some little tiny fragments of radio-opaque material, which we thought to be bullet fragments, traversing from– well, I don’t know. It looked like it was going from posterior to anterior. Very fine, sort of granular-looking material, went almost as far forward as the frontal bone, but not quite that far.

Q. Those are dust-like fragments?

A. Yes, right.

Q. Were there any–

A. A couple of them were–we did retrieve a couple that were maybe a couple millimeters, as I recall, from that path, you know. But that was about all.
Q. Do you recall where you retrieved those fragments?

A. I think from the frontal lobe of the brain.

Q. Were there any X-rays taken between the time that you–or after the time that you removed the small fragments?

A. No.

Q. So all of the X-rays of the cranium were taken before any–

A. Exactly.

Q. –metal fragments were removed?

A. Exactly, exactly.

Q. Do you have any recollection now about the shapes of the fragments that were removed?

A. They were small and irregular. That’s all I can tell you.

Q. Long and sliver-like or roundish or–any recollection?

A. Flat, irregular, two or three millimeters.
[…]
Q. Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell– I’ll read this into the record. It’s from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.
“Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy report at what time?”
“Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn’t write the report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the report, which I began about 11 o’clock in the evening of Saturday November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning of Sunday, the 24th.”

“Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –

“Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.”

Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?

A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes.

Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?

A. Right.

Q. Is that correct?

A. That’s right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.

Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. There was no reason–see, we’re splitting hairs here, and I’ll tell you, it’s getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I burned everything else. Now, why I didn’t burn the thing that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the notes or what, I don’t know. There was nothing left when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now have, period.

Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy that is destroyed, we’re interested in finding out what the exact circumstances–

A. I’ve told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?

Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.

A. Right.

Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of–

A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don’t know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don’t know. I can’t recall. I absolutely can’t recall, and I apologize for that. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I didn’t want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else’s.
[…]
Q. You’re welcome to read as much as you would prefer.

A. Whatever.

Q. It’s just I have a question for you on the first sentence only.
A. Okay.

Q. You see that Dr. Burkley identifies the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. I don’t know. I didn’t measure from which vertebra it was. It’s sometimes hard to decide which vertebra, to tell you the truth, by palpation. Maybe you can do it accurately because the first and second–did I say the third? Oh, he says third thoracic. I think that’s much lower than it actually was. I think it’s much lower than it actually–you have seven cervical vertebrae. I don’t know. I mean, he’s got a right to say anything he wants, but I never saw it before, and I don’t have an opinion about it.

Q. Did you ever discuss which vertebra–

A. I never discussed anything about it with George Burkley, period, or anybody else.
I mean, with all due respect, you seem to have come to me from left field. You know, I just- -they’re not things of which I’m aware.
The measurements I made, as far as I’m concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
. . .

It is my opinion that from the moment JFK’s body was removed from Parkland Hospital, a medical cover-up was assured.

The so-called “autopsy” at Bethesda was beyond incompetent, it was criminal negligence__a complete fraud. This can only indicate one thing: CONSPIRACY.
\\][//

Advertisements

189 thoughts on “FORENSICS & BALLISTICS JFK

  1. ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD: In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlen Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.” (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37). McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

    McClelland’s unwillingness to change his recollection has recently attracted detractors in the aftermath of Charles Crenshaw’s book, “Conspiracy of Silence”. McClelland told Posner, “I saw a piece of cerebellum fall out on the stretcher.” (Posner, G. “CC.”, p. 311, paper). To dismiss McClelland, Posner quotes Malcolm Perry, “I am astonished that Bob (McClelland) would say that… It shows such poor judgment, and usually he has such good judgment.” (Posner G. “Case Closed”. p. 311, paperback edition.) Perry’s own inconsistent and unreliable memory lessens the merit of his opinions of others, as we will see.

    3) MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD: In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described “a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” (WC–Exhibit #392) To the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Jenkins said, “Part of the brain was herniated. I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound…” (WC–V6:48) Jenkins told Specter that the temporal and occipital wound was a wound of exit, “…the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit…” (WC–V6:51.)

    Jenkins described a wound in JFK’s left temple to Specter. Jenkins: “…I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.” Specter: “The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.” Jenkins: “Well, I was feeling for–I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.” A few moments later Jenkins again pursued the possibility that there had been a wound in the left temple: “…I asked you a little bit ago if there was a wound in the left temporal area, right above the zygomatic bone in the hairline, because there was blood there and I thought there might have been a wound there (indicating) (sic). Specter: “Indicating the left temporal area?” Jenkins: “Yes; the left temporal, which could have been a point of entrance and exit here (indicating) (sic-presumably pointing to where he had identified the wound in prior testimony–the right rear of the skull), but you have answered that for me (that ‘the autopsy report discloses no such development’).” (WC-V6:51)

    In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy on 11-10-77 Marion Jenkins was said to have expressed that as an anesthesiologist he (Jenkins) “…was positioned at the head of the table so he had one of the closest views of the head wound…believes he was ‘…the only one who knew the extent of the head wound.’) (sic)…Regarding the head wound, Dr. Jenkins said that only one segment of bone was blown out–it was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum (lower rear brain) (sic) was hanging out from a hole in the right–rear of the head.” (Emphasis added) (HSCA-V7:286-287) In an interview with the American Medical News published on 11-24-78 Jenkins said, “…(Kennedy) had part of his head blown away and part of his cerebellum was hanging out.”.

    CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD: On the day of the assassination he hand wrote, ” (the skull) wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present with profuse oozing… attempts to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted…” (CE 392–WC V17:4-5)

    In is first mention of JFK’s skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, “There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue.” (6H3) And… “The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.” (6H6)

    On 3/30/64 Carrico appeared again before the Commission. Arlen Specter asked, “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 (sic–the author feels certain that Dr. Carrico must have said “5 by 7 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…”. Specter: “Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?” Carrico: “No other wound on the head.”(WC–V3:361)

    In an interview with Andy Purdy for the HSCA on 1-11-78, Dr. Carrico said, “The skull wound” …was a fairly large wound in the right side of the head, in the parietal, occipital area. (sic) One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound.” (sic) (HSCA-V7:268)

    MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, “A large wound of the right posterior cranium…” (WC–V17:6–CE#392) Describing Kennedy’s appearance to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, “Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium….” (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: “…I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue…” (WC–V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that “Dr. Perry… believed the head wound was located on the “occipital parietal” (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing…” (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen…” (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78.

    RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter, “…he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head… There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.” (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described “what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull”. (Emphasis added throughout) (WC-V6:56)

    GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, “The back of the right occipital
    parietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding.” (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, “I assume 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…”. (WC-V6:67)

    PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter under oath as, “…I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput…It seemed to me that in the right occipital parietal area that there was a large defect.” (WC-V6:71)

    CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote his observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren Commission. He, with co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, ” (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1992, New York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public interviews that the President’s head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, he wrote, “I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater–an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.” ( JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)

    CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician at Parkland in a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, “…the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table…” (WR:523). Very oddly, as Wallace Milam pointed out to one of the authors (Aguilar), when asked to read his own hand written report into the record before the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter the words are recorded exactly as he wrote them, except for the above sentence. That sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads “…the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)…”. (WC-V6:44) It is reasonable to assume that Baxter’s original description of a more rearward wound is more reliable than his later testimony before Arlen Specter, who on more than one occasion tried to move the skull wound away from the rear. Baxter then described the head wound saying, “…literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present….” (WC-V6:41) Thus the wound he saw was more likely to have been “temporo-occipital” than “temporo-parietal”, because he also recalled, “cerebellum was present”. (WC-V6:41) Shortly later in the same interview he also said, “…the temporal and parietal bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table….” (WC-V6:44) The authors are unaware of any explanation for the discrepancies, and can only speculate that either Baxter was misquoted twice or he adjusted his testimony to conform with what he might have felt was wanted of him. The mystery was confounded when author Livingstone reported that Baxter described the skull wound as “…a large gaping wound in the occipital area.” Livingstone also reported that “(Baxter) could not have been more clear when he rejected the official picture (showing the rear scalp intact).”(Groden & Livingstone, High Treason, 1989, New York, Berkley Books, p. 45)

    PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, “Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive.” (Price Exhibit V21 H 216–Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, “This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head.” (IBID)

    DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK’s wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, “Did you get a good look at his head injuries?” Nelson: “A very good look…When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head.” Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: “No. It’s not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher.” (High Treason I. p. 454)

    SECRET SERVICE AGENT WILLIAM GREER: described the President’s wounds upon arrival at Parkland to Arlen Specter of the Warren Commission: “His head was all shot, this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit.” Specter, “Indicating the top and right rear side of the head?” Greer: “Yes, sir; it looked like that was all blown off.”(WCV2:124)

    SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed…There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.” (WC–V2:141)
    http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
    \\][//

    • The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

      The most critical would be:

      1. — POV — and Distance from event witnessed

      2. –- Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

      3. –- Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less

      4. — The likelihood of a duck response to a nearby dangerous event.

      5. — Possible conflict of interests

      6. — Obvious conflict of interests

      7. — Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be understood. (see 3rd criteria point)

      8. — MO; Established history of lying

      9. — Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

      10. — Particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness (Handicaps, etc).
      \\][//

      https://wordcounter.net/ > 130 Words. 777 Characters. Reading Level: College Graduate.

      • “The measurements I made, as far as I’m concerned, were accurate. You could debate whether they were wise choices to be made or not, but they were accurate.”~Dr Humes – testimony before ARRB
        . . . . .
        This witness testimony touches on Points 6,7,8,9,&10. One need not debate whether the choices were wise, they were clearly not – it is absurd; it is senseless when there are fixed anatomical landmarks nearby. Humes chose to measure the position of JFK’s back wound from the Mastoid Process to the Acromion – a distance that can very 70% depending on the relative positions of the head and shoulder; thus it is a rather preposterous choice for such a measurement. Thus, the measurement is inaccurate by lack of proper criteria.

        Furthermore; The location given by Humes conflicts with known and established empirical evidence [#9]
        There is an established history of Humes lying about the notes and number of autopsy reports [#8]
        There is evidence that Humes initially did place the back wound at T3 in earlier notes and reports [#7]
        Humes has a ‘conflict of interest’ as he is a participant in a cover-up [#6]

        \\][//

  2. JOHN F. KENNEDY’S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT
    by, Gary L. Aguilar, MD
    San Francisco, California, August, 1994

    “That JFK’s head wound was on the right side of his head is universally accepted. With a single exception, all witnesses placed JFK’s major skull defect on the right side, and given the frequency of witness error, this suggests good witness reliability in this case. The most peculiar aspect of JFK’s wounds is that of the 46 witnesses whose opinions I have examined between Parkland and Bethesda, 45 of whom correctly claimed that the skull defect was on the right side, 44 were apparently wrong by the “best” evidence to claim that the wound was in the right-rear, rather than the right-front. The “authenticated” photographs, the originals of which were twice examined by author Aguilar at the National Archives, show no rear defect at all, only an anterior-lateral defect, and so, if valid, the images prove that not a single witness accurately described JFK’s fatal wound, and that even the autopsy report fails to accurately describe the skull defect visible in the images!

    The HSCA’s forensic panel, which delved into the mysteries of JFK’s autopsy, accepted the authenticity of the current inventory of X-rays and photographs. Principally on the basis of these images, the panel concluded that the autopsists missed the correct location for the entrance bullet wound to the skull by placing it 10-cm too low, and missed the location of the bullet entrance to JFK’s back by placing it 5-cm too high. While the HSCA’s forensic panel apparently never considered the overwhelming witness testimony that there was a rear defect in JFK’s scalp/skull, it follows that all the witnesses were wrong if the images are right. To add to the muddle, recently revealed documents cast doubt on at least the completeness of the photographic inventory, and the technicians who took JFK’s X-rays and photographs both insist the current images are not those they took.”

    Dr Boswell’s Face Sheet

    \\][//

    • The range of motion from the acromion to the mastoid process when leaning the head sideways and lifting the shoulder can shorten the distance by as much as 70 %. These are not “fixed anatomical landmarks” by any stretch of the term.
      However the vertebrae are fixed anatomical landmarks.

      \\][//

      • 9.2.4 Special Wound Ballistics of the Head

        In intracranial gunshot wounds, several of the above-mentioned factors enhance the degree of tissue disruption. The inelastic quality and the high water content of brain tissue make it per se very vulnerable to cavitation and stretch-mechanism. The penetration of the skull can imply the generation of secondary missiles in the form of bone (Fig. 9.7) or bullet fragments [28, 41, 42, 43, 44] and a tendency towards early tumbling or deformation of the bullet. Kirkpatrick and DiMaio [44], for example, were able to demonstrate intracerebral bone chips solely by digital palpation of the brain in 16 out of 42 cases of civilian gunshot wounds to the brain. Even more important, intracranial trajectories gain a new quality by the rigid skull functioning as a non-yielding wall. Because brain tissue is almost incompressible, intracranial temporary cavitation and surrounding overpressure meet counter-pressure from the skull.

        The skull will, so to speak, try to overcome the principle of nonconfinement of the cavity by denying the free space necessary for a gradual decrease of radial tissue displacement and associated overpressure. The volume of the intracranial temporary cavity will consequently stay smaller than a cavity formed under identical conditions in tissue not confined in a casing. Intracranial overpressures around the expanding temporary cavity, however, clearly exceed the pressures found in nonconfined tissue [4, 10, 45, 46]. These high dynamic pressures, the asymmetric shape of the temporary cavity, and unilaterally fixed tissue structures lead to shear forces within brain tissue. The unyielding skull does not allow the brain to expand, so the brain will transfer the overpressures to the skull. In other words, the brain’s surface gets pushed with great force against the inner table of the neurocranium and the brain stem gets forced down into the foramen magnum.

        Consequently, the layer of cerebral tissue between temporary cavity and skull is compressed much more strongly than tissue not confined in a rigid casing and shearing of brain tissue is increased by bone structures projecting into the skull cavity. Analogous to blunt trauma, enhanced compression can result in contusion of brain tissue discernible as (cortical) contusion zones in superficial layers of the brain remote from the trajectory [28, 44, 47, 48, 49] (Fig. 9.8). The stretching and especially shearing of tissue is responsible for intracerebral petechial hemorrhages remote from the tract in the form of classical perivascular ring hemorrhages or spherical hemorrhages [28, 41, 43] (Fig. 9.9). They are simply the result of an enlarged zone of extravasation due to the enhanced effect of temporary cavitation.

        Preferential neuroanatomical sites are more central parts of the brain such as the basal ganglia, midbrain, pons, and cerebellum The skull will at first be slightly stretched by intracranial overpressures. If the skull’s capacity to elastically stretch is surpassed, there will be indirect skull fractures, i.e., fracture lines without contact to the primary bony entrance and exit defects. Because the base of the skull is inhomogenous and less resistant to stretching than the vault, preferential locations are the roofs of the orbitae (Fig. 9.10) and the ethmoidal plates in the anterior cranial fossa [50]. While secondary radial fractures originating from the gunshot defects are induced by the bullet’s impact, tertiary concentric fractures connecting the radial fracture lines (Fig. 9.11) are indirect heaving fractures [51, 52, 53] functioning as additional stress relief for internal overpressures. If the internal pressures are high enough, indirect skull fractures will combine to an ‘‘explosive’’ type of head injury [54] with comminuted fractures of the skull and laceration of the brain.

        http://webzoom.freewebs.com/balisticaterminal/Forensic_ballistics_Karger.pdf
        \\][//

      • WOUND BALLISTICS
        Kneubeuel (Editor), Coupland, Rothschild, Thali

        Ballistics is the science of bodies in flight, encompassing the physical phenomena
        involved and the movement of the projectile. It is divided into a number of areas,
        based on where the projectile is.
        Interior ballistics is the study of the acceleration of the bullet in the weapon
        and the related processes. The domain of interior ballistics ends where the bullet
        leaves the barrel. However, the weapon can continue to influence the flight of the
        bullet even after this point, e.g. through oscillations or via the gases that follow
        and overtake the bullet. This phase of the bullet’s motion is known as intermediate
        ballistics.
        Between the moment at which the bullet escapes the influence of the weapon
        and the moment at which it strikes its target, the bullet obeys the laws of exterior
        ballistics. This part of ballistics involves determining the changes over time and
        space of the trajectory of the bullet, its velocity and the movements it describes
        about its centre of gravity, taking into account all the forces acting upon it.
        The study of the phenomena occurring when a bullet strikes and penetrates an
        object is termed terminal ballistics. If the object is a person or an animal, we
        speak of wound ballistics.
        Interior, intermediate and exterior ballistics can all affect wound ballistics, depending
        on the distance between muzzle and target. The structure of the bullet and
        certain aspects of the weapon may also play a role. As a result, one can only understand
        what happens to a bullet in a living being if one has a basic understanding
        of the physics involved (mechanics, thermodynamics and fluid dynamics), of
        ballistics and of arms and ammunition. We shall cover these aspects in Chapter 2.
        Chapter 3 – General wound ballistics – examines the phenomenon of the
        wound channel, describes simple physical models of velocity and energy over
        time and distance and provides an overview of the simulants generally used in
        wound ballistics.

        Wound_Ballistics__Basics_and_Applications.pdf
        \\][//

  3. Scientific hypothesis stands or falls on the evidence behind it and not on the status of the person who makes it.
    \\][//

  4. Sherry Fiester – ENEMY OF THE TRUTH

    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.

    Beveling

    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.”~Sherry Fiester CSI

    • 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.

      https://www.linkedin.com/in/sherryfiester
      \\][//

    • PHOTOGRAMMETRY
      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.
      \\][//

  5. 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

    http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Free_Online_Documents/Homicide/homicide%20investigation%20standard%20operating%20procedures%201999.pdf

    http://www.nmsoh.org/homicide_investigator_checklist.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics
    \\][//

    • Bloodstain Pattern Analysis

      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.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodstain_pattern_analysis
      \\][//

    • MOTIVE
      (noun)
      1. a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.
      “a motive for his murder”
      synonyms: reason, motivation, motivating force, rationale, grounds, cause, basis, object, purpose, intention; More

      “Motive” comes from the Latin word motus meaning a moving motion.
      . . . . .
      A motive, in law, especially criminal law, is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action.[1] Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused’s reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with. However, a motive is not required to reach a verdict.[2] Motives are also used in other aspects of a specific case, for instance, when police are initially investigating.[2]

      The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. “Intent” in criminal law is synonymous with Mens rea, which means the mental state shows liability which is enforced by law as an element of a crime.[3] “Motive” describes instead the reasons in the accused’s background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime. Motives are often broken down into three categories; biological, social and personal.[4]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)
      \\][//

  6. CHAINS OF CUSTODY

    “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

    http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

    Read more:
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/csi-jfk-the-chain-of-custody-for-the-magic-bullet/
    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.
    http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

    \\][//

    • The Parkland Bullet & Broken Chain of Custody to CE399

      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.
      _______________________________________________________________

      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”
      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29
      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=86

      Warren Commission Testimony vol. VI
      TESTIMONY OF DARRELL C. TOMLINSON
      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
      http://jfklancer.com/docs.maps/tomlinson.html
      However, at the time Tomlinson was questioned by Specter, he had not seen CE399. When Tomlinson finally did see CE399, he said that it was not the bullet he found at Parkland.

      The Parkland Bullet is a distinct and different bullet from CE399.
      \\][//

      • 50 Reasons For 50 Years – Episode 40
        Commission Exhibit 399
        The so-called “magic bullet” had miraculous qualities beyond its capability to inflict multiple wounds without sustaining damage. This bullet was also able to appear at the FBI’s Washington lab ninety minutes before it was received from the Secret Service, and change its appearance from its discovery in Dallas.
        This episode is based on articles written by John Hunt which appear at the JFK Lancer web site.
        http://jfklancer.com/sitemap.html

        \\][//

  7. JFK’S BACK WOUND @ T-3

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

    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Boswell’s autopsy facesheet.
    > 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 Burkley’s autopsy report.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

    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:

    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

    JFK head nod and backspatter:

    Mr. STURDIVAN – “There is another section of film here, before we get to the skulls, which we forgot to mention. Perhaps we should go ahead and go through it since it is already there. This is a can of tomatoes which I think demonstrates some of the principles of physics that are involved here. The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions.

    **Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came.**

    You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile. In the next case, the bullet is still within the can and, in fact, has stopped within the can.”~Larry Sturdivan — HSCA testimony

    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-862652
    \\][//

  8. Dr. McClelland says the great defect in the back IS visible on some photographs amongst the FULL set of some fifty pictures he saw at the National Archives`; B) 8/29/89 letter to Joanne Braun (_The Third Decade`, March 1991)—sees nothing to be concerned about re: the incision(s) that appear in the official autopsy photos;
    q) _Inside Edition`, June 1989—McClelland _says the x-rays do not show the same injuries to the President’s head that he saw in the emergency room, “I think he was shot from the front.” [see _Conspiracy`, pp. 485-486]

    Page 8: http://jfkhistory.com/bell/med%20evidence.pdf

  9. Characterization as an entrance wound by the Parkland doctors

    Here are the descriptions of the throat wound by the doctors and one nurse at Parkland hospital:
    Dr. Malcolm Perry
    Lifton describes the initial news accounts of the opinions of the Parkland doctors, particularly Dr. Malcolm Perry:
    On November 22, 1963, millions of Americans heard radio and TV networks report that Dr. Malcolm Perry, a Dallas Physician who was with the President in the emergency room when he died, said there was a bullet entrance wound situated on the front of Kennedy’s neck.
    Because Perry later changed his mind about the direction of the bullet, after receiving a visit from the Secret Service, and denied what he had originally said, Lifton goes to much effort to document Perry’s initial accounts. Here is some of that documentation:
    UPI report at 3:10 p.m. CST on 11-22 (1):
    Dr. Malcolm Perry, thirty-four, said “there was an entrance wound below the Adam’s apple.”
    Tom Wicker with the New York Times (2):
    Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry…
    Dallas News reporter John Geddie (3):
    Dr. Perry said, “in the lower portion of Kennedy’s neck, right in the front, there was a small puncture.”
    Lifton explains why he felt confidant that Perry had not been misquoted, as he later claimed:
    Another factor reinforcing my conviction that Dr. Perry had not been misquoted was his reaction to the news that the shots were all fired from a building located behind the motorcade. Faced with that fact, Dr. Perry did not change his opinion about the wound; on the contrary, he simply assumed that President Kennedy was turned toward the rear when the bullet struck… He told the Boston Globe’s medical editor, Herbert Black (4):
    “It may have been that the President was looking up or sideways with his head thrown back when the bullet or bullets struck him”.
    However, we know from the Zapruder film that the President’s head was in fact facing forward when the fatal bullet struck his head.
    Dr. Ronald Jones
    In his Warren Commission deposition, Dr. Jones explained why the doctors considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound:
    The hole was very small and relatively clean-cut as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (5)
    Many of the doctors initially thought that the throat and head wound were caused by the same bullet, entering through the throat and exiting through the back of the head. Dr. Jones explained to the Warren Commission his initial thoughts:
    With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck (which Jones characterized as an entrance wound in his medical report) and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as … to how this could occur with a single wound (bullet) would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head… if I accounted for it (both wounds) on the basis of one shot, that would have been the way I (would have) accounted for it. (6)
    Dr. Paul Peters
    Dr. Peters testified at the Warren Commission Hearings (7):
    We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit…
    Dr. Charles Baxter
    Lifton notes that despite Arlen Specter’s aggressive efforts to get the Parkland physicians to equivocate on their characterization of the throat wound, some of them argued back against him. Dr. Baxter, for example, noted that such a wound (to have been an exit wound) would be “unusual… ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.” (8)
    Dr. Charles Carrico
    On the afternoon of November 22, Dr. Charles Carrico described the throat wound in his medical report as “a small penetrating wound of the ant. (front) neck in the lower 1/3”. (9)
    Nurse Margaret Henchliffe
    Margarette Hencliffe testified to the Warren Commission (10):
    It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck… about as big around as the end of my little finger… that looked like an entrance bullet hole…
    Lifton describes Ms. Henchliffe’s exchange with Arlen Specter:
    When asked by Specter if it could “have been an exit bullet hole,” Nurse Henchliffe insisted that she had “never seen an exit bullet hole… that looked like that… It was just a small wound and wasn’t jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen…”
    Immediately following this exchange, attorney Specter began a series of questions designed to establish that Nurse Henchliffe did not have qualifications to render such an opinion. Nurse Henchliffe answered that her experience was limited to five years in the ER at Parkland Memorial Hospital and, more generally, her twelve years as a registered nurse. “We take care of a lot of bullet wounds down there – I don’t know how many a year,” she testified (11).
    Dr. Robert McClelland
    Lifton describes Dr. McClelland’s interview with Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (12):
    Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: “It certainly did look like an entrance wound.” He explained that a bullet from a low velocity rifle, like the one thought to have been used, characteristically makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body, and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side.
    Dr. McClelland conceded that it was possible that the throat wound marked the exit of a bullet fired into the back of the President’s neck… “but we are familiar with bullet wounds,” he said. “We see them every day – sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an entrance wound.”
    McClelland noted in the same interview, having been informed that Lee Harvey Oswald had shot the President from behind:
    We postulated that if it was a wound of entry, as we thought it was… he would have to have been looking almost completely to the rear.
    And McClelland testified to similar effect to the Warren Commission (13):
    At the moment… it was our impression before we had any other information… that this was one bullet, that perhaps had entered through the front of the neck and then in some peculiar fashion which we really had… to strain to explain to ourselves, had coursed up the front of the vertebra and into the base of the skull and out the rear of the skull.
    […]
    “Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound”
    On December 18th, a story by Richard Dudman appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, titled “Secret Service gets revision on Kennedy wound – After visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear”. The doctors referred to in the article were Malcolm Perry and Robert McClelland. Here is an excerpt from the article:
    Two Secret Service agents called last week on Dallas surgeons who attended President John F. Kennedy and obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front. The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the US Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were shown.
    http://911blogger.com/node/20745

    THE JFK MEDICAL REFERENCE / Par
    ASSASSINATION RESEARCH / Vol.1
    4 No. 2 © Copyright 2006 Vincent M. Palamara
    PART 1
    Parkland Hospital

    Page 7:_St. Louis Post-Dispatch`, 12/1/63—_This [the neck wound] did appear to be an entrance wound.`[another important >St. Louis Post-DispatchA article, dated 12/18/63: > Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound-after visit by agents, doctors say shot was from rear.A-“[the Secret Service] obtained a reversal of their original view that the bullet in his neck entered from the front.
    The investigators did so by showing the surgeons a document described as an autopsy report from the United States Naval Hospital at Bethesda. The surgeons changed their original view to conform with the report they were
    shown.” One of the agents may very well have been SA Elmer Moore. RIF#180-10109-10310 is a 6/1/77 HSCA interview transcript of graduate
    student James Gouchenaur and his 1970 conversation with Moore, who told him that he felt remorse for the way he (Moore) had badgered Dr. Perry into changing his testimony to the effect that there was not, after all, an entrance
    wound in the front of the president’s neck! (see 2 H 39, 41; 6 H 36-37; and _Best Evidence`, pages 156, 166-167, 196 and 286); SEE ALSO CD 379; 3 H 363, 364 and 6 H 6, 7 (Carrico); 3 H 387 and 6 H 17 (Perry); 6 H 27 (Clark); 6 H 57 (Jones); 6 H 44 (Baxter); 6 H 50-51 (Jenkins); 6 H 63 (Bashour); 6 H 75 (Giesecke); ];

    http://jfkhistory.com/bell/med%20evidence.pdf

    _Nova`, 11/15/88 (see still photo in _Killing The Truth`)—before AND after viewing the official photos, McClelland places his hand on the right rear area of his head where he saw the wound on JFK and speculates, “that a large flap of skin is obscuring the large wound in the official photos.”
    pg. 8
    http://jfkhistory.com/bell/med%20evidence.pdf
    \\][//

  10. To Understand the Zapruder film, one must first have a firm grasp on movie making machinery ie: cameras, projectors, splicing equipment, etc.
    One must also understand the medium of film itself, its properties and the chemistry of the dyes and celluloid.
    Then, if one is going to assert “alteration”, one must understand the field of special effects cinematography.
    If one does NOT understand these things, one is not going to grasp the arguments that prove the Zapruder film is authentic.

    The grasp of ballistics, and of cinematography combine as necessities in understanding the best evidence in the JFK murder, the Zapruder film.

    \\][//

  11. Boswell Sent To Garrison Trial To Shut Up Dr Finck

    Q. Very early on in your deposition today, you made reference to Mr. Eardley from the Justice Department asking you to go to New Orleans; is that correct?

    A. Mm-hmm.

    Q. What did he say to you about the reason he wanted you to go to New Orleans?

    A. 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.” And I called Jim to see if he didn’t want to go, and he was having–his mother-in-law was ill, and he couldn’t go. So they put me on a plane that day and took me to New Orleans, and that was one of the most interesting adventures of my life. I met–do you want to hear all of this?

    Q. Yes, please.

    A. Carl Eardley sent me to a hotel, and I went into the hotel and registered. I was already registered. I got up to my room, and there was a note on my bedside table telling me to meet somebody at a certain place at a certain time. And this was a scary place. This was down around the wharfs, and the federal attorney’s office was in a big warehouse down there. And that’s–I met somebody on the street. He took me in there, and then they told me what was going on. 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 said, “Who’s in charge here?” And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy, he says, “Some Army general.” And so that is why–and I never appeared. I spent two days down there and then came home, never appeared in court. And the government won their case.

    Q. Actually, the government was the district attorney. So my next question for you actually was: What was the United States Department of Justice doing in relationship to a case between the district attorney of New Orleans and a resident of New Orleans?

    A. Well, they–I went over and met somebody, some lawyer in another firm that night, and I don’t know who he was representing. But, obviously, the federal attorney was on the side of Clay Shaw against the district attorney.

    Q. Do you remember the name of that federal attorney?

    A. No. I have no idea.

    Q. Was it Harry Connick?

    A. It could very well have been. That name sounds–of course, Connick is not an uncommon name. It could have been.

    Q. Do you recall meeting with an attorney named Wegman?

    A. No.

    Q. Or Dymond?

    A. Thirty years ago, no, I can’t remember that.

    Q. What did the government attorney say to you? Did he help prepare potential testimony for you?

    A. They were getting ready to. I guess it all depended on what Pierre did that next day or something. I don’t know. All I know is that they- -he was answering in very strange ways their questions, and, yes, they sent me down and talked to me and tried to get me to agree that he was very strange and that I could do a better job or something.

    Q. Did you ever talk to Dr. Finck about his testimony?

    A. No.

    Q. Did you ever talk to him at all after that point?

    A. Oh, yes, many times. Pierre’s wife was there with him, and he was staying in the same hotel I was. And so we met just by chance at breakfast the day after I arrived. And we didn’t discuss why I was there. I’m sure he asked me, and I don’t know what I told him. But, anyway, we have met on a number of occasions since then. His daughter is in this country, and she was going to school in Missouri for several years. And I used to–they’d stop by here and visit with us as they were on their way. We were very good friends.

    Q. Do you have any idea why he was answering the questions the way he was in the Clay Shaw trial?

    A. Well, you’ll know when you meet him, if and when you meet him. He is a very strange–but a sharp guy. He was a good pathologist, a hard worker. He was devoted to the United States and to the Army despite the fact that he was going back home. But he’s a strange guy. I knew that long before we invited him over to help us on this autopsy. He’s just a strange fellow.

    Q. Do you recall who paid for your trip to go to New Orleans?

    A. I would assume that the Justice Department provided my plane tickets and my hotel bill.

    Q. Other than for this experience in New Orleans, were you contacted at any other point by any representative of the U.S. Government to provide assistance for the government in regard to the Kennedy autopsy?

    A. No. But aside from that, Carl Eardley called me when King was assassinated and said, “J, we got a problem down in Memphis. They’re alleging that we’re letting the Reverend die.” And then he called me back and said, “He died. Would you go down there and supervise the autopsy?” And I said I’m the last–by this time, it had been several years, and we’d had an awful lot of stuff about the autopsy. And so I said, “I’m the last one you want to go down.” And I gave him the name of the guy who was at that time the neuropathologist–I knewwhat they were going to find because he had been shot in the neck and the spinal cord was severed. And I gave him the name of the neuropathologist at the AFIP, and he called him and got him to go.
    That’s the only other incident relative to that.

    Page 213 forward ARRB Deposition of Boswell
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm
    \\][//

  12. By Michael Dorman. SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, Newsday (8/11/97)
    A Warren Commission member expressed serious reservations about one of the panel’s more controversial conclusions, the theory that a single shot wounded both President John F. Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally, a long-secret document has revealed. The “magic-bullet” theory was essential to the commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin.
    Marked “confidential,” the released document was a memorandum sent by commission member John J. McCloy to the commission’s chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin. It was dated June 24, 1964, seven months after Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, and conveyed McCloy’s critique of a draft of the final Warren Commission report.
    “I think too much effort is expended on attempting to prove that the first bullet, which hit the president, was also responsible for all of Connally’s wounds,” McCloy wrote. (Note: the commas are not in the original.) “The evidence against this is not fully stated.” He added that a section of the report dealing with the possibility of shots being fired at Kennedy’s motorcade from an overpass was “not well done.” Elsewhere, McCloy questioned the commission’s account that a bullet found on a stretcher at Dallas’ Parkland Hospital – where Kennedy and Connally were treated after being shot – was the “magic bullet.” He wrote: “The statement concerning the bullet which was found on the stretcher is not particularly persuasive because there is no indication that the `stretcher bullet’ was in fact the bullet which caused the [Connally] wrist wound.”‘

    http://www.jfklancer.com/McCloy-Rankin.html
    \\][//

  13. We can speak to the whole issue of whether the ‘entrance wound’ can be identified by the ‘beveling’ as asserted by Humes.
    He had a partial tangential – oval shaped bullet hole in the occiput that he claims is indicative of a wound of entry.

    Beveling

    “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.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI
    \\][//

  14. 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 1(a) codifies this requirement. [3]
    […]
    Identity of Evidence
    In criminal trials, it is often necessary to show that the item seized, such as drugs, was the same item analyzed at the crime laboratory and introduced at trial. There are two principal methods of proving the identity of real evidence: first, establishing that the evidence is “readily identifiable,” and second, establishing a “chain of custody.”

    Readily Identifiable Evidence
    If an object is easily identified, “unique and readily identifiable”, [8] there may be no need to establish a chain of custody. As one court has noted:
    If an exhibit is directly identified by a witness as the object which is involved in the case, then that direct identification is sufficient. Such is the case with many objects which have special identifying characteristics, such as a number or mark, or are made to have such identifying characteristics by special marks.[9] The Federal Rules recognize this method of identification. Rule 901(b)(4), entitled “Distinctive characteristics and the like,” provides that “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken in conjunction with circumstances” may satisfy the authentication requirement. [10] This method of proof is merely an application of the firsthand knowledge [11] and opinion rules [12]-the opinion of a lay witness based on personal observation. Numerous examples of authenticating readily identifiable objects are found in the cases. All of these examples involve objects whose characteristics somehow make them unique.
    […]
    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, [15] is well accepted in the cases. Firearms, [16] bullets, [17] currency, [18] laboratory slides, [19] and sundry other objects [20] have been admit-ted into evidence, at least in part, on this basis. — Forensic Science: Chain of Custody – Paul Giannelli
    http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=faculty_publications
    \\][//

  15. Conspiracy Analysis/Forensic Historian

    Forensic History: definition and description
    By Leonard H. Bucklin

    “Does the evidence taken as a whole make it more likely than not that a particular event occurred?

    This question is the proper core of the forensic reconstruction of history.

    An important point in the use of forensic reconstruction of history is that those events which are not taken from primary sources (but rather have been “judged” more likely to have occurred than not), must be labeled as judgments on facts. The need for such labeling is because the dangers of using careful forensic evidence-based evaluations in writing an historical narrative are:

    > the improper use by others of such evaluations to stop further research, and
    > the mistaken use by others of such evaluations as direct facts.
    Those dangers are far outweighed by the benefits in using the evaluations for our understanding of history.”
    http://www.gaspee.info/history/forensicReconstruction.htm
    Also see:
    Robert C. Williams, The Forensic Historian: Using Science to Reexamine the Past.
    http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/11.1/br_clinton.html
    As Robert C. Williams observes, no historical case is ever truly closed.
    \\][//

    • MEMORANDUM
      August 2,1996
      To: Jeremy Gunn, David Marwell, Tim Wray
      cc: Joan Zimmerman, Joe Freeman
      From: Doug Horne
      Subject: More on Chain-of-Custody Discrepancy Re: Original Copy of President
      John F. Kennedy’s Autopsy Protocol

      Further study of the record has revealed numerous indicia which support the
      possibility that the original autopsy protocol transmitted by the Burkley inventory and
      receipt (attachment 5 to original memo) was a different (earlier) report than the autopsy
      protocol published by the Warren Commission (CE 387). The circumstantial evidence
      for this hypothesis is laid out in some detail below:
      -Paragraph 9 of attachment 5 references a complete autopsy protocol of President
      Kennedy as being an ” . ..Original signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist.” However,
      the Autopsy Protocol which is in evidence today as CE 387, attachment 10, is
      signed by all three pathologists–Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck–on page 6.
      Considering the precision with which the Burkley inventory-and-receipt seems
      to have been made out, one would expect that if it were describing CE 387, that it
      would reference an original autopsy protocol signed by all 3 prosectors, and that
      it would have listed them by name (i.e., “original signed by Drs. Humes, Boswell,
      and Finck”), not just by “Dr. Humes, pathologist.” The wording which describes
      the protocol in paragraph 9 of attachment 5 implies that only one pathologist
      signed the original report being transmitted.’

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ProtocolCC2.pdf

      \\][//

  16. Horne t:\medical\chain2.wpd File: 4.0.2 (JFK Medical) – Page 3

    Because the Burkley inventory-and-receipt likewise forwards an original autopsy protocol and 7 copies, it is clearly itemizing the same material forwarded on 11/24/63 from Bethesda to the White House physician, and not the supplementary report, which was produced subsequent to 11/24/63.

    11/23/63, mentions a back wound on President Kennedy “…in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.” There is no supporting text for this statement in the autopsy protocol published by the Warren Commission, CE 387. On the contrary, attachment 10 states that the location of the non-fatal wound on the President was situated in the ” . ..upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula…,” which is much closer to C-7 or T-l than it is to T-3; furthermore, CE 387 does not use the fixed body landmark of the spinal column as does Dr. Burkley in locating the back wound, but rather the right acromion process and right mastoid process, instead.

    Although by no means conclusive in this regard, the wording of the Burkley Death Certificate is so different from that in CE 387 that it suggests that Dr. Burkley was quoting a different source document (i.e., different protocol) than exists today. Although attachment 14 (HSCA OCR of telephone interview with Elsie Closson) verifies that an original autopsy protocol was not typed in smooth form until November 24,1963, and Dr. Burkley’s Death Certificate is dated one day previous to this (November 23,1963), Dr. Burkley could very well have sighted (or discussed) such a draft on Saturday, November 23,1963 and have been quoting its findings in his White House Death Certificate. (Attachment 1 reveals, in paragraph 6 for example, that the first draft of the report submitted on Sunday was sighted in part by CAPT Canada on Saturday, November 23,1963.

    Since Dr. Burkley was present at the autopsy [acting as an intermediary between the Kennedy family and the pathologists], and since he had been President Kennedy’s military physician, it seems certain that he in particular, and not just CAPT Canada, would have seen the protocol in draft form.) In summary, the unique wording (contrary to CE 387) used by Dr. Burkley to describe the President’s back wound in attachment 13 could be evidence of an earlier (and suppressed) version of the autopsy protocol.

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ProtocolCC2.pdf

    \\][//

    • Horne t:\medical\chain2.wpd File: 4.0.2 (JFK Medical) – Page 4

      “The autopsy report in evidence today, Warren Commission Exhibit # 387, is the third version prepared of that report; it is not the sole version, as was claimed for years by those who wrote it and signed it.”~Douglas P. Horne

      Students of the Kennedy assassination have always wondered why the FBI
      Summary Report on the Assassination issued on 12/9/63 determined that a
      bullet lodged in the President’s back during the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and
      did not transit his body, in opposition to CE 387 (attachment lo), which although
      undated, is commonly believed to have been signed on 11/24/63, well prior to
      the issue date of the FBI report. If, however, the FBI Summary Report was in
      sync with an earlier (original) smooth version of the autopsy protocol, then the
      findings published by the FBI on 12/9/63 would not have been at variance with
      what they believed were the official Navy findings emanating from the autopsy
      at Bethesda. Although not on official distribution from the Navy on November
      24,1963 when the autopsy protocol was forwarded by Bethesda NNMC, the FBI
      may have been aware through informal means (either a Bethesda source, or a
      White House source) of the contents of such an early (different) autopsy protocol.
      The autopsy protocol as we know it today (CE 387) was not formally transmitted
      to the FBI until 12/23/63; if by this time some of its conclusions had been
      rewritten, and CE 387 had superseded an earlier version of the protocol, the
      troubling disagreement (over transit vs. non-transit of the bullet which struck
      President Kennedy’s back ) between the FBI report of 12/9/63 and CE 387 which
      is so apparent today would, in hindsight, make sense for the first time. Restated,
      the FBI may have believed (or may have known) that its Summary Report of
      12/9/63 was consistent with the findings of the Navy autopsy protocol at the
      time it was issued by J. Edgar Hoover.
      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ProtocolCC2.pdf

      \\][//

    • “On November 24, 1963 the chief pathologist at President Kennedy’s autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, signed a typed statement he had prepared that read as follows:

      “I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain
      preliminary draft notes relating to Naval Medical School Autopsy Report A63-272 and have officially transmitted all other papers related to this report to higher authority.” [Author’s emphasis]

      On two occasions before the HSCA, in March of 1977 and in September of 1978, Dr. Humes maintained that he had destroyed notes. He repeated this claim in an interview published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 1992. The reasons given in each case were that the notes were destroyed because they had on them the blood of the President, which Dr. Humes deemed unseemly.

      The ARRB General Counsel, Jeremy Gunn, had reason to suspect that an early draft of the autopsy report had also been destroyed, based upon an analysis of inconsistencies between Dr. Humes’ previous testimony about when he wrote the draft report, and existing records documenting its transmission to higher authority. After extremely thorough and persistent questioning by the Review Board’s General Counsel in February of 1996, Dr. Humes admitted, under oath, that both notes from the autopsy, and a first
      draft of the autopsy report (which had been prepared well after the
      autopsy’s conclusion and had no blood on it), had been destroyed in his fireplace.

      The First Signed Version

      A simple study of the receipt trail for the transmission of the autopsy report reveals that the first signed report is missing as well.

      On April 26, 1965 the Secret Service transferred the autopsy photographs and x-rays, and certain vital documents and biological materials to the custody of the Kennedy family at the request of Robert F. Kennedy. That receipt lists, among other things:

      “Complete autopsy protocol of President Kennedy (orig, & 7 cc’s)-Original signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist.”

      Evelyn’s Lincoln, secretary to the late President Kennedy, signed for
      receipt of all of the items the same day.

      Incredibly, on October 2, 1967 the head of the Secret Service signed a letter transferring the original of CE 387, the autopsy report placed in evidence by the Warren Commission, to the National Archives; the National Archives signed a receipt for CE 387 the next day, October 3, 1967.

      Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin, in a declassified
      transcript of a January 27, 1964 Executive Session of the Commission, discusses details of the content of “the autopsy report” which are not consistent with the details of the report in evidence today, CE 387, thus confirming that the first signed version contained different conclusions.

      The dilemma presented here can best be summarized by the following rhetorical question: How could the U.S. Secret Service transfer the original JFK autopsy protocol to the National Archives (or to anyone else, for that matter) on October 2, 1967 when they had previously given it to the Kennedy family on April 26, 1965? The answer, of course, is that there were two separate reports. The first smooth, or signed version, was given
      to the Kennedy family at the specific request of Robert Kennedy, and has disappeared. The second signed version is in the National Archives today.

      Conclusion

      The destruction of both the first draft and the first signed version of the autopsy report are clear evidence of the ongoing malleability of the autopsy report’s specific conclusions during the initial 2 weeks following the conclusion of the post mortem examination. Furthermore, it is clear that when Dr. Humes testified under oath to the Review Board that there was only one autopsy report, and that he only signed one autopsy report, he committed perjury.”~Douglas Horne

      http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Navigation/autopsy.htm

      \\][//

      • NOTE:
        Some readers may wonder how it is I accept Douglas Horne’s analysis in this instance and reject his analysis of the Zapruder Film. This is easy to explain. Horne has adequate evidence and sound reasoning applied in this medical report.

        Whereas Horne has zero evidence and pure speculation in his so-called analysis of the Z-film; based on his utter ignorance of film, movie making machinery and special effects cinematography.
        \\][//

    • Why would a knowledgeable pathologist measure the position of a wound from mobile anatomical landmarks?

      It is senseless when there are fixed anatomical landmarks nearby. As has been pointed out here, Humes chose to measure the position of JFK’s back wound from the Mastoid Process to the Acromion – a distance that can very 70% depending on the relative positions of the head and shoulder; thus it is a rather preposterous manner for such a measurement.

      Measuring from the vertebrae in the back to the wound would be more exacting.

      \\][//

  17. As per the recording of the press conference with the Parkland doctors on 11/22/1963:

    Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA-TV used this mobile unit to cover the Nov. 22, 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy. The camera atop the bus appears to be a Marconi Mark IV, which used a 4.5-inch image orthicon pickup tube. The hearse carries JFK’s body from Parkland hospital to transport back to Washington, D.C.
    http://www.tvtechnology.com/feature-box/0124/tv-coverage-of-the-kennedy-assassination/222441

    Martin Kilduff pointing to his right temple when answering where Kennedy was hit in the head, on November 22, 1963 at Parkland Hospital press conference.

    Newsman with TV camera

    \\][//

      • “As Perry stated, he severed one of the left strap muscles for the simple fact JFK’s trachea was deviated to the left, and the tracheostomy site on the trachea was being covered by this muscle, preventing him from being able to see the trachea.

        Why was the trachea deviated to the left? There is only one medical condition that will present in this way, and that would be a tension pneumothorax in JFK’s right chest cavity as a result of a fragmenting bullet entering the top of JFK’s right lung and disintegrating there. The trachea deviates because trapped air pressure builds in the affected chest cavity, and begins pushing the heart, blood vessels and trachea toward the unaffected lung.

        This is likely the best evidence that the bullet did not pass through JFK’s neck, and that the SBT is a lie.”
        ~Bob Prudhomme — April 4, 2016 at 11:21 am
        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/22057/#comment-867279
        \\][//

  18. 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.

    Pierre Finck’s Testimony in New Orleans
    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.

    JFK’s Back and Throat Wounds
    Dissecting the wounds was a basic procedure, and would almost certainly have determined whether the president’s non–fatal injuries had been caused by one or more bullets, and from which direction or directions the bullet or bullets had come.
    The autopsy took place several hours after President Kennedy’s assassination and Lee Oswald’s arrest. It was widely known at the time of the autopsy that Oswald had been inside the Texas School Book Depository, almost directly behind the president, during the shooting. The broadcast media had already reported the claims of eye–witnesses that shots had come from more than one direction, as well as a press conference at Parkland Hospital, during which one of the doctors who had treated the president claimed that the throat wound had been caused by a shot from the front.
    Those in charge of the autopsy would surely have been aware that President Kennedy’s wounds may have been caused by more than one gunman, and that dissecting the wounds was likely to resolve the question one way or the other. Their refusal to allow the dissection can only reasonably be interpreted as a fear of discovering definitive evidence of conspiracy.
    Evidence of Oswald’s impersonation in Mexico City, which implies that Oswald either had associates or was impersonated without his knowledge, did not reach Washington until several hours after the conclusion of the autopsy. Pierre Finck’s testimony indicates that the high–ranking military officers who appeared to control the autopsy were already aware of the need to promote the lone–assassin explanation.

    The Sibert and O’Neill Report
    One aspect of Dr Finck’s testimony is open to question. He agreed with the revised version of the autopsy report, which stated that the pathologists had concluded during the autopsy that one bullet had caused both the back and throat wounds.

    This was contradicted by the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy. James Sibert and Francis O’Neill informed the pathologists during the latter stages of the autopsy that a bullet had been retrieved from Parkland Hospital. In their report and in a later memorandum, the agents maintained that the pathologists were satisfied that this bullet had fallen out of the president’s back during emergency cardiac massage. The Sibert and O’Neill Report was not made public until after Dr Finck had testified in New Orleans.

    Official Disapproval of Pierre Finck
    Another of the pathologists, 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

    http://22november1963.org.uk/pierre-finck-jfk-back-throat-wounds

    The Sibert and O’Neill Report
    http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report

    ARRB MD 149 – FBI Teletype To: Director and SAC, Dallas From: SAC, Baltimore (dated November 23, 1963) Summarizing Basic Autopsy Conclusions As Relayed by Two BUAGENTS Who Witnessed Autopsy
    http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680
    \\][//

    • Bullet found at Parkland according to The Sibert and O’Neill Report:
      “It is noted that Secret Service agent Richard Johnson turned over to BULAB one six point five millimeter rifle bullet, approx 25 caliber, copper alloy, full jacket, which he advised was found on a stretcher in emergency room at Dallas hospital. At time it was not known if stretcher was that used for President.”

      This article lists firearm cartridges which have a bullet caliber between 6.0 millimetres (0.236 in) and 7.0 millimetres (0.276 in).
      Length refers to the cartridge case length.
      OAL refers to the overall length of the cartridge
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_mm_caliber
      \\][//

  19. In the second link, post 10, by Bernice Moore she provides info from a 1999 article by Michael Griffith.

    * X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer is almost certainly correct. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed? The missile fragments described by Custer are another fatal blow to the lone-gunman theory, which in turn means there must have been more than one shooter.

    * Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays.

    * Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15105&p=175791

    ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer, October 28, 1997
    http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

    Other pertinent source material:
    – HSCA deposition of Robert Knudsen, August 11, 1978

    – ARRB deposition of Gloria Knudsen. October 8, 1996

    – ARRB deposition of Robert Karnei, May 21, 1996

    – ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996

    – ARRB deposition of John Van Hoesen, September 26, 1996

    – ARRB deposition of Earl McDonald, May 14, 1996

    – Deposition of Francis X. O’Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 69-70
    O’Neill was asked about his 1-10-78 HSCA wound diagram, in which he placed the wound well below the base of the neck (the diagram can be seen on page 349 of Livingstone’s KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY). He replied that he stood by the diagram, that the location he marked was accurate to the best of his recollection (Deposition of Francis X. O’Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 104-107). Indeed, O’Neill said the wound was absolutely no higher than where he marked it on his diagram! Here is a part of his exchange with ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn–O’Neill’s HSCA diagram is referred to as Exhibit 86:

    Gunn: If you were to make marks today or attempt to indicate where your understanding is of the wounds to the body, would you make them substantially different from the ones that appear on Exhibit 86?

    O’Neill: No, no. My recollection would be just as good then. In fact–well, just as good then as it is now. To the best of my recollection, these are [correct]–once again–approximate.

    Gunn: Sure, understood.

    O’Neill: CERTAINLY, NOTHING UP HIGHER–LIKE THAT, NO.

    Gunn: And you’re referring to the shoulder wound [when you say nothing up higher]–?

    O’Neill: Yes.

    Gunn: — when you say “nothing up higher”?

    O’Neill: IF ANYTHING, [the wound was] LOWER. BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING HIGHER THAN THAT. (Deposition, pp. 107-108, emphasis added)

    O’Neill was then asked why he had told the HSCA that he disagreed with Dr. Boswell’s depiction of the back wound for the HSCA (in that depiction, Dr. Boswell located the wound markedly higher than he had on the original autopsy face sheet). Here’s part of the Gunn-O’Neill exchange on this issue:

    Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]?

    O’Neill: Because I had heard–I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111).

    So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O’Neill “disagreed with that thoroughly.”

    O’Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O’Neill said in reply, “. . . naturally, I would disagree with that,” adding the following:

    O’Neill: But I can’t understand why he [Boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT’S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added)
    http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf
    See also:
    A TALE OF TWO OFFICIAL STORIES: JFK’S AUTHENTICATED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE AUTHENTICATED MAGIC BULLET
    BY GARY L. AGUILAR — 8-13-02
    http://www.jfkhistory.com/aguilar.html
    \\][//

  20. Martin Fackler did not replicate the conditions under which CE399 is asserted to have gone through. Which were to have hit Kennedy in the back, punctured and gone through the material of his coat, and shirt, then through the dermis muscle and other tissues as it transited through his body and then punched through the dermis of JFK’s throat. Then this bullet is claimed to have hit Connally in the area of the right armpit at an oblique angle; going through the material of a suit coat and shirt, the dermis, fatty tissues and muscle of the governor’s armpit, then the pectoral muscles, scooting across a rib shattering a portion, then exiting through another layer of dermis and suit material, and THEN hitting the governor’s wrist and shattering it–a portion of said bullet then lodging in the governor’s thigh.

    That is quite a bit of work for one bullet, a lot of physical stresses put on the materials it is made of.

    Fackler didn’t even attempt a reproduction of these conditions. He merely calculated the distance and loss of speed of the proposed bullet while doing this work, and calculated how much power the missile would loose during these encounters.
    Coming to a seemingly reasonable speed at which the bullet would have been traveling at the time it hit the wrist, Fackler simply reduced the powder charge in the load in the cartridges he used for his experiments, then fired these lightly loaded bullets at cadaver wrists to find what deformation the missiles would have.
    . . . . .
    As Fackler’s bullets only endured the encounter with the wrist, it is unreasonable to claim that the damage he came up with is comparable to a bullet said to have done so much more work; CE399.
    __________________________________

    Of course this evidence cannot be taken nor presented in a vacuum. There are other aspects to consider as well in determining the likelihood of this bullet having done what is claimed. Such as:

    The position of Kennedy’s back wound at T-3.

    The fact that the throat wound was one of entry.

    The broken chain of custody for the Parkland Bullet.

    The evidence in the Zapruder film that JFK was hit in the throat many moments before Gov Connally was hit.
    \\][//
    https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/#comment-5899
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review/who-was-the-only-man-to-ever-face-legal-charges-in-jfks-assassination/#comment-732974
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2006.pdf

    The Governor’s Wounds and the Validity of the Essential Conclusions

    “Dr. Olivier’s tests, despite their shortcomings, demonstrated a very common ballistics principle — that a bullet striking bone will usually suffer some form of distortion.
    As is apparent from Figure 4, none of Dr. Olivier’s test bullets admitted into evidence matched 399, since all were grossly deformed by extreme flattening, indenting, or separation of jacket from core.”

    “Specter knew independently from wound ballistics experts that the condition of CE 399 was not at all consistent with having struck a wrist. Two conferences that Specter attended were held during the week prior to Dr. Gregory’s Commission testimony. The consensus of the first meeting was, in part, that “the bullet recovered from the Governor’s stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist.”[1] The expert opinion was more explicit at the next meeting, held the day of the Shaw-Gregory testimony and attended by those doctors, the wound ballistics experts, Specter, McCloy, and others. A memorandum of this conference reports that in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce (two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally’s stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and bone with the actual rifle.”

    [2] “Memorandum for the Record,” dated April 22, 1964, written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964.
    […]
    “From Frazier’s testimony it is apparent that the very slight “defacement” of 399’s lands and grooves could be better termed a “displacement,” for the microscopic marks were distorted only by an almost insignificant change in the contour of the bullet as opposed to a disruption in the continuity of the surface.
    After closely examining 399 at a magnification of five diameters, I was convinced of the veracity of Frazier’s testimony. I followed each set of lands and grooves on the bullet and saw that all were continuous and without disruption, beginning just below the rounded nose and running smoothly down to the tail end.
    Dr. Fillinger emphasized to me that a jacketed bullet such as 399 could strike one bone and leave its lands and grooves intact so far as visible to the naked eye. When I assured him that Agent Frazier had found these marks still to be intact even through microscopic examination, Fillinger seemed somewhat taken aback. “Well, this is unlikely,” he said. “It’s very unlikely, as a matter of fact. Even our own ballistics people here don’t get that kind of good luck.”[10] One can readily appreciate that forceful contact with firm bone tissue is bound to disrupt the fine striations on a bullet’s surface, even with a jacketed projectile.
    If 399 wounded Governor Connally, then it was necessarily immune to the conditions that distort and deform other bullets of its kind. If it smashed through two substantial bones and rammed into another one, it failed to manifest the normal indications of such a flight, those which marked other bullets under even less stress. The theory that 399 wounded the Governor is valid only on the premise that it was a magic bullet capable of feats never before performed in the history of ballistics.
    Bullet 399 is not magic. It is just the typical mass of copper and lead that constitutes other bullets of its kind. Governor Connally was likewise not magic. His flesh and bones would deform bullets as would anyone else’s; his wounds showed very strong indications that the bullet causing them had, in fact, become distorted and irregular.
    The only tenable conclusion warranted by the evidence of the Governor’s wounds, the condition of 399, and the laws of physics is that 399 did not wound Governor Connally.”
    ~Howard Roffman — ‘Presumed Guilty’ (1976)
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp5.html
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.html (‘Presumed Guilty’ whole book)
    . . .
    At the time of the assassination, Dr Joseph Dolce had been the US Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics. He had participated in informal discussions with members of the Warren Commission staff, but was not called to offer his opinion for the record. When the House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed the case, Dolce wrote to his senator, offering to appear before the committee. His letter is reproduced below.
    As well as questioning the Warren Commission’s decision to ignore his evidence, Dolce made several pertinent points:
    The two doctors whose evidence the commission did take, Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.
    Exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds, as was the case with all ten of the Edgewood Arsenal experiments on human wrists. The larger wound on Connally’s wrist, however, was assumed to be the entrance wound.
    The pathologists at the autopsy should have dissected the bullet’s supposed path through the president’s neck.
    The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”
    http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests

    This is the report that Dr Dolce disputed:
    http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296
    . . . . .
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/sen-richard-russell-the-first-dissenter/#comment-866434
    \\][//

    • Addendum:

      The fact that CE399 shows the lands and grooves of the Carcano identified as the murder weapon, this leads to another branch of inquiry. This is because weapon’s expert Frazier testified that the Carcano he inspected and identified as the murder weapon to him on 11/23/1963, had NOT BEEN FIRED RECENTLY [*] The conundrum arises, since the FBI lab had the weapon that had not been fired, someone had to fire the weapon to produce CE399. It is an inescapable conclusion that the FBI fired CE399 in ballistic gelatin, and planted that bullet in evidence.
      (The Carcano rifle claimed to be the assassination weapon is designated: Commission Exhibit 139.)

      [*] Mr. FRAZIER: The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is–was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
      […]
      Mr. McCLOY: How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

      Mr. FRAZIER: We received the rifle the following morning.

      Mr. McCLOY: Received it in Washington?

      Mr. FRAZIER: Yes, sir.

      Mr. McCLOY: And you immediately made your examination of it then?

      Mr. FRAZIER: We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.
      It was then returned to the Dallas Police Department, returned again to the laboratory–the second time on November 27th, and has been either in the laboratory’s possession or the Commission’s possession since then.

      Mr. Eisenberg: So that it is impossible to attribute any given amount of wear to the last user?

      Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; it is impossible.

      Mr. McCloy: How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

      Mr. Frazier: We received the rifle the following morning.

      Mr. McCloy: When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

      Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir.

      Mr. McCloy: Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

      Mr. Frazier: No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

      Mr. McCloy: Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

      Mr. Frazier: I did not examine it for that.

      Mr. McCloy: Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

      Mr. Frazier: No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

      \\][//

    • Addendum 2:

      > The two doctors whose evidence the commission did take, Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.

      > Exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds, as was the case with all ten of the Edgewood Arsenal experiments on human wrists. The larger wound on Connally’s wrist, however, was assumed to be the entrance wound.

      > The pathologists at the autopsy should have dissected the bullet’s supposed path through the president’s neck.

      > The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”~Dr Joseph Dolce

      http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests

  21. “They” say the full metal jacket bullet that struck JFK’s skull exploded,, thus explaining the fine mist, and fore-to-aft trail, of tiny fragments at the top of JFK’s skull. Quite unlike the trail of fragments seen in the X-ray of the test skull Larry Sturdivan presented to the HSCA. https://www.google.com/search?”~Gary Aguilar

    Larry Sturdivan test skull X-Ray (<<; Front)

    JFK autopsy x-Ray (>> Front)

    Lateral Sinus X-ray (<< Front)


    \\][//

    • As illustrated in the comment above, when the fragment pattern is considered in comparison, the Sturdivan X-ray would indicate that the entrance wound to Kennedy’s skull was in front.
      It is my understanding that Sturdivan used a 30-06 lead tipped hunting rounds for his experiments. Which would more likely shatter into particles like those seen in both the test skulls and JFK’s autopsy X-ray.

      \\][//

  22. THE DEATH OF JFK: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY*
    Michael T. Griffith

    PHYSICAL EVIDENCE / An Overview

    What follows is a review of some of the physical evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Many supporters of the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman theory claim “all the physical evidence supports the single-assassin scenario.” This is simply incorrect.
    What would constitute evidence of conspiracy?
    1. Any evidence of shots from locations other than the southeast sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building would be evidence of conspiracy. The lone-gunman theory says Oswald fired all the shots from that window.
    2. Any evidence that refutes the single-bullet theory would constitute proof of conspiracy, since there can be no lone-gunman scenario without the single-bullet theory. The single-bullet theory says that a single bullet, supposedly Commission Exhibit (CE) 399, caused all the non-fatal wounds to Kennedy and Connally, that it pierced through both men, smashing and shattering bone en route, and yet emerged with no damage to its nose, with its lands and grooves intact, with all or virtually all of its mass remaining, and with only some deformation to its base. If this theory is wrong, then Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate bullets, which would mean at least four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved. What else would constitute evidence of conspiracy? What follows is only a partial list, but here are some other things that would constitute evidence of conspiracy:
    3. Evidence that more than one man was in the sixth-floor sniper’s nest.
    4. Evidence that more than three shots were fired, since the lone-gunman theory allows for only three shots.
    5. Evidence that Kennedy was struck by ammunition different than the kind of ammunition Oswald supposedly used.
    With this understood, let us now examine some of the physical evidence that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
    Kennedy’s Shirt, Coat, and Tie
    There is a hole on the back of the coat and a corresponding hole on the back of the shirt. The hole in the back of the coat is 5.375 inches below the top of the collar. The hole in the back of the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the collar. These holes show the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory. As mentioned, if the single-bullet theory is false, there can be no lone-gunman scenario. To explain the location of these holes, Warren Commission apologists can only theorize that both the coat and the shirt were bunched at the same time, and not just bunched simultaneously, but bunched in nearly perfect, millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with each other, even though Kennedy wore a tailor-made shirt and was sitting with much of his back against the seat, thus pressing the shirt down and holding it in place. The location of the holes in the coat and shirt corresponds to the location for the back wound that’s recorded in the death certificate and that’s shown in the autopsy face sheet. It also corresponds to where several witnesses said the wound was located.
    There are slits in the front of Kennedy’s shirt, just below the collar band. According to the single-bullet theory, CE 399, sometimes referred to as the “magic bullet,” made these slits when it allegedly exited the president’s throat. But testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico, one of the doctors who treated the president at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, suggests the slits were made by the nurses as they cut away Kennedy’s clothing. When former Senate investigator Harold Weisberg examined high-quality photos of the shirt at the National Archives, he found evidence that confirmed the conclusion that the slits were made by the emergency room nurses–he could see the zigzag mark of a cutting blade on the left side of the slits:
    […]
    The Autopsy X-Rays of the Neck
    According to the Clark Panel, the neck x-rays show bullet fragments in the neck. These fragments could not have come from the alleged magic bullet, CE 399, required by the single-bullet theory. Although some medical experts who have examined the x-rays disagree with the Clark Panel’s finding, one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, recalls seeing bullet fragments in the region of the neck on the x-rays that he examined on the night of the autopsy.
    Dr. John Lattimer, who supports the lone-gunman theory, studied the x-rays and concluded the fragments in the neck were pieces of bone. If correct, this finding is problematic for the single-bullet theory. If the neck fragments are indeed pieces of bone, this means the bullet of the single-bullet theory cracked the first thoracic vertebra (T1) and at least grazed or brushed alongside the spinal cord. If so, it’s extremely unlikely the bullet could have proceeded to create a small, neat “exit” wound in the throat, as required by the single-bullet hypothesis.
    If a bullet from the back wound had struck T1 and grazed the spinal cord and then exited the throat, it almost certainly would have left a sizable, punched-out wound. The Dallas doctors and nurses who saw the throat wound said it was small (3-5 mm in diameter), relatively neat, and not punched-out–and Dr. Malcolm Perry, who made a tracheostomy over the wound, said it had an abrasion collar, which is typical of entrance wounds.
    The Autopsy X-Rays of the Head
    The Clark Panel concluded the skull x-rays showed Kennedy’s head was struck by a high-velocity bullet (by a bullet traveling at high velocity). Dr. Bob Artwohl referred to Kennedy’s skull as having been hit by a high-velocity bullet in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This contradicts the lone-gunman theory, which says the head was struck by a bullet from the alleged murder weapon, which was a low-to-medium-velocity rifle. The FBI’s renowned firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Warren Commission the alleged murder weapon had a low muzzle velocity (3 H 414).
    Also, several forensic and ballistics experts have pointed out that the extensive bullet fragmentation seen on the skull x-rays is inconsistent with the type of fragmentation normally caused by a fully metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullet such as the kind Oswald allegedly used. In tests conducted by forensic pathologist Dr. John Nichols, FMJ bullets emerged in virtually perfect condition after penetrating several feet of tough Ponderosa pine wood. Dr. John Lattimer fired Carcano bullets through test skulls. X-rays of these test skulls revealed no bullet fragments, not even near the wound of entry in the rear top of the head (Michael Kurtz, Crime of the Century, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, p. 98).
    […]
    PHYSICAL EVIDENCE / An Overview

    THE DEATH OF JFK: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY*
    Michael T. Griffith
    [Editor’s Note: The author provides a comprehensive
    summary of the physical evidence for a conspiracy in the
    death of JFK, which he initiates with consideration of
    the kinds of findings that would justify the inference
    to conspiracy, where, in this case, such an inference
    is supported by abundant evidence of many kinds.]

    What follows is a review of some of the physical evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Many supporters of the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman theory claim “all the physical evidence supports the single-assassin scenario.” This is simply incorrect.
    What would constitute evidence of conspiracy?
    1. Any evidence of shots from locations other than the southeast sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building would be evidence of conspiracy. The lone-gunman theory says Oswald fired all the shots from that window.
    2. Any evidence that refutes the single-bullet theory would constitute proof of conspiracy, since there can be no lone-gunman scenario without the single-bullet theory. The single-bullet theory says that a single bullet, supposedly Commission Exhibit (CE) 399, caused all the non-fatal wounds to Kennedy and Connally, that it pierced through both men, smashing and shattering bone en route, and yet emerged with no damage to its nose, with its lands and grooves intact, with all or virtually all of its mass remaining, and with only some deformation to its base. If this theory is wrong, then Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate bullets, which would mean at least four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved. What else would constitute evidence of conspiracy? What follows is only a partial list, but here are some other things that would constitute evidence of conspiracy:
    3. Evidence that more than one man was in the sixth-floor sniper’s nest.
    4. Evidence that more than three shots were fired, since the lone-gunman theory allows for only three shots.
    5. Evidence that Kennedy was struck by ammunition different than the kind of ammunition Oswald supposedly used.
    With this understood, let us now examine some of the physical evidence that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
    Kennedy’s Shirt, Coat, and Tie
    There is a hole on the back of the coat and a corresponding hole on the back of the shirt. The hole in the back of the coat is 5.375 inches below the top of the collar. The hole in the back of the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the collar. These holes show the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory. As mentioned, if the single-bullet theory is false, there can be no lone-gunman scenario. To explain the location of these holes, Warren Commission apologists can only theorize that both the coat and the shirt were bunched at the same time, and not just bunched simultaneously, but bunched in nearly perfect, millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with each other, even though Kennedy wore a tailor-made shirt and was sitting with much of his back against the seat, thus pressing the shirt down and holding it in place. The location of the holes in the coat and shirt corresponds to the location for the back wound that’s recorded in the death certificate and that’s shown in the autopsy face sheet. It also corresponds to where several witnesses said the wound was located.
    There are slits in the front of Kennedy’s shirt, just below the collar band. According to the single-bullet theory, CE 399, sometimes referred to as the “magic bullet,” made these slits when it allegedly exited the president’s throat. But testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico, one of the doctors who treated the president at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, suggests the slits were made by the nurses as they cut away Kennedy’s clothing. When former Senate investigator Harold Weisberg examined high-quality photos of the shirt at the National Archives, he found evidence that confirmed the conclusion that the slits were made by the emergency room nurses–he could see the zigzag mark of a cutting blade on the left side of the slits:
    The dead giveaway of the fabrication that this is where the magical bullet must have exited, according to the official story, is the nonmagical, mute evidence of the slit on the left side. The irregular, zigzag mark of a cutting blade is visible with an engraver’s lens no more powerful than the 10-power miniature I carry. (Weisberg, Post Mortem, Frederick, Maryland, 1975, p. 347, emphasis added)
    Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist, examined the president’s clothing, including the shirt, at the National Archives. He noted there was no fabric missing from the slits and that the shape of the slits was much more compatible with a scalpel than with a bullet. The fact that no fabric is missing from the slits is important, because bullets usually tear out at least some fabric when they rip through cloth. Dr. Mantik was kind enough to provide me with a summary of his findings with regard to the shirt slits:
    What also struck me about the slits is how unlikely a bullet could have passed through there (see Weisberg’s photo, if necessary) and also nicked the left outside of the knot of the tie.
    Furthermore, there was no obvious fabric missing from the slits, whereas the hole in the back (even before FBI sampling) clearly had lost some fabric during the bullet passage. According to the experts on bullet transit . . , such missing fabric is typical. If this bullet really transited the neck (or upper chest), and according to the Warren Commission, lost very little speed, then why didn’t it also remove fabric from the area of the slits?
    The shape of the slits is much more compatible with a scalpel than with a bullet. (E-Mail, 21 August 1996, original emphasis)
    There is a small nick in the knot of the president’s necktie. The single-bullet theory requires that somehow this nick was made by CE 399 as it allegedly exited the throat, since the throat wound was supposedly behind the knot of the tie. However, photos of the tie clearly show the nick is obviously inward from either edge of the knot, and we now know there is no hole through the tie at any point. So no bullet exiting the throat could have created the nick. This means no bullet exited the throat. The nick was most likely made by the Parkland Hospital nurses as they hurriedly cut away Kennedy’s clothing.
    In response to this hard evidence, lone-gunman theorists can only speculate that both photos of the tie were taken after the tie was supposedly untied and then retied. But there is no evidence the necktie was untied and retied before the evidence photos of it were taken. The FBI, which had possession of the tie within hours after the assassination, has never even claimed this happened. And no one’s even suggested the Dallas police untied the tie in the few hours they had it before they turned it over to the FBI. There is simply no evidence the tie was untied before the FBI photographed it.
    Finally, as Stewart Galanor notes, the size of the bullet holes in Kennedy’s clothes and the size of the wounds in his back and neck are inconsistent with a bullet traveling from back to front. If a bullet had gone from the back wound to the throat wound, it’s highly doubtful it would have produced bullet holes that decreased in size–from 15 mm (rear coat hole) to 10 mm (rear shirt hole) and from 7 mm (back wound) to 5 mm (throat wound) (see Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, pp. 25-26).
    Fragments Recovered from the Presidential Limousine
    The jacket of one of the fragments that were reportedly recovered from the limousine is peeled backward 180 degrees and folded almost flat. One edge of this folded section literally forms a razor edge. Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue noted it was highly unlikely that such a sharp edge could have been fashioned as the bullet traveled through the skull and cranial tissue (Bonar Menninger, Mortal Error, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992, p. 75). It is more likely the fragment came from a bullet that struck the street. Several witnesses reported seeing a bullet strike the street while the limousine was near or beneath the oak tree on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza.
    The Autopsy X-Rays of the Neck
    According to the Clark Panel, the neck x-rays show bullet fragments in the neck. These fragments could not have come from the alleged magic bullet, CE 399, required by the single-bullet theory. Although some medical experts who have examined the x-rays disagree with the Clark Panel’s finding, one of the x-ray technicians at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, recalls seeing bullet fragments in the region of the neck on the x-rays that he examined on the night of the autopsy.
    Dr. John Lattimer, who supports the lone-gunman theory, studied the x-rays and concluded the fragments in the neck were pieces of bone. If correct, this finding is problematic for the single-bullet theory. If the neck fragments are indeed pieces of bone, this means the bullet of the single-bullet theory cracked the first thoracic vertebra (T1) and at least grazed or brushed alongside the spinal cord. If so, it’s extremely unlikely the bullet could have proceeded to create a small, neat “exit” wound in the throat, as required by the single-bullet hypothesis.
    If a bullet from the back wound had struck T1 and grazed the spinal cord and then exited the throat, it almost certainly would have left a sizable, punched-out wound. The Dallas doctors and nurses who saw the throat wound said it was small (3-5 mm in diameter), relatively neat, and not punched-out–and Dr. Malcolm Perry, who made a tracheostomy over the wound, said it had an abrasion collar, which is typical of entrance wounds.
    The Autopsy X-Rays of the Head
    The Clark Panel concluded the skull x-rays showed Kennedy’s head was struck by a high-velocity bullet (by a bullet traveling at high velocity). Dr. Bob Artwohl referred to Kennedy’s skull as having been hit by a high-velocity bullet in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. This contradicts the lone-gunman theory, which says the head was struck by a bullet from the alleged murder weapon, which was a low-to-medium-velocity rifle. The FBI’s renowned firearms expert Robert Frazier told the Warren Commission the alleged murder weapon had a low muzzle velocity (3 H 414).
    Also, several forensic and ballistics experts have pointed out that the extensive bullet fragmentation seen on the skull x-rays is inconsistent with the type of fragmentation normally caused by a fully metal-jacketed (FMJ) bullet such as the kind Oswald allegedly used. In tests conducted by forensic pathologist Dr. John Nichols, FMJ bullets emerged in virtually perfect condition after penetrating several feet of tough Ponderosa pine wood. Dr. John Lattimer fired Carcano bullets through test skulls. X-rays of these test skulls revealed no bullet fragments, not even near the wound of entry in the rear top of the head (Michael Kurtz, Crime of the Century, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, p. 98).
    The skull x-rays show a 6.5 mm object in the back of the head. Close-up viewing and optical density measurements of this object show it to be partly metal and partly ghosted image. Dr. Mantik closely studied the 6.5 mm object and then measured it with an optical densitometer. He discovered that only part of the object is metal. The 6.5 mm object must have been added to the anterior-posterior x-ray after the autopsy. Dr. Mantik proved through experiments that this could have been done, and done rather easily (see Mantik, “The JFK Assassination: Cause for Doubt,” in James Fetzer, editor, Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK, Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998, pp. 120-137).
    The back-of-the-head fragment almost certainly did not come from the kind of ammunition that Oswald supposedly used. The lone-gunman theory requires one to believe that an FMJ bullet struck Kennedy’s skull in the rear, that as the bullet was penetrating the skull a fragment peeled off it, and that this fragment somehow became embedded in the outer table of the skull 1 cm below the entry point. Forensic science simply knows of no case where an FMJ bullet has had a fragment shaved off it as it entered a skull, much less where such a fragment became embedded in the outer table of the skull 1 cm below the entry point. Not one of the bullets in the Warren Commission’s wound ballistics tests behaved in this manner. The virtual certainty that the 6.5 mm object could not have come from an FMJ bullet was one of the principal reasons that Howard Donahue, who was a court-certified firearms expert, eventually rejected the theory that Oswald fired a bullet that struck Kennedy in the skull. Donahue consulted with several forensic pathologists on this issue. Not one of them had ever heard of an FMJ bullet behaving in the manner required by the lone-gunman theory:
    J. K. Lattimer . . . would suggest . . . that the fragment [the 6.5 mm object] found by Fisher’s panel [the Clark Panel] . . . was actually a piece of the fatal bullet that sheared off as the slug impacted the skull.
    Donahue considered this in 1968. But never in his experience had he heard of a hard metal-jacketed military bullet “shearing” on impact; a soft lead bullet, yes. But not the type of military round Oswald fired.
    Furthermore, even if the bullet could have performed in such an unlikely manner, physics would seem to require that the fragment be deposited above the entrance wound, not below it. The top side of the skull would have acted like a chisel, scraping off a piece of the jacket as the bullet came down at an angle and in.
    Much later, Donahue called Fisher [the head of the Clark Panel] to get his opinion about whether a shearing effect could have created the fragment. The two had only briefly touched on this possibility when they met at B. T. Smith’s house. Fisher wasn’t available, but Donahue did speak with another pathologist and associate of Fisher’s, Dr. Thomas Smith. Like Donahue, Smith said he had never seen a fragment shear off a hard military jacketed bullet and deposit itself on the outer table of the skull.
    Donahue would repeat his question about the likelihood of a hard metal-jacketed bullet shearing to every forensic pathologist he came in contact with in the years that followed. The answer was always the same: The experts had never seen or heard of such a phenomenon and considered it highly unlikely. (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 68)
    The back-of-head fragment most likely was a ricochet fragment, quite possibly from the bullet that several witnesses saw strike the pavement behind the president’s car while the car was beneath the oak tree. Donahue said Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told him the panel felt the 6.5 mm object “looked like a ricochet fragment” (Menninger, Mortal Error, p. 65).
    When the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had outside experts examine the autopsy skull x-rays, one of the experts discovered a bullet fragment that had not been noted before. Dr. G. M. McDonnel discovered the fragment. He noted it was embedded in the galea, which is a layer located between the scalp and the skull, and that it was slightly to the left of the 6.5 mm object. This fragment is further evidence that Kennedy’s head was struck by ricochet material from a bullet that struck the pavement. As absurd as the shearing explanation is for the 6.5 mm object, it’s even more absurd for this second fragment, since this fragment is located to the left of the 6.5 mm object and is embedded in a different layer. Donahue argued this fragment must have come from the bullet that several witnesses saw strike the pavement. He concluded there was no other credible explanation for the fragment’s presence and location:
    . . . details surfaced in the committee’s own documents that indicated Kennedy very likely was hit by not one, but rather a barrage of ricochet fragments.
    The medical evidence appendix published in early 1979 contained reports from two radiologists who’d independently examined the President’s skull X rays. One of these physicians, Dr. G. M. McDonnel of Los Angeles, wrote that in addition to the Fisher fragment [the 6.5 mm object], he’d identified a second bullet piece on the exterior of Kennedy’s skull. McDonnel’s fragment was smaller than Fisher’s and located slightly to its left. Unlike the Fisher fragment, this new shard was not attached to the bone but was embedded in the galea, the tough, rubbery membrane between the scalp and the skull.
    The presence of this second bullet piece obviously strengthened Donahue’s conclusions about the first-shot ricochet. So too did information provided by the second outside expert, Dr. David O. Davis, chairman of the radiology department at George Washington University Hospital. Davis wrote that his examination of the X rays revealed a number of skull fragments that appeared to be dispersed across the right side of Kennedy’s head in such a way as to suggest they were located not inside the skull, but outside it, embedded in the scalp.
    Davis said he was at a loss to explain where these fragments might have come from and his startling suggestion that the right side of Kennedy’s scalp may have been peppered with lead did not make it into the medical panel’s final report. As for the fragment discovered by McDonnel, the panel asserted this fragment, like Fisher’s, had probably sheared off the fatal bullet on impact.
    McDonnel, however, apparently was not totally in accord with this explanation. Instead, he proposed the two fragments may have somehow worked their way back out through the entrance wound and attached themselves to the outside of the skull and galea during the transport and handling of the President’s body.
    To Donahue, this explanation was even more absurd than Baden’s shear interpretation, since it would have been virtually impossible for the pieces to migrate from the point of the bullet’s disintegration through the shredded, semisolid brain mass all the way back to the entrance wound, then pass through the small hole to affix themselves finally outside the skull. . . .
    Donahue . . . believed that the location of the fragments on both the rear and now the side of Kennedy’s head precluded any possibility except a ricochet. (Menninger, Mortal Error, pp. 160-161)
    There is a cluster of bullet fragments in the right-frontal region in the skull x-rays. This is evidence that a high-velocity, exploding bullet struck the head in that area. Wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan told the HSCA that one would “definitely” see a cloud of bullet fragments clustered near the point of impact of an exploding bullet:
    Mr. Matthews: Mr. Sturdivan, taking a look at JFK Exhibit F-53, which is an x-ray of President Kennedy’s skull, can you give us your opinion as to whether the president may have been hit with an exploding bullet? . . .
    Mr. Sturdivan: In those cases, you would definitely have seen a cloud of metallic fragments very near the entrance wound. (1 HSCA 401, emphasis added)
    Sturdivan said he didn’t believe Kennedy was struck by exploding ammunition, but he was unaware that the original, unenhanced autopsy x-rays show a cloud of fragments in the area of the right temple, which, according to Sturdivan’s own observation, would “definitely” indicate the impact of an exploding missile in that area.
    It should be mentioned that Tom Robinson, the mortician who reassembled Kennedy’s skull after the autopsy, said he saw a small hole in one of the temples, and that he believed it was in the right temple. He said he filled the hole with wax. Additionally, on the afternoon of the assassination, White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff said in a televised press conference that a bullet had struck Kennedy in the right temple and had gone through his head. Specifically, he said a bullet had struck and gone through the head, and as he said this he pointed to his right temple, adding that he’d been told this by the president’s personal physician, Dr. George Burkley. Journalist Seth Kantor was present at that news conference. He recorded in his notes that Kilduff said the bullet “entered right temple.”
    X-Rays of Skulls from the Warren Commission’s Wound Ballistics Tests
    The available skull x-rays from the Warren Commission’s wound ballistics tests, in which human skulls were shot with FMJ bullets, show fragmentation that is much different than the fragmentation seen on the autopsy skull x-rays. The fragmentation seen on the test-skull x-rays differs from the fragmentation seen on the autopsy x-rays in location, nature, and number. This is another indication that Kennedy’s skull was hit by a different kind of ammunition than the kind Oswald supposedly used. 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. (Roffman, Presumed Guilty, 1976, photo pages 8 and 9, chapter 5)
    The Autopsy Photo of Kennedy’s Back
    Autopsy photo F5, which shows Kennedy’s back, is strong evidence that no bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have caused the back wound and then exited Kennedy’s throat, as required by the single-bullet theory. Not only does the photo show the wound to be much lower than where the Warren Commission represented it to be, but close examination of the wound reveals the tissue inside the wound is tunneled upward. (Note: There is more than one autopsy photo of the back at the National Archives, but only one of those pictures is in general circulation, namely, photo F5.)
    The Warren Commission claimed the back wound was above the throat wound and that the bullet of the single-bullet theory traveled downward through the neck. The HSCA’s forensic pathology panel proved both assertions false. The chairman of the pathology panel testified the autopsy photos of the back showed the wound was about two inches lower than where it appears in the Rydberg medical drawing published by the Warren Commission (1 HSCA 233; see also Figure II-13 in the HSCA’s trajectory analysis report, 6 HSCA 42-43). The back wound was actually slightly below the throat wound and any bullet going from the back wound to the throat wound would have had to travel slightly upward through the neck…
    Read the whole article at:
    http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html
    \\][//

  23. Trajectory of a Lie
    By Milicent Cranor

    Part I. The Palindrome
    Part II. Neck and Torso X-Rays: Selectivity in Reporting
    Part III. Big Lie About a Small Wound in Connally’s Back
    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TrajectoryOfaLie/TrajectoryOfaLie.htm

    Testimony of Michael Baden, Head of the Medical Panel

    Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

    Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

    Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

    Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
    This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
    [1 HSCA 196: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf%5D

    The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83] about where witnesses said the back wound was – well below the base of the neck.

    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/NeckAndTorsoXrays/NeckAndTorsoXrays.htm
    \\][//

  24. Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

    “Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

    “Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”[8]

    As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”[9]
    [Fig. 4]

    A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), 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 … .” [Fig. 5 – Page 1, Page 2]

    A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original). [Fig. 6]

    The FBI’s earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.
    The first four witnesses to the Parkland Bullet could not identify it as C399; Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Agent Richard E. Johnson, nor James Rowley.

    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
    \\][//

  25. One of the most thorough articles on chains of custody of JFK bullets is this one by Bill Simpich:

    “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.”~Simpich
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html
    For more by Bill Simpich see:
    http://www.opednews.com/author/author41722.html
    \\][//

  26. Every ballistics expert I have ever read make points in their work that are simply incongruent with the accepted and official version of the ballistics in the JFK case. Yet many of these ballistics experts support the official narrative.

    Oft times it is a matter of their not knowing other aspects of evidence in the case; such as Dolce’s opinions as opposed to his actual ballistics findings.

    Other times it has to do with cognitive dissonance as per going along to get along in ones profession. Both DiMaio and Sturdivan are mixtures of both. Mostly their lack of other knowledge in the case. Some like Lattimer are simply prevaricating.

    This is why one has to get a good grasp on the physics of ballistics oneself, and separate out the science from the opinions of these various experts.
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-867057
    \\][//

  27. Discussion of Entry Wound to Kennedy’s Throat
    4/4/2016 on JFKfacts
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/22057/#comment-867279

    Bob Prudhomme — April 4, 2016 at 11:21 am

    Willy,

    Perry did not sever the strap muscle on the right side of JFK’s trachea to “see the arteries”. Perry severed the strap muscle on the LEFT side of JFK’s trachea, and it had nothing to do with seeing the arteries. If JFK’s right carotid artery had been damaged this wound, plus the head wound, would have caused JFK to bleed out long before he got to Parkland Hospital, making him quite dead before he got anywhere near Trauma Room One.

    As Perry stated, he severed one of the left strap muscles for the simple fact JFK’s trachea was deviated to the left, and the tracheostomy site on the trachea was being covered by this muscle, preventing him from being able to see the trachea.

    Why was the trachea deviated to the left? There is only one medical condition that will present in this way, and that would be a tension pneumothorax in JFK’s right chest cavity as a result of a fragmenting bullet entering the top of JFK’s right lung and disintegrating there. The trachea deviates because trapped air pressure builds in the affected chest cavity, and begins pushing the heart, blood vessels and trachea toward the unaffected lung.

    This is likely the best evidence that the bullet did not pass through JFK’s neck, and that the SBT is a lie.
    . . . . . . .

    (Note the distinct contour shape in the left lung, as if it had collapsed near the sternum.)

    Willy Whitten — April 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Thank you Bob, after reviewing Perry’s testimony again I see that you are correct:

    “Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the’wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea. I made a transverse incision right through this wound and carried it down to the superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was ae superficial fascia, to expose the strap muscles overlying the thyroid and the trachea. There was an injury to the right lateral aspect of the trachea at the level of the external wound. The trachea was deviated slightly to the left and it was necessary to divide the strap muscles on the left side in order to gain access to the trachea…”~Dr Perry [P. 4]
    TESTIMONY OF DR. MALCOLM OLIVER PERRY
    The testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry was taken at 3:00 p.m., on March 25, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Perry.pdf
    \\][//

  28. There are informed opinions.
    There are empty, uninformed opinions.
    There are misinformed opinions.
    And then there are lies masquerading as opinions.

    \\][//

  29. “Our original concept is now seen as unachievable in the face of controls Castro has instituted,” Esterline said. There will be no internal unrest earlier believed possible, nor will the defenses permit the type of strike first planned. Our second concept (1,500–3,000 man task force to secure a beach with airstrip) is now seen as unachievable except as a joint Agency/DOD action.” — Esterline report to Bissell (November 15, 1961) – ‘Legacy of Ashes’ by Tim Weiner [pg. 191-192]



    \\][//

  30. For the Sake of Historical Accuracy

    Barry Keane is Vice-Chairman of Dealey Plaza UK and here he examines the work of Harold “Skip” Rydberg, the man described by Commander James J. Humes as “a hospital corpsman, second class, and a medical illustrator in our command at Naval Medical School .” Rydberg was responsible for the schematic drawings of Kennedy’s head and upper back wounds which he reproduced from verbal information given to him by Commanders Humes and Boswell in March 1964.

    The Day of the Assassination
    Petty Officer 2nd Class Harold Alfred Rydberg stood at parade rest, resplendent in his Dress Blue uniform on the large circular drive leading to the entrance to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The time was about 7.00pm; the date was 22nd November 1963.

    Under Secret Orders
    In March 1964, one hundred days after the assassination of President Kennedy, Rydberg was summoned to the office of Captain John Stover, the Commanding Officer of the Navy Medical School. It was explained to him that Commanders Humes and Boswell, two of President Kennedy’s autopsy surgeons, were about to testify before the Warren Commission and they were in need of his special talents. He was put under secret orders to prepare medical illustrations of the wounds sustained by President Kennedy. When he later asked Humes why they were not using the photographs taken at the autopsy, Humes told him they were deemed too shocking, and out of deference to the Kennedy family they had been sealed by the FBI and the Secret Service and were not available for testimony.

    Over the weekend of 14th/15th March 1964, with a Marine guard just outside the door, Rydberg worked in a small empty ground floor office at Bethesda. There was no artist’s table on which to work so he had to use a flat desk and had nothing but verbal descriptions from Humes and Boswell. He had to rely on his own memory of what Kennedy had looked like, and his expertise of anatomy…


    When Rydberg’s drawing designated Commission Exhibit 386 is directly compared with an autopsy photograph an immediate discrepancy can be observed.
    The location of the lower wound in the drawing is above the shoulder line, but the autopsy photograph clearly shows that it is in fact below.
    […]
    See entire article:
    http://assassinationofjfk.net/for-the-sake-of-historical-accuracy/

    • Reduction of motorcycle outriders
      by Vincent M. Palamara

      “The frequently repeated story that JFK ordered a reduction in the presence of motorcycle outriders in the Dallas motorcade is in need of correction. Although presidential motorcades on all prior stops on the November, 1963 Texas trip normally included anywhere from three to six cyclists on each side of the JFK limousine (a fact confirmed by numerous press and official White House films and photographs), the plans for Dallas were altered by Secret Service officials to give JFK just four non-flanking outriders.

      Thus the presidential limousine was opened to crossfire, and the perceptions of professionally trained eye- and ear-witnesses were eliminated from the scene of the crime. Former agents Kinney and Godfrey confirmed that JFK never gave direct or implicit instructions to remove motorcycles from security positions adjacent to his car. Further, films and photographs of prior Texas trip stops clearly show a heavy motorcycle outrider presence during motorcades, up to and including the Fort Worth motorcade of November 21, 1963.

      The origin of the order to strip presidential security by reducing motorcycle-based security remains mysterious, and carries sinister implications.”
      http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html
      \\][//

  31. 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.”

    As described by Dr Perry, JFK’s throat wound may have been caused by a 3mm diameter unjacketed bullet, a .30-06. A hunting round. This is the bullet that Tomlinson and OP Wright described and showed an example of.~WW

    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
    \\][//

  32. Intriguing Mystery – The Secret Service and the JFK Assassination
    Donald E. Wilkes Jr.
    University of Georgia School of Law, wilkes@uga.edu

    “The conclusion seems inescapable that the Secret Service bungled its responsibilities prior to and
    during the assassination of JFK.”~Wilkes

    “Kennedy was killed by a breakdown in a protective system that should have made the assassination impossible.”—Robert Groden and Harrison Livingston, High Treason (2d ed. 1989).

    “The extremely poor performance of the president’s bodyguards has led some people to suspect the Secret Service was somehow involved in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, although there has never been any proof that this was so.”—James P. Duffy and Vincent L. Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy (1992).

    “The reason for their [the Secret Service’s] neglect remains one of the intriguing mysteries of the
    [Kennedy] assassination.”—Michael L. Kurtz, Crime of the Century (1982).

    A Major Malfunction

    On Friday, Nov. 22, 1963, in broad daylight, at half past noon, and despite his Secret Service
    protection, President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot in the head while sitting in his midnightblue
    1961 Lincoln Continental open limousine as it slowly motorcaded through Dealey Plaza in
    downtown Dallas, TX. (President Kennedy also received several nonfatal bullet wounds. Texas
    Gov. John Connally, seated on a jump seat in front of JFK, suffered multiple nonfatal bullet
    wounds.)
    Based on the information now available nearly 50 years after the assassination, there is a
    consensus among those who have investigated President Kennedy’s Secret Service protection.
    The consensus: JFK’s protection was inadequate. Indeed, the protection was so defective that it
    dangerously increased the likelihood that an assassination plan involving one or more concealed
    snipers firing into the presidential limousine would succeed. By making the murder of JFK easier
    and the undetected escape of the assassins more likely, this Secret Service bungling contributed
    to the assassination.

    Typically, the Warren Commission whitewashed the Secret Service, finding that on the whole there had been no fundamental lapse in Kennedy’s protective security, although it did fault the Secret Service for not conducting a prior inspection of the buildings along the motorcade route.

    http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=fac_pm
    \\][//

    • Fletcher Prouty discussed the lack of adherence to standard security protocol in this article, as well as his book ‘The Secret Team’:

      THE GUNS OF DALLAS
      © 1975 by L. Fletcher Prouty
      Photographic Research by Richard E. Sprague
      Reprinted with permission of the author

      The shocking nature of what you are about to read in this article makes it imperative that you be aware of some of the credentials and experience of the author.

      From 1955 to December 31, 1963, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty was the Focal Point (liason) officer between the Pentagon and the CIA. During 1962 and 1963 he was Director of Special Plans (clandestine operations) in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

      In 1971 he was the president of the Financial Marketing Council, Washington, D.C.
      * * * * *
      “Yes, history has been made by a series of murders, but not enough has been done to solve them. The trial of Watergate was the trial of the cover-up. There has been no trial about the real crime of Watergate. There has been no trial of the big power behind Watergate. The Hunts, Liddys, McCords, and the Cubans were not drawn into that drama solely for their own interests. They were working for someone much higher up. They were all pawns, just like Nixon was. This is a game for the biggest stake of all—absolute control of the government of the United States of America; and, with control of this government, control of the world. And yet the real crime underlying all of this has not even been identified, stated, and charged. The real criminals still walk the streets, run their corporations, control their banks, and pull strings throughout their political and financial machines.

      This control mechanism did not start in 1972 with Watergate. It began, in a tentative way, in the Korean War era, when the military and the executive branch found out how easy it was to fool the Congress and the American public. And with that recognition, power-hungry and money-mad industrialists began to usurp more and more power. And when those rifles crackled over Dealey Plaza, in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 and John F. Kennedy’s brain was splattered across the road, they had made their move into the big time. They took over control of the President and of the Presidency. The man they had killed was no longer a problem and they had made certain that his successor, Lyndon Johnson, heard and remembered the sound of those guns. It is the sound of those guns in Dallas, and their ever-present threat, which is the real mechanism of control over the American government.”
      ~Fletcher Prouty

      He is the author of numerous articles and of The Secret Team, published by Prentice Hall (1973) and Ballantine Books (1974).
      http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html
      \\][//

      • Spatial Chart of Northern Half of Dealey Plaza, Dallas Texas
        showing photographers, positions of John F. Kennedy’s head, objects & events surrounding 12:30 pm, 22 Nov. 1963

        (Click on chart for larger version.)
        \\][//

  33. Just AnswerOrder ID: 16207774-277
    Go to JustAnswer to view your answer

    Hi,
    Dr. Frank has answered your Medical question:
    “What abnormal neck condition are you contemplating? Spasmodic torticollis? It looks normal to me at least in the photo. Dr Frank”
    View My Answer

    Dr. Frank
    Board Certified Physician
    Verified Expert
    ___________________________________________________________________________________
    Also see: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-week-21-2/#comment-869542
    \\][//

    • This is the photo I sent to Dr. Frank for my question to him:

      Spasmodic torticollis is an extremely painful chronic neurological movement disorder causing the neck to involuntarily turn to the left, right, upwards, and/or downwards. The condition is also referred to as “cervical dystonia”.~Wiki
      \\][//

  34. You have to listen to this tape between LBJ and J Edgar Hoover, “If [John] Connally had not been in his way, he (JFK) would have been hit three times.” Both LBJ and JEH knew Connally was in front of JFK and that means they knew there was a shooter in the front of the limo (starting at 8:18 of tape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZWERQevzms)

    \\][//

  35. LEE HARVEY OSWALD, THE COKE, THE SHIRT, AND MARRION BAKER’S TESTIMONY

    1) TESTIMONY INCLUDES A COKE:

    Mrs Robert A Reid, a TSBD Clerical Sup
    ervisor… described eating her lunch in the second floor lunchroom about noon, then going downstairs to see the motorcade. After Kennedy was shot, she was frightened, and ran up the front stairs to her second floor office.

    MR BELIN: “And then what did you do?”
    MRS REID: “Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him: ‘Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him.’ ….. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands ….. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand ….. ” (3H 274).
    Mrs Reid saw Lee Oswald after Baker and Truly saw him. (3H 275). Reid also said that Lee’s coke bottle was full. (3H 278). We cannot prove when the coke was purchased from her account. Griffith, however, tells us that A WARREN COMMISSION COUNSEL also said Baker saw a coke in Lee Oswald’s possession:

    “During a radio program on December 23, 1966, Albert Jenner, a former senior WC counsel, said that when Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom, Oswald was holding a Coke in his hand. Said Jenner, “the first man this policeman saw, was Oswald with a bottle of Coke” (17:226).”

    Now, why would he do that? Is it true that this coke might have become a “myth” by then, as Oswald-did-it theorists maintain? But if so, how? And why would a Warren Commissioner senior counsel bring it up? Griffith goes on to say:

    “The fact that Oswald was holding a Coke when Baker confronted him in the lunchroom was one of the details that Chief Jesse Curry of the Dallas police mentioned to reporters the day after the shooting.”

    OOPS! Jesse Curry was mentioning all sorts of evidence AGAINST Lee Oswald. Who told Curry just one day after the shooting that BAKER saw Lee Oswald with a coke in his hand? This was the earliest account of the coke’s existence — and Curry connects it firmly with Baker:
    “When Jesse Curry retired as police chief of Dallas, Texas, he wrote a book called “JFK Assassination File.” In a 1969 interview for the Dallas Morning News around the time of publication, Curry stated,
    “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.” [1]
    http://oswald-not-guilty.blogspot.com/2012/08/lee-harvey-oswald-was-innocent-agent.html

    What could a covert op by the Australians accomplish with a load of bullshit about the Prayerman?

    Eliminate the initial alibis that Oswald has been proven to have had.

    Then suddenly discover Prayerman was someone else!
    WHOOPS!!!

    \\][//

    • “Willy, your fantasies about speaking to 12 year old girls are going to get you into trouble some day. Just sayin’.”~George aka Greg Parker


      Now THAT is the face of a child molester if I ever saw one!!!! Hahahaha!

      Mr Parker began making comments like this based solely on my saying that his commentary on JFKfacts was as jejune as a 12 year old girl.
      So he gets it into his mind to blow that up into that I am somehow having “fantasies” as he says in the quote above. His entire first 2 weeks on the JFKfacts forum were spent denigrating Tom, Leslie Sharp, and I.
      I am at a loss as to why Tom has allowed his continued participation on the blog, as he is obviously leading a disruption campaign to splinter the conversations there into mayhem.

      “George” is just projecting… Oh yea!! The way he keeps harping on it, the perv is obviously hot for underage panties himself.

      The Prayerman cult is obviously attacking JFKfacts in a concerted agenda. They attempted to get rid of Tom, and that didn’t work, so now they are attempting to sideline the whole forum with every underhanded tactic they can muster. Of course I am one of the most prolific commentators there and most vocal defender of Tom Scully. I have obviously become the next target of harassment.
      . . . . .
      UPDATE — 4/30/2016:
      Greg Parker is beginning to remind me of Maxitwat… it’s like this thug has a ‘crush’ on me…the same kind of obsession that Maxifuckanus displayed.
      I think they are both faggots.

      Why Oswald was More Likely to Have Suffered Asperger’s Than Dyslexia
      Post by greg parker on Sun 28 Mar 2010, 2:31 am

      http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t44-why-oswald-was-more-likely-to-have-suffered-aspergers-than-dyslexia

      There is even this article on their web site, NOT BY A PROFESSIONAL, but by Georgie himself, which attempts to diagnose Oswald. This is as bad or worse than Jean Davison’s amateur psychological analysis in ‘Oswald’ Game’

      They are more and more like the McAdams group the more they reveal of themselves.

      So, what level of university did Greg Parker go in psychology? Is he not in fact a autodidact in this field himself? Perhaps he has Asperger’s!
      \\][//

      • Now that I know you are checking in here Georgie the Parker, let me take this opportunity to tell you to go fuck yourself.
        And you can fuck your pal Bob Prudhomme while you’re at it.

        Yours truly, Willy \\][//

  36. Dallas,Texas – September 23, 1964
    I, Marion L. Baker, do hereby furnish this voluntary signed statement to Richard J. Burnett who has identified himself to me as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    […]
    On the second floor , where lunchroom is located, I saw a man *standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke.* He was alone in the lunchroom at this time. (*this part is crossed out but legible*)
    \\][//

  37. Oswald worked for the FBI

    John McCone, Director, Central Intelligence Agency — March 3, 1964 — to Mr. James J. Rowley, Chief, U.S. Secret Service
    “Oswald subject was trained by this agency, under cover of the Office of Naval Intelligence, for Soviet assignments.
    During preliminary training in 1957, subject was active in aerial reconnaissance of mainland China and maintained a security clearance up to the “confidential” level. His military records during this time period are open to your agency and I have directed that they be forwarded to the Commission.
    Subject received additional instruction at our Camp Peary site from September 8 to October 17. 1959, and participated in a few relatively minor assignments until arrangements were made for his entry into the Soviet Union in September of 1959. While in the Soviet Union, he was on special assignment in the area of Minsk. It would not be advantageous at this time to divulge the specifics of that assignment: however if you wish this information….”~McCone
    \\][//

  38. Fletcher Prouty Site:
    Oswald at Window?

    Hard as the Commission tried to make tenable that Oswald carried his rifle to work on November 22, it tried even harder to place him at the southeast corner window of the Depository’s sixth floor, the putative source of the shots. This was the location at which a man with a gun had been seen, and to which Oswald had unlimited access. In accordance with the official story, Oswald’s guilt hinges on this one point, he had to have been at the window to have fired some or all of the shots.
    The first evidence discussed in this section of the Report concerns the fingerprints left by Oswald on two cartons located next to the “assassin’s” window. As was noted in chapter 2, the Commission used this evidence to place Oswald at the window at some time. In doing this, it read an unfair and improper meaning into limited data. The presence of Oswald’s prints on these objects indicates only that he handled them and does not disclose exactly when or where he did so. I noted that Oswald could have touched the cartons prior to the time they were moved to the southeast corner window. The fingerprints were the only “physical evidence” the Commission could offer to relate Oswald to that specific window (R140-41). Since the fingerprint evidence in fact does not relate Oswald to the window, it is important to note that no physical evidence placed Oswald at the window at any time.

    Oswald’s Actions Prior to the Shooting
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

    The Alibi: Oswald’s Actions after the Shots

    The first person to see Oswald after the assassination was Dallas Patrolman Marrion Baker, who had been riding a motorcycle behind the last camera car in the motorcade. As he reached a position some 60 to 80 feet past the turn from Main Street onto Houston, Baker heard the first shot (3H246). Immediately after the last shot, he “revved up that motorcycle” and drove it to a point near a signal light on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston (3H247). From here Baker ran 45 feet to the main entrance of the Book Depository, pushing through people and quickly scanning the area. At the main entrance, Baker’s shouts for the stairs were spontaneously answered by building manager Roy Truly as both men continued across the first floor to the northwest corner, where Truly hollered up twice for an elevator. When an elevator failed to descend, Truly led Baker up the adjacent steps to the second floor. From the second floor, Truly continued up the steps to the third; Baker, however, did not. The Report describes the situation:
    On the second floor landing there is a small open area with a door at the east end. This door leads into a small vestibule, and another door leads from the vestibule into the second-floor lunchroom. The lunchroom door is usually open, but the first door is kept shut by a closing mechanism on the door. This vestibule door is solid except for a small glass window in the upper part of the door. As Baker reached the second floor, he was about 20 feet from the vestibule door. He intended to continue around to his left toward the stairway going up but through the window in the door he caught a fleeting glimpse of a man walking in the vestibule toward the lunchroom. (R151)
    Baker ran into the vestibule with his pistol drawn and stopped the man, who turned out to be Lee Harvey Oswald. Truly, realizing that Baker was no longer following him, came down to the second floor and identified Oswald as one of his employees. The two men then continued up the stairs toward the Depository roof.
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp8.html
    \\][//

  39. Mr. BELIN. This is entitled “Texas School Book Depository, Diagram of Second Floor.”
    You can sit down, if you would, please, Mr. Truly.
    And would you, on Exhibit 497, if you would kind of take an arrow to show the route that you took going out-or up from the first floor, and starting up the stairs towards the third.
    Now, you marked that with pen.
    Could you put a “T” on that, if you would, please?
    Now, there appears to be some kind of a vestibule or hall of one kind or another with the No. 22 in a circle on it, on Exhibit 497. Is this completely clear, or are there books there from time to time?
    Mr. TRULY. No; that is always clear. There is a few cartons of office stock, invoices, blank invoices and stationery and stuff up and down here. But there is always a pathway. There is a post, right about where this 22 is. You can always clear it and come by there. I don’t think there would ever be stock here that would obstruct your view of the other area across there.
    Mr. BELIN. Now, I hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 498.

    (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 498 for identification.)

    Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know what this is.
    Mr. TRULY. Yes. This is the vestibule, when you first come up the stairs on the second floor–this is what you will find right there.
    Mr. BELIN. Now, as you take a look at the picture Exhibit 498, is this a post immediately to the left side of the picture, to the extreme left of the picture?
    Mr. TRULY. No.
    Mr. BELIN. What is this to the extreme left? Is that the wall for the staircase?
    Mr. TRULY. Yes; there is an opening on this side, and the staircase is back over here. This picture is just part of this vestibule out here.
    Mr. BELIN. And what direction does the camera appear to be pointing, or what is shown there?
    Mr. TRULY. It appears to be pointing east.
    Mr. BELIN. And I see a door with a glass in it.
    Could you show where on this diagram Exhibit 497 this door with the glass is?
    Do you see a number with an arrow pointing to the door?
    Mr. TRULY. That is it.
    Mr. BELIN. What number is that?
    Mr. TRULY. It is number 23.
    Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
    Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
    Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn’t following me.
    Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
    Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
    Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
    Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
    Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
    Mr. TRULY. That is right.
    Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
    Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
    Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
    Mr. TRULY. I don’t know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don’t remember.
    Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember?
    Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
    Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
    Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
    Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
    Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
    Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
    Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.
    Mr. BELIN. All right.
    Mr. TRULY. 2 or 3 feet, possibly.
    Mr. BELIN. Could you put an “O” where you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?
    All right.
    You have put an “O” on Exhibit 497.
    What did you see or hear the officer say or do?
    Mr. TRULY. When I reached there, the officer had his gun pointing at Oswald. The officer turned this way and said, “This man work here?” And I said, “Yes.”
    Mr. BELIN. And then what happened?
    Mr. TRULY. Then we left Lee Harvey Oswald immediately and continued to run up the stairways until we reached the fifth floor.
    Mr. BELIN. All right.
    Let me ask you this now. How far was the officer’s gun from Lee Harvey Oswald when he asked the question?
    Mr. TRULY. It would be hard for me to say, but it seemed to me like it was almost touching him.
    Mr. BELIN. What portion of his body?
    Mr. TRULY. Towards the middle portion of his body.
    Mr. BELIN. Could you see Lee Harvey Oswald’s hands?
    Mr. TRULY. Yes.
    Mr. BELIN. Could you see–
    Mr. TRULY. I am sure I could, yes. I could see most of him, because I was looking in the room on an angle, and they were this way.
    Mr. BELIN. When you say you were looking in the room on an angle–
    Mr. TRULY. What I mean–this door offsets the lunchroom door.
    Mr. BELIN. By this door, you mean door No. 23 is at an angle to door No. 24?
    Mr. TRULY. Yes. One this way and the other one is this way.
    Mr. BELIN. All right.
    Could you see whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald had anything in either hand?
    Mr. TRULY. I noticed nothing in either hand.
    Mr. BELIN. Did you see both of his hands?
    Mr. TRULY. I am sure I did. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure. I did.
    Mr. BELIN. About how long did Officer Baker stand there with Lee Harvey Oswald after you saw them?
    Mr. TRULY. He left him immediately after I told him–after he asked me, does this man work here. I said, yes. The officer left him immediately.
    Mr. BELIN. Did you hear Lee Harvey Oswald say anything?
    Mr. TRULY. Not a thing.
    Mr. BELIN. Did you see any expression on his face? Or weren’t you paying attention?
    Mr. TRULY. He didn’t seem to be excited or overly afraid or anything. He might have been a bit startled, like I might have been if somebody confronted me. But I cannot recall any change in expression of any kind on his face.
    Mr. BELIN. Now, I hand you what the reporter has marked as Exhibit 499.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
    \\][//

  40. “If Frazier says he was afraid for his family over his refusal to say the paper bag was long enough to hold a rifle what on earth do you think was said to him about saying Oswald was standing next to him when the shots were fired?”~Vanessa

    When did Frazier say that Oswald was standing next to him with the shots were fired?
    ……..
    STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW

    198-059
    1426 (30)
    SECTION “C”

    EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
    February 13, 1969

    B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION “C”

    BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, after first being duly sworn, was examined and testified on his oath as follows:

    Q: Mr. Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
    A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade.
    Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
    A: Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there.
    Q: Did you see the presidential motorcade on that day?
    A: Yes, sir, I did.
    […]
    Q: Where did you go after the noise, if anywhere?
    A: I didn’t go anywhere. I just stayed right where I was.
    Q: Did you ever see Lee Harvey Oswald during that time that you were on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
    A: No, sir, I did not.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../testimony/frazierb3.htm

    \\][//

  41. “In their joint interrogation report, written while Oswald was still alive, Bookhout and Hosty mentioned Oswald’s non-toxic trip upstairs for the coke but completely fudged the issue of his claimed whereabouts at the time of the shooting and the officer’s dash up the front steps and into the first floor:

    Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.

    As this report was being put together by the two agents, Bookhout was looking at his notes which contained (we now know, thanks to Fritz’s copy) explicit mention of an officer coming in. Yet that massively important detail is not even mentioned in the account of the lunchroom visit. Why? Because the officer coming in had nothing to do with the lunchroom visit. It had however everything to do with Oswald’s alibi. And there was simply no way any of that was ever going into an official interrogation report.

    After Oswald’s death, and without input or corroboration from Hosty, Bookhout took this section of his notes–

    –and gave it a preposterous gloss that had the double merit of posthumously ‘confirming’ the lunchroom incident Roy Truly was telling people about and making Oswald sound like a very bad xxxx:

    Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly […]”~Sean Murphy, on 10 Sept 2013 – 09:03 AM,

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=46#entry277795

    When what you have by one tact is insufficient, it is necessary to look elsewhere.
    The so-called “Interrogation Report” by Captain Fritz is insufficient. It is paraphrased testimony attributed to Oswald, legally and reasonably, such is considered hearsay.

    \\][//

  42. Carolyn Arnold, a secretary working for the Texas School Book Depository, provided support for Lee Harvey Oswald’s alibi, that he was on the first (i.e. ground) floor of the TSBD at the time of President Kennedy’s assassination.
    Statements to the FBI
    Arnold was interviewed twice by the FBI:
    The Bureau’s report of its first interview, four days after the assassination, stated that as Arnold waited outside the TSBD to see the president, she noticed Oswald just inside the building, close to the front door, at about 12:15.
    In March 1964, J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission asked the FBI to interview every employee of the TSBD again, asking each of them an identical and very limited set of questions. In her second statement, Carolyn Arnold maintained that she did not leave the building until about 12:25.
    FBI copies of both statements are reproduced below, along with an internal FBI document that clarifies the time mentioned in Arnold’s later statement.
    The Timing of the Encounter with Oswald
    The FBI reported that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald after she had left the TSBD. According to the first account, she had left the building by 12:15; according to the second, she left at 12:25. The first statement, which she was not given the opportunity to check, is likely to be less reliable than the second, which she was required to sign.
    Both of Carolyn Arnold’s statements, but especially the second, corroborate the accounts of two employees, James “Junior” Jarman and Harold Norman, who indirectly attested to Oswald’s presence on the first floor at “between 12:20 and 12:25,” in Jarman’s words (see Lee Harvey Oswald’s alibi).
    http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

    The ‘Prayerman’ argument is all based on empty conjecture, supposition, and presumption. The theory defies and disregards the known facts. In aggregate, the Prayerman proposal is argumentum verbosium, and an endless circular argument ad nauseam.
    \\][//

    • Photogrammetric methods[edit]

      Georg Wiora’s data model of photogrammetry[1]

      Photogrammetry uses methods from many disciplines, including optics and projective geometry. Digital image capturing and photogrammetric processing includes several well defined stages, which allow to generate 2D or 3D digital models of the object as an end product.[2] The data model on the right shows what type of information can go into and come out of photogrammetric methods.

      The 3-D co-ordinates define the locations of object points in the 3-D space. The image co-ordinates define the locations of the object points’ images on the film or an electronic imaging device. The exterior orientation[3] of a camera defines its location in space and its view direction. The inner orientation defines the geometric parameters of the imaging process. This is primarily the focal length of the lens, but can also include the description of lens distortions. Further additional observations play an important role: With scale bars, basically a known distance of two points in space, or known fix points, the connection to the basic measuring units is created.

      Each of the four main variables can be an input or an output of a photogrammetric method.

      Photogrammetry has been defined by the American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) as the art, science, and technology of obtaining reliable information about physical objects and the environment through processes of recording, measuring and interpreting photographic images and patterns of recorded radiant electromagnetic energy and other phenomena.[4]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry
      \\][//

  43. Willy Whitten — May 2, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Let’s get this straight once and for all:

    The very reason for a court stenographer, or electronic recording of testimony is due to the fact that human recall cannot cite verbatim testimony.

    It is preposterous that Fritz could write down what Oswald had answered verbatim, especially several days later. We will never know what Oswald’s actual words were, nor the context they were put.

    This is why the testimony of other witnesses takes precedence over any second hand reconstructions created after the fact.

    This is the point that both Tom Scully and myself have been making throughout this thread.
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873831

    Oswald’s interrogation sessions lasted at least eleven hours, no recordings or transcripts were made of his interrogation sessions.
    http://22november1963.org.uk/why-did-oswald-deny-shooting-jfk

    Will Fritz’s Notes from Interrogation of Oswald
    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103
    \\][//

  44. “It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.”~Shelley

    Think about this seriously. 3 or 4 minutes to run about 100 feet?! Preposterous.


    \\][//

  45. TSBD Women near sign in Zapruder Film



    Gloria Jean Holt
    (3-18-64 statement to the FBI, 22H652) “I left the Depository building and walked down toward the Stemmons expressway underpass west of the building approximately fifty yards and took up a position on the curb on the south side of Elm Street to await the presidential procession…I was still standing on the curb at the time the president was shot.” Analysis: Holt is one of a number of witnesses who described the north side of Elm Street as the south side. It’s possible they thought that by crossing the dead end of Elm Street in front of the building to get to where they stood, that they had crossed onto the south side of the street. Too vague.

    Sharon Simmons (Sharon Nelson) (3-18-64 statement to the FBI, 22H665) “I was with Jeanie Holt…at the time the President was shot.” Analysis: too vague.

    Stella Jacob (3-18-64 statement to the FBI, 22H655) “I left the Depository building and walked down toward the Stemmons expressway underpass west of the building approximately fifty yards and took up a position on the curb on the south side of Elm Street to await the presidential procession… (names Sharon Simmons and Gloria Jean Holt as companions) I was still standing on the curb at the time President John F. Kennedy was shot….” Analysis: too vague.

    Carol Reed (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H668) “At the time President Kennedy was shot I was standing on the curb of Elm Street about mid-way between the Texas School Book Depository Building and the Elm Street railroad overpass. I was with Mrs. Karen Hicks…Miss Karen Westbrook…and Mrs. Gloria Calvery…at the time the President was shot.” Analysis: too vague.

    Karen Hicks (3-20-64 statement to the FBI, 22H650) “we walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north side of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion” (She names Calvery, Reed, and Westbrook as companions). Analysis: as Hicks was far down the street from Kennedy’s position at Z-160, she did not hear a first shot that missed. Number of shots??? First shot 190-224.

    *Gloria Calvery (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H638) “we walked to Elm Street and stopped at a point on the north side of Elm Street about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.” Analysis: as Calvery was far down the street from Kennedy’s position at Z-160, the first shot she heard was not at Z-160. Number of shots??? First shot 190-224. (See: Shelley testimony)

    Karen Westbrook (11-23-63 article in the Dallas Morning News) “‘I saw the president’s hair fly up…I knew he was hit,’ sobbed Miss Karen Westbrook, 19, a stenographer for a publishing firm with offices in the School Book Depository Building.” (3-19-64 statement to the FBI, 22H679) “On November 22, 1963, I left my office…I was with (Calvery, Reed, and Hicks)…about halfway between Houston Street and the Triple Underpass. We were standing at this point when President John F. Kennedy was shot. The car he was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first explosion. I did not immediately recognize this sound as a gun shot.” Analysis: as Westbrook was far down the street from Kennedy’s position at Z-160, she did not hear a first shot that missed. Number of shots??? First shot 190-224.

    http://www.patspeer.com/more-pieces-in-the-plaza
    \\][//

  46. From Lovelady’s WC testimony:

    Mr. BALL – Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
    Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?
    Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your top level.
    Mr. BALL – The top step you were standing there?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Right.
    Mr. BALL – Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Yeah.
    Mr. BALL – When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or–she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn’t know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you …
    Mr. BALL – Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
    Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?
    Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your top level.
    Mr. BALL – The top step you were standing there?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Right.
    Mr. BALL – Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Yeah.
    Mr. BALL – When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?know, behind our building there and we run towards that little, old island and kind of down there in that little street. We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying and policemen started running out that way and we said we better get back into the building, so we went back into the west entrance on the back dock had that low ramp and went into the back dock back inside the building.
    Mr. BALL – First of all, let’s get you to tell us whom you left the steps with.
    Mr. LOVELADY – Mr. Shelley.
    Mr. BALL – Shelley and you went down how far?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Well, I would say a good 75, between 75 to 100 yards to the first tracks. See how those tracks goes—
    Mr. BALL – You went down the dead end on Elm?
    Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.
    […]
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22197&page=6

    \\][//

    • The title of this video should be ‘JFK Assassination: Prayer Man is an Unidentifiable Blur’
      Gloria Calvary at min. 19:50 of Kamp’s video:

      The collected imagery of Bart Kamp is worthy of being looked at. However his commentary is irrational and incoherent.

      Willy Whitten — May 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      “I think your comment that readers do not find it interesting isn’t credible moderation Mr Scully.”
      ~Albert Doyle

      Mr Doyle,

      From the perspective of one reader, myself, I have to agree that this is NOT interesting. It is merely aggravating that you and your adversaries have brought your ongoing dispute to these pages on this forum.

      I do not understand why you think the issues between you and they would be resolved here any better than where the dispute began.

      Both sides have flooded this forum with recriminations at each; insults are hurled back and forth here in a juvenile tug of war over an issue that is based entirely on a blurry image.

      The fact is Mr Doyle, “This whole thing would be over by now” if it had never been brought to this forum. Both sides pushed themselves onto us here. You were NOT invited, you INSISTED on this contest along with those you have the dispute with.

      It is my firm conviction that both sides of this debate are dealing out irrational arguments based in bias, hyperbole and emotional hysteria.

      Prayerman is nothing but a blurry image. All of the verbiage attendant to it is overwrought speculation and conjecture.

      ENOUGH!
      http://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-874415
      \\][//

  47. PRESIDENTIAL MOTORCADE SCHEMATIC LISTING
    NOVEMBER 22, 1963 – DALLAS, TEXAS

    10. CAMERA CAR #1 National Motion Picture Cameras
    1. Driver
    2. John Hofan-NBC sound
    3. David Wiegman, Jr.*-NBC B&W movie
    4. Thomas J. Craven, Jr.*-CBS B&W movie
    5. Cleveland “Cleve Ryan”-Lighting
    Technician
    6. Thomas “011ie” Atkins*-United States Navy,
    White House color movie
    vehicle: yellow 1964 Chevrolet Impala 2-door convertible Super Sport (SS) provided by Earl Hayes Chevrolet Dallas
    through Sam Bloom
    aka: Press Photo Car (CE 767) Press Pool Convertible (CE 768)
    Cam 1 (Cutler)
    Movie Cam 1 (Trask) National Press Car (N&A) relevant photos/film: Stoughton 1, Towner 2, Wiegman film, Couch film, DCA film, Zapruder film, Hughes film, Nix film, Martin film, Bell film, Atkins film. occupant sources: CE 768, C&A Article, Trask. notes: Wiegman, Atkins, and Craven jump out of car at head of Elm Street and run up the knoll to film the Newmans. Camera Car #1 pulls out of line at the base of the knoll and Wiegman, Atkins, and Craven re-enter the car. SA Lem Johns also enters this car at this point. Camera Car #1 then rejoins the motorcade between cars #15 and #16. At the Trade Mart it gets out of line and then rejoins the motorcade again, between cars #16 and #17. It arrives at Parkland at 12:45-
    12:50 PM (18H774).
    . . . . .
    12. CAMERA CAR #3 Local Cameras
    1. DPS Driver
    2. James H. Underwood*-KRLD (CBS) B&W movie
    3. Thomas C. Dillard*-DMN B&W still
    4. James Darnell*-WBAP Ch 8 (NBC) B&W movie
    5. Malcolm 0. Couch*-WFAA Ch 5 (ABC) B&W movie
    6. Robert H. Jackson*-DTH B&W still
    vehicle: grey 1964 Chevrolet Impala 2-door convertible
    provided by Earl Hayes Chevrolet Dallas
    through Sam Bloom
    aka:Press Photo Car (local press) (CE 767)
    Press Pool Convertible (CE 768)
    Cam 3 (Cutler)
    Local Cam 1 (Trask)
    Local Press Car (N&A)
    relevant photos/film: Wiegman film, Couch film,
    DCA film, Dorman film, Hughes film, Nix film, Martin film.
    occupant sources: CE 768, 6H155-157 Couch, 6H162-167 Dillard,
    6H167-168 Jackson, C&A Article, Trask.
    notes: Jackson throws exposed film to a pre-arranged film drop at
    the NE corner of Main and Houston. The film falls to the
    ground. This is partially visible in Hughes film and may
    explain why Jackson took no photos at the time of the shots.
    After shots, Underwood, Dillard, and Darnell jump out of the
    car at the head of Elm Street. Darnell films the Newmans
    (Darnell film). Couch jumps out of the car at the base of
    Triple Underpass while Jackson remains. Underwood and
    Darnell remain in Dealey Plaza, while Dillard enters car
    #13. Couch and some other unidentified photographer(s)
    (Cancellare, Darnell?) later get a ride to Parkland from a
    passing motorist.

    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Motorcade%20Route/Item%2015.pdf
    \\][//

  48. Handwritten notes by Lee Harvey Oswald describing his activities, (Photocopy), date unknown.





    \\][//

  49. Pied-piping
    In linguistics, pied-piping is a phenomenon of syntax whereby a given focused expression takes an entire encompassing phrase with it when it is “moved”.[1] The term itself is due to John Robert Ross;[2] it is a reference to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the figure of fairy tales who lured rats (and children) by playing his flute. Pied-piping is an aspect of discontinuities in syntax, having to do with the constituents that can and cannot be discontinuous.[3] While pied-piping is most visible in cases of wh-fronting of information questions and relative clauses, it is not limited to wh-fronting, but rather it can be construed as occurring with most any type of discontinuity (extraposition, scrambling, topicalization). Most if not all languages that allow discontinuities employ pied-piping to some extent, although there are major differences across languages in this area, some languages employing pied-piping much more than others.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied-piping
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    My use of the term Pied Piping, is distinct from the linguistics interpretation above. I use the term to point out a rhetorical technique meant to persuade and lead the reader by incessant repetition and argumentum verbosium. Simply to ‘lead astray’ as in the ‘Pied Piper of Hamelin’.
    \\][//

    • Prayer Man FAQ
      1. We believe in giving credit wherever it is due, so with that in mind, we have striven to obtain details of any previous investigation of this enigma. As far as it has been ascertained, the first discussion of the figure came in correspondence between Dick Sprague, Dick Bernabei and Harold Weisberg in 1968. That investigation ground to a halt due to their inability to obtain the original frame from NBC and they were left with a 7th generation copy.
      http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq#Question1
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Willy Whitten — May 7, 2016 at 11:03 am

      “Jefferson Morley: Redefining facts
      by Hasan Yusuf 109 minutes ago”
      –http://reopenkennedycase.org/

      So they have a so-called “Open Forum”, but it is a Secret Room where only the insiders can read the stories.

      ROKC is in fact structured just like a secret society; ‘Initiates’ led by the nose by a priesthood with special privileges. It is nothing but another Internet Cult.

      Prayer Man FAQ
      1. We believe in giving credit wherever it is due, so with that in mind, we have striven to obtain details of any previous investigation of this enigma. As far as it has been ascertained, the first discussion of the figure came in correspondence between Dick Sprague, Dick Bernabei and Harold Weisberg in 1968. That investigation ground to a halt due to their inability to obtain the original frame from NBC and they were left with a 7th generation copy.

      http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/prayer-man-faq#Question1

      7th generation!!! 48 years of rumination over globs of grain structure on celluloid…
      And these clowns expect us to take them seriously!

      This Prayerman nonsense is the biggest hoax attempted on JFKfacts since I have been a member.
      \\][//
      http://jfkfacts.org/lee-harvey-oswalds-application-to-work-at-the-texas-school-book-depository/#comment-874802

  50. 50 Years After JFK Murder, the Finger Finally Points to Pentagon Chief Lemnitzer

    Evidence Points to New Suspect as Architect of JFK Murder Plot: Pentagon Chief Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer had Motives, Means, and Track Record, says Gladio expert

    Did hawkish JFK-hater Lemnitzer reap revenge for his demotion from Chief of Staff to NATO Commander? In Europe, his NATO-Gladio death squads specialized in assassinating heads of state… he also had long-standing links to the Sicilian Mafia… and to JFK murder suspect Col. Lansdale… His utter contempt for JFK was well-known.

    San Diego, Nov. 5, 2013. Author Richard Cottrell has turned up an exciting new lead in the JFK murder, from his research into the little-known record of ardent Cold Warrior Gen. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) from 1960 to 1962, and NATO commander from 1962 to 1969.

    Lyman Lemnitzer is probably best remembered today for the 1962 Operation Northwoods plot to spark a war on Cuba, nixed by Kennedy. It was to employ classic Gladio-style false-flag operations. Overflowing with fantastic schemes, it showed how well prepared Lemnitzer was to transform NATO’s “stay-behind” paramilitary units into terrorist special forces.

    Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were bent on removing Castro, and they took JFK’s “No” on Northwoods hard. Researcher James Fetzer has proposed the JCS may have meant JFK’s killing itself to be a Northwoods episode, with the patsy Oswald having Russian and Cuban connections.

    Lemnitzer was a great favorite of Eisenhower, who helped him rise rapidly to the top spot of JCS Chairman in 1960. When Kennedy took office in 1961, the two became the chief antagonists in a titanic struggle over civilian vs. military control of the armed forces and foreign policy, and above all over the preference for war or peace. They sharply disagreed on Cuba, Russia, nuclear warfare, and escalation in Vietnam. When Lemnitzer formally proposed a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia in 1961, a pet idea of Air Force chief Curtis LeMay, JFK humbled Chairman Lyman by walking out of the meeting in disgust.

    For fifty years, Lemnitzer has escaped the suspicions of JFK assassination researchers simply because he was transferred to Europe in November 1962, a year before Kennedy’s murder. The move gave him both a motive and a perfect alibi — “out of sight, out of mind.” Although he was stationed “over there,” the Joint Chiefs remained resentful of JFK and loyal to him. As soon as JFK was out of the way, the top brass got the war on Vietnam they wanted.

    In fact, Lemnitzer remained so far above suspicion that President Ford could appoint him to the commission investigating the CIA’s role in the JFK murder. Yet the appointment itself is suspicious, as it gave LL the perfect opportunity to deflect inquiries that might uncover his own role.

    In Cottrell’s book, “Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe,” he also documents a new twist on the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Lemnitzer intentionally allowed this CIA operation to fail, to undermine both Kennedy and the rival CIA, whom JFK was letting onto military turf.

    Researchers seem to agree that the JFK assassination involved high-level CIA and military figures, with lower-level Mafia and Cuban exile participation. Lemnitzer’s Mafia ties go back to his first major command, running the 1944 invasion of Sicily in close cooperation with top Mafiosi. He worked with the Cosa Nostra again as head of NATO, to build up the Gladio death squads — as indicated in Cottrell’s subtitle, “the Pentagon-Mafia-Nazi Terror Axis.”

    The Nazi element refers to the recruiting of Nazi assets after the war, another Lemnitzer commission. Fascist talents were used to set up the Gladio structure. LL was among those who felt “we fought on the wrong side.” With his Nazi sympathies and rabid militarism, he saw Kennedy as a traitor, soft on communism, who deserved to be eliminated.

    In 1965, on Lemnitzer’s NATO watch, a plot to kill Gen. De Gaulle led to the eviction of NATO HQ from Paris to Brussels. Cottrell documents the extreme contempt LL felt for both JFK and De Gaulle. He also fingers Gladio in several of the most high-profile European assassinations of our times, including Aldo Moro, Pope John Paul II, Olof Palme, and the Umbrella Murder.

    http://progressivepress.com/blog-entry/50-years-after-jfk-murder-finger-finally-points-pentagon-chief-lemnitzer
    \\][//

  51. Introduction

    On January 22, 1964, the members of the then two-month old Warren Commission were hastily assembled for a top-secret meeting. Half-way into their executive session, the Commissioners decided their words were so sensitive that they should not be recorded. Commission member Allen Dulles, the former CIA director, even suggested “this record ought to be destroyed.” The incomplete stenographer’s tape remained locked in government vaults for eleven years until, under pressure from a persistent researcher named Harold Weisberg, the National Archives retrieved it and forwarded it to the Pentagon for transcription. The result was a blow to anyone who ever entertained the belief that the Warren Commission set out in good faith to investigate the murder of President Kennedy and discover the full truth.
    It was never a secret that the Commission relied almost entirely on the FBI to conduct the bulk of its investigation. In its own Report, the Commission boasted of this relationship: “Because of the diligence, cooperation, and facilities of the Federal investigative agencies, it was unnecessary for the Commission to employ investigators other than the members of the Commission’s legal staff” (Rxiii). It was also no secret that this relationship was inherently compromising because the investigative agencies, particularly the FBI, had a vested interest in the conclusion that the President’s murder was the unforeseeable act of a lone madman. In the aftermath of the assassination, the FBI was left holding the bag. Rumors immediately spread that Oswald had been an FBI informant and that the FBI knew of Oswald’s potential for violence but failed to report his identity to the Secret Service. As Harold Weisberg succinctly put it as early as 1965, after President Kennedy was killed, all the federal agencies “had one objective, to take the heat off themselves.”[1]
    By any reasonable standard, the last investigator to have been entrusted with the task of developing the facts surrounding the assassination was the FBI.
    The Warren Commission realized this, but decided to rely on the FBI nonetheless. Its public position would be one of praise for the FBI’s diligent cooperation. But the secret executive sessions and confidential memoranda tell another story: The Commission knew what J. Edgar Hoover was up to and played along.
    The Commission convened in secret that January 22 to discuss the rumor that Oswald had been a paid informant for the FBI. As chapter 2 of this book documents, the FBI had already preempted the Commission by publicly claiming to have solved the assassination within three weeks of the event. At the January 22 session, an unidentified speaker, probably General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, explained the basic problem to the Commission: “That is that the FBI is very explicit that Oswald is the assassin . . . and they are very explicit that there was no conspiracy.” However, the speaker noted, “they have not run out all kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia. . . . But they are concluding that there can’t be a conspiracy without those being run out.” The inevitable question was raised: “Why are they so eager to make both of those conclusions . . . ?” Mr. Dulles claimed to be confused as to why the FBI would want to dispose of the case by finding Oswald guilty if, at the same time, Oswald was rumored to have been in the FBI’s employ. Dulles’s question was quickly answered by Rankin:
    A: They would like to have us fold up and quit.
    Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don’t you see?
    Dulles: Yes, I see that.
    Rawkin [sic]: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and that is the end of it.[2]
    The Commission engaged in a more explicit discussion of the problem at its secret session five days later, on January 27. John J. McCloy noted “we are so dependent upon them [the FBI] for our facts that it might be a useful thing to have him [Hoover] before us” for the purpose of requesting further investigation “of the things that are still troubling us.” The following discussion ensued:

    Mr. Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problems. They have decided that it is Oswald who committed the assassination, they have decided that no one else was involved, they have decided —
    Sen. Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
    Rep. Boggs: You have put your finger on it. . . .
    Mr. Rankin: . . . They have decided the case, and we are going to have maybe a thousand further inquiries that we say the Commission has to know all these things before it can pass on this.
    And I think their reaction probably would be, “Why do you want all that. It is clear.”
    Sen. Russell: “You have our statement, what else do you need?”
    Mr. McCloy: Yes, “We know who killed cock robin.”[3]

    Thus, the Commission recognized the untenable position it faced being put in if it relied on the FBI for additional investigation when the FBI was claiming that the crime had been solved and no more investigation was necessary. Hoover had already staked the very reputation of his agency on a solution that demanded Oswald as the lone assassin. It would have been a naive Commission indeed that would have expected the FBI to destroy its own “solution” of the crime with further investigation. In light of these secret discussions, the Commission’s heavy dependence on the FBI is nothing less than culpable.
    The central FBI conclusion, which the Commission adopted as its own, was that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy. This conclusion was sustained solely on the finding that bullets from Oswald’s rifle had caused the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. If this one finding crumbles, the case for Oswald’s guilt must crumble with it. It was thus of paramount importance that the Commission independently verify this FBI finding.
    The Commission was certainly aware of its responsibility. In secret, the members admitted to each other the inadequacy of the Bureau’s ballistics findings as set forth in the FBI Report. At the executive session held December 16, 1963, Mr. McCloy complained, “This bullet business leaves me totally confused.” Chairman Warren concurred: “It’s totally inconclusive.”[4] Members of the Commission’s staff, noting the FBI’s sloppy work, recognized a need “to facilitate independent analysis of the Bureau’s ballistic conclusions”[5] and to “secure from the FBI and consider the underlying documents and reports related to the rifle and shells.”[6]
    As I explain in chapter 3, the only way the Commission could possibly have established a firm link between bullets fired from Oswald’s rifle and the wounds inflicted during the assassination was to compare the metallic composition of all the ballistic specimens through a meticulous scientific process called spectrographic analysis. The FBI claimed to have run such tests and arrived at inconclusive results. The Commission took the FBI at its word, based on nonexpert testimony, without ever having looked at the spectrographer’s report or having put the relevant documents into its record. Evidence has since been developed by Harold Weisberg that a far more detailed comparative process, neutron activation analysis (NAA), was utilized by the Commission through the Atomic Energy Commission.[7] Proper NAA testing could at once have settled the doubts that plagued the Commission.
    […]>>
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGintro.html
    \\][//

  52. “If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.”

    — Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
    \\][//

  53. John McAdams
    May 22, 2016 at 9:48 pm
    This is a video of showing off the muzzle flash of a Mosin Nagant During the daytime.

    “I don’t see any muzzle flash. Just a wisp of smoke that quickly disappears.

    I don’t doubt one could see a muzzle flash at night.” ~McAdams
    . . . . . .
    Muzzle Flash in daylight is too common to argue about, you fucking idiots!!!
    Fast Forward >> to 3:38

    (This is to do with Bowers statement to Mark Lane about seeing a flash of light near the picket fence behind the pavillion during the shooting of JFK)



    \\][//

  54. Gunshot Witness Testimonies — Dealey Plaza – 11/22/1963
    At least two dozen, and perhaps as many as four dozen, of the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963 thought at least one gunshot came from in front of the presidential motorcade, a claim rejected by the Warren Commission and most U.S. news organizations..

    Richard Charnin has proposed a statistical proof of a shot from the front.

    Another way to think about the matter is to review the eyewitness accounts, especially those of people with crime scene training.

    Assessing earwitness testimony

    Defenders of the U.S. government’s semi-official theory that the 35th president, a liberal Democrat, was shot from behind by a psychopathic leftist will dismiss the earwitness accounts. Earwitness testimony, say crime scene investigators, is notoriously unreliable.

    But not always. After all, it is well-documented that some earwitnesses of JFK’s assassination proved to have good hearing that day. Several dozen people reported hearing gunshots from above and behind the presidential motorcade. Their perception was accurate.

    President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally were both wounded in the back. The location of their wounds proved that Oswald (or someone else) was firing from above and behind had assaulted the motorcade. The earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza proved right.

    So what about the several dozen people who said a shot also came from in front of JFK’s car? Were they mistaken? Or could they have been right too?

    The issue is well documented. Stewart Galanor says 52 earwitnesses said they thought one or more shots came from in front of the motorcade. Richard Charnin says 88 witnesses heard a knoll shot. Even John McAdams, a die-hard anti-conspiracy theorist, agrees that at least 33 witnesses spoke of hearing a gunshot from in front of the motorcade.

    Railroad worker S.M. Holland, who was watching from the Triple Underpass, says he heard a rifle report and saw smoke from behind the stockade face atop the grassy knoll. (Watch Holland tell his story here.)

    The area was searched by police within minutes of JFK’s assassination. No gunman was found.

    Corroborating earwitness testimony

    Law enforcement and criminal justice professionals agree that photographic evidence is more reliable than earwitness testimony.

    What about the infamous home movie of the assassination made by Dallas dressmaker Abraham Zapruder. What does it tell us about the source of the shots?

    The film captures, in terrible detail, the six seconds in which the commander in chief lost his life. The film shows Kennedy jolted forward when he was struck in the back by a bullet. A few seconds later, the film shows JFK head snapping backwards and to the left from the fatal shot.

    The Zapruder film lends credence to — some say corroborates — the earwitness testimony that the fatal shot came from the front and to the right.

    Among the earwitnesses to JFK’s murder were no less than 21 law enforcement officers.

    While earwitness testimony is unreliable, these 21 cops were probably better earwitnesses than most. All of them were within 150 feet from JFK when the shots rang out. They were trained in the use of firearms and they were experienced in crime scene investigation.

    Most importantly, they were dispersed at various around the park-like area of Dealey Plaza, which means they would have heard different echo patterns, a frequent source of faulty earwitness testimony.

    What did these earwitnesses say about the origins of the gunshot killed JFK?

    21 cops

    Twenty one officers said their reaction to the gunfire was to go search the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.”

    The unanimity of their reaction is striking. On November 22, after hearing gunfire near the presidential motorcade, they all converged on the parking lot and the railroad yard, lined by a stockade fence, on top of a grassy embankment overlooking the motorcade route.

    The Warren Commission ignored all of this testimony, even from cops. The Warren Report said there was “no evidence” of a shot from the front.

    That is the sort of misleading statement that prompted a majority of Americans to mistrust the Warren Commission’s conclusions about the causes of JFK’s assassination.

    There was credible evidence, in the form of earwitness testimony, that JFK was killed by a shot from the front. Here’s some of it.

    What 21 cops said — and did — after JFK was shot

    1) Secret Service man Paul E. Landis, Jr., was riding the rear right running board of the third car in the presidential motorcade. After JFK’s assassination, he wrote:

    My immediate thought was that the President could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was. I still am not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at the time was the shot came from somewhere towards the front right-hand side of the road.

    2) Secret Service man Forrest Sorrels was riding in the lead car of the motorcade when he heard the shots. He said he “turned around to look up on this terrace part there, because the sound sounded like it came from the back and up in that direction.”

    Like many other witnesses Sorrells used the term “terrace” to refer to the area famously known as “the grassy knoll.” There is a monument structure in this part of Dealey Plaza overlooking the street where JFK’s motorcade was passing. Adjacent to the structure is a parking lot and a railroad yard separated by a line of trees.

    Sorrells repeated this observation to the Warren Commission.

    “And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up or the terrace there …

    But the reports seemed to be so loud that it sounded like to me – in other words, that my first thought, somebody up on the terrace, and that is the reason I looked there.

    3) Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry was driving the lead car in the motorcade. In a deposition taken in April 1964, Curry said:

    I heard a sharp report. We were near the railroad yards at this time, and I didn’t know – I didn’t know exactly where this report came from, whether it was above us or where, but this followed by two more reports (Warren Commission, Vol. XII, 28).

    The week after this deposition, Curry was in Washington testifying at great length before the Commission – but he was not asked about where he thought the shots came. He did say where he ordered his men to search for the gunman.

    I said over the radio, I said: “Get someone up in the railroad yard and check.” (IV, 161)

    After the shots rang out, Dallas police chief Jesse Curry ordered his men to search the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll.
    Curry’s memory, though not his language, is confirmed by the audio recording of Dallas Police Department’s radio communications that day. On recording Curry is heard to say, “Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.” He was referring to the area in front of JFK’s limousine.

    4) Deputy sheriff Eugene Boone ran towards the knoll and then the railroad yard as soon as he heard the shots (XIX, 507; VII, 105-9).

    5) Deputy constable Seymour Weitzman, like most of the other deputies, was standing at the corner of Main and Houston when he heard the shots. He ran toward the President’s car and climbed over a wall in “the monument section,” looking for the assassin (IV, 161).

    6) Roger Craig, too, on hearing the first shot, ran until he reached “the terrace on Elm Street” and then the railroad yards (XIX, 524.).

    7) Harold Elkins was more explicit:

    I immediately ran to the area from which it sounded like the shots had been fired. This is an area between the railroad and the Texas School Book Depository which is east of the railroad. (XIX, 540)

    8) “Lummie” Lewis, 9) A. D. McCurley, 10) Luke Mooney, and 11 ) W. W. Mabra all heard the shots the same way and ran to search the grassy knoll and the freight yard. (XIX, 526, 514, 541, 528).

    12) The shots sent Deputy Sheriff J. L. Oxford running toward the triple underpass (XIX, 530).

    13) L. C. Smith’s reaction to the shots was to climb the fence behind the grassy knoll and search the parking lot (XIX, 516).

    14) Deputy I. C. Todd ran to the railroad tracks, as did 15) Ralph Walters and radio officer 16) Jack Watson (XIX, 543, 505-6, 522).

    17) Harry Weatherford told much the same story about when he heard the sound of gunfire. He knew what it was: (XIX, 502)

    “I thought to myself that this was a rifle and I started towards the corner when I heard the third report … By this time I was running toward the railroad yards where the sound seemed to come from.”

    18) Deputy sheriff Buddy Walthers (XIX, 502) was riding behind JFK’s car in the motorcade. He wrote a memo about what he did on November 22. He told much the same story when he testified in Washington in July 1964.

    Walthers heard three shots, ran across Dealey Plaza until he reached the parking are behind the now-familiar “concrete structure on the knoll” (VII, 544-6). He recalled

    “At the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered with blood – I was just a little back and left of – a little back and left of Mrs. Kennedy but I didn’t know.”

    His second choice for the source of the gunfire was the Texas School Book Depository. (VI, 294-5).

    Two photos taken shortly after JFK’s assassination show Dallas deputy sheriff Clyde Haygood parking his motorcycle before he ran up the grassy knoll to investigate.
    19) After the shots were fired, Clyde Haygood tried to jump the north curb of Elm Street with his motorcycle and, failing, parked it on the street and ran to the knoll looking for any sign of the assassin. (VI, 297-9).

    20) Joe Marshall Smith had his back to the Depository on Elm Street when the shots rang out. “I didn’t know where the shots came from,” he said, but ran “to an area immediately behind the concrete structure” and checked the bushes and all the cars in the parking lot behind the knoll. (VII, 533-6)

    21) Edgar Leon Smith, Jr., stood on the east curb of Houston Street about 150 feet from the Depository . He guessed the first two shots were firecrackers but, after the third shot, he drew his pistol and ran down Elm Street.

    Wesley Liebeler, a Warren Commission attorney asked him to clarify by referring to a map before them: “You thought the shot came from this little concrete structure up behind No. 7?

    Smith said, “Yes, sir.”

    Given the unreliability of earwitness testimony, such accounts cannot be dispositive in determining the source of the gunshot that killed JFK.

    Some people say it is foolish to think that President Kennedy was killed in the crossfire of two assassins. Others will say it foolish to dismiss the testimony of 21 cops at the scene of a crime.

    What do you think?

    ———-

    A note on sources:

    This account is adapted from an essay “51 Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” written by Harold Feldman.

    Stewart Galanor, a teacher and JFK researcher, did the most thorough accounting of eyewitness and earwitness testimony from the crime scene. He compiled the statements of 216 witnesses and provides links to their statements.

    Professor John McAdams, a defender of the lone nut theory, says that “only” 33 witnesses thought a shot came from in front of the presidential motorcade. His efforts to dismiss evidence that conflicts with his theory are more revealing than persuasive.
    http://jfkfacts.org/21-jfk-cops-who-heard-a-grassy-knoll-shot/
    Also see:
    http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses
    http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=230
    \\][//

  55. The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence

    by Stewart Galanor

    How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations
    manipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination.

    Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two hundred of them.
    Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

    Analysis of 178 Witnesses

    In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations analyzed the accounts of the witnesses taken by the Warren Commission and from FBI reports published in the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that accompanied the Warren Report. In analyzing witness accounts, a diligent investigator would consider various issues that the House Committee failed to address.

    Accommodating Witnesses

    One delicate issue to confront is the truthfulness of some of the witnesses. James Altgens, Associated Press photographer, told the Warren Commission he thought the shots came from behind the Presidential limousine (i.e., the direction of the Depository). (7H517) But on November 22, he wrote in an AP dispatch, “At first I thought the shots came from the opposite side of the street [i.e., the knoll]. I ran over there to see if I could get some pictures . . . I did not know until later where the shots came from.” (See Document 28 in Cover-up)

    Jesse Curry, the Dallas chief of police, told reporters on November 23 that although he was driving the lead car of the motorcade, he “could tell from the sound of the three shots that they had come from the book company’s building near downtown Dallas.” (The New York Times, 11/24/63) However, when confronted with the transcript of the police radio transmissions, Curry admitted that just after the shots were fired, he broadcast over his car radio: “Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.” (23H913; 4H161)

    Bill Decker, the Dallas Sheriff, was riding with Curry in the lead car, and according to the police transcript, Decker called over Curry’s radio: “Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.” (23H913) When Decker testified to the Warren Commission, he did not reveal, nor was he asked, where he thought the shots came from.

    House Speaker Tip O’Neill revealed in his autobiography that five years after the assassination:
    “I was surprised to hear [Presidential aide Kenneth] O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
    “That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,” I said.
    “You’re right,” he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.”
    “Dave Powers [another Kennedy aide] was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.” (Man of the House,178)
    […]

    http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/artScience.htm
    Also see:
    216 Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
    Sorted by Source of Shots

    216 Witnesses

    52 Knoll

    48 Depository

    5 Knoll & Depository

    4 Elsewhere

    37 Could Not Tell

    70 Not Asked
    http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm
    \\][//

  56. JFK Assassination Part V
    https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_up

    R. Anderson — Warrenista on Amazon thread.

    Of course, one does not confront the state propagandist to convince the propagandist, one does so to reveal the methods and techniques of the propagandist to the candid world. One points out the rhetorical trickery, the perpetual appeal to authority, the utterly conformist belief system of the statist propagandist. Making it obvious that the propagandist has no personal point of view but that provided by the authority of the system, be it military industrial academic or media induced.
    The conformity to statist indoctrination is made clear and distinct by deconstruction of the assumptions the propagandists text reveals.

    As an auxiliary, one should also make clear the obvious ignorance of the statist of the true nature of the architecture of modern political power.

    See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/
    \\][//

    • In the JFK assassination, the Crime Scene is a movable feast that must be defined by the stationary elements and the moving elements, and these elements must all be coordinated by an analysis over a specific time and the moments within.

      The stationary elements are Dealey Plaza itself and the structures that make it up. The elements in movement are of course people, automobiles (in particular the Presidential Limousine), and the missiles that struck both Gov Connally and John Kennedy.

      The first order of the analysis would be an assessment of the visual elements – what was seen of the murder that day? There were hundreds of still photographs taken that captured events around and about, as well as the actual murder. There were several motions pictures as well. the three most important being Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films. The best visual evidence is the Zapruder film.

      “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.

      Target Movement – From Sherry Fiester:

      “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.”
      ~Sherry Fiester, CSI
      See: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/
      \\][//

      Willy Whitten
      March 5, 2016 at 1:36 pm
      To understand wound ballistics, one must first have a firm grasp of basic Newtonian Physics; Momentum, Trajectory, and Kinetics.
      The intricacies of of ballistics is founded on these basics.

      To Understand the Zapruder film, one must first have a firm grasp on movie making machinery ie: cameras, projectors, splicing equipment, etc.
      One must also understand the medium of film itself, its properties and the chemistry of the dyes and celluloid.
      Then, if one is going to assert “alteration”, one must understand the field of special effects cinematography.
      If one does NOT understand these things, one is not going to grasp the arguments that prove the Zapruder film is authentic.

      The grasp of ballistics, and of cinematography combine as necessities in understanding the best evidence in the JFK murder, the Zapruder film.
      \\][//
      http://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-861329

      Newton’s 1st Law

      “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
      This law is often called “the law of inertia”.

      Newton’s 2nd Law

      “Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).”

      Newton’s 3rd Law

      “For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.”
      . . .
      “ITEK Corporation confirmed that measurement in the May 1976 report completed for CBS. Thompson displays page 78 of the report, which indicates Kennedy’s head moved forward 2.26 inches and his shoulders moved forward 1.1 inches between frames 312 and 313, just 1/18th of a second .”~Sherry Fiester – Enemy of the Truth

      Of course the rest of the action of JFK’s head and body are also documented in the Z-film, that which is most obvious as the film is in motion, his head and body both move violently to the back and left.
      . . .

      The head nod, and the backspatter combine to prove a shot from the front.
      The “FRONT” was NOT the Grassy Knoll. Kennedy was facing the southwest corner of Dealey Plaza at the time the bullet struck him in the head, just above the right ear in a tangential strike to his temple.
      It is this 3rd law that causes the light bulb to lean against the bullet when it first comes in contact. The bulb/head for that split second as the bullet first contacts it is heavier than the missile, and leans forward against it. Only after the center of gravity is reached as the bullet inters the skull does the kinetic energy push the head back.

      JFK Head-Nod
      Again as 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.
      See 4 frames of “Death of a Lightbulb” from a slow motion movie of a bullet penetrating a lightbulb that illustrates this:

      Mr. STURDIVAN – “There is another section of film here, before we get to the skulls, which we forgot to mention. Perhaps we should go ahead and go through it since it is already there. This is a can of tomatoes which I think demonstrates some of the principles of physics that are involved here. The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions.

      **Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came.**

      You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile. In the next case, the bullet is still within the can and, in fact, has stopped within the can.”– HSCA testimony
      . . .
      “Although the principles of wound ballistics are not so complicated, bullets take a special position among the objects relevant in traumatology due to their physical characteristics: compared to other wounding agents, the mass is very small and the velocity is high. Unlike other blunt accelerated objects, this allows per se a deep penetration of tissue. But unlike sharp force, a dynamic penetration mechanism is effective which has not ended by the time the bullet exits.”
      […]
      “The third part is dedicated to blood and tissue particles exiting via the entrance wound: backspatter. The direction against the line of fire is the reason for the high evidential value of this phenomenon.”~Karger (9.1 Introduction – pg. 141)
      [For context verses Physicist Richard Feynman | See: http://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-861574}

      “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

      “If the internal pressures are high enough, indirect skull fractures will combine to an ‘‘explosive’’ type of head injury [54] with comminuted fractures of the skull and laceration of the brain.”~Krager [*]

      Exactly what we see in the Zapruder film. JFK’s head nods forward a fraction of a second, as backspatter spews from the entrance wound, dissipating within a single frame. His head is then thrown back and to the left, and his body follows that momentum, falling to the left as well.

      [*]Forensic Ballistics – Brend Krager
      http://webzoom.freewebs.com/balisticaterminal/Forensic_ballistics_Karger.pdf

      Wound Ballistics – Basics and Applications
      Translation of the revised third German edition (2008)
      With 234 figures and 156 tables

      PC/Downloads/__Wound_Ballistics__Basics_and_Applications.pdf

      • Now in my exposition on the ballistics of the JFK head shot, I refer to the Crime Scene as ‘a movable feast’. I have a dual intention for doing so; as I explain in that commentary the geographical location of Dealey Plaza is a crime scene. What must be taken into account is that the Presidential Limousine is a crime scene in itself. As such it can only be noted that this crime scene was flagrantly despoiled with no effort whatsoever to make a thorough and complete forensic inspection of the car.

        This is official malfeasance of the highest order. It also is a dreadful breach of proper autopsy protocol, as the crime scene is suppose to be thoroughly understood by the pathologists performing the autopsy. Not having the clothing of the president present for examination is a similar breach of proper autopsy protocol.

        These points are some of the reasons that the autopsy should have been done in Dallas as the law called for, as the entire crime scene, including the limousine were present, as well as the ER doctors who should have been present and available for consultation to the pathologist performing the autopsy. The spiriting from Texas of both the body and the limousine were not only against protocol, they were felonious acts of the highest order.
        \\][//

      • 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,
        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/forensic.htm
        \\][//

      • 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.
        . . . . .
        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.
        http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html
        \\][//

  57. Ballistics & Forensic Experts on the JFK Head Shot
    Compiled by Joel Grant
    […]
    from the testimony of Larry Sturdivan, physical scientist with the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds since 1964
    1HSCA403 —

    “The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions. Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came.” (he is describing film of a bullet being shot into a can of tomatoes)

    1HSCA404 —

    (re: film of skulls filled with a 20% gelatin solution)

    “In fact, all 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing. They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better [than a] foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet and they also lost material toward us, that is, toward its right and, therefore, rotated towards its left.”
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
    \\][//

    • [Excerpted from “Experimental Duplication of the Important Physical
      Evidence of the Lapel Bulge of the Jacket Worn by Governor Connally
      When Bullet 399 Went Through Him” by John K. Lattimer, M.D., et al,
      in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons, May 1994.]
      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Lattimer.txt
      \\][//

  58. Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation
    By Gary L. Aguilar

    “The Nation Magazine has long been one of the most perceptive and eloquent voices for skepticism in publishing. Its revelations over the years have established it as one of the few national media outlets that truly functions as a watchdog in the public interest. It has always been an early voice, often the first, to question official pronouncements — on Vietnam, on Watergate, on Iran-Contra, on Guatemala, on Haiti, and Chile. When, for example, CIA man Richard Helms told the U.S. Senate that the CIA played no role in demolishing Chile’s democracy in 1973, The Nation called his testimony exactly what it was: perjury.[1]

    But on JFK’s murder, The Nation has inexplicably kept shut the skeptical eye it normally keeps cocked at outfits like FBI, the CIA and the military – the very groups it has so often caught lying, and the very groups that produced virtually all the evidence the Warren Commission said disproved conspiracy.”

    http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html
    \\][//

  59. “It has NOT been shown to be another type of bullet at all. That is just one theory. You are simply taking conjecture as fact and you are LYING to readers here when you state “which has been shown was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano bullet”….
    You would not last 5 minutes in an informed debate on this subject and you are clearly off your rocker.”
    ~Patrick Collins | on May 27, 2016 4:59:18 AM PDT
    https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=TxWDSFVL4TBHM9&newContentID=Mx3D1GVL4FFMRWT&newContentNum=8365#Mx1Q9EXXVQSXP49

    In his very first remarks addressed to me, Patrick Collins ends with calumny and ad hominem, sure signs of desperation in argumentation.
    This from a man who claims to be a serious researcher for decades, a pretender at being “scholarly” and one who would offer measured and calmly deliberate remarks. Yet he comes across as juvenile as the rest of the squawking punks on that thread
    .
    \\][//

  60. Warren Report:

    P. 518: Kemp Clark, MD: “There was a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region … There was considerable loss of scakp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebrellar tissue was extruding from the wound.” Undated, typed noted.

    p. 520: “The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and brain tissue prseent with diffuse oozing … attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via packs instituted.” – 11.22.63, 16:20, Charles J. Carrico, MD

    p. 521: “A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted … . ” Malcolm. O. Perry, MD, 16:30, 11.22.63.

    p. 523: ” … the temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.” Charles Baxter, MD, Assistant Prof of Surgery, 11.22.63.

    p. 524-525: In a hand-written hospital note: “a large 3 x3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present….there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also….There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region …. Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination….” 11.22.63, 16:15 hrs. Kemp Clark, MD

    P. 529 – 30: “There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.” M. T. Jenkins, MD, 11.22.63, 16:30.

    \\][//

  61. “The burden of proving the chain of custody rests with the party offering the evidence.”
    ‘Chain of Custody’ — Paul C. Giannelli
    Case Western University School of Law, paul.giannelli@case.edu (1996)
    \\][//

  62. The Autopsy Report

    The evidence that a draft autopsy report-as well as a first signed version-existed prior to the report in evidence today is both easy to understand, and undeniable.

    The First Draft

    On November 24, 1963 the chief pathologist at President Kennedy’s autopsy, Dr. James J. Humes, signed a typed statement he had prepared that read as follows:

    “I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to Naval Medical School Autopsy Report A63-272 and have officially transmitted all other papers related to this report to higher authority.”

    On two occasions before the HSCA, in March of 1977 and in September of 1978, Dr. Humes maintained that he had destroyed notes. He repeated this claim in an interview published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in May of 1992. The reasons given in each case were that the notes were destroyed because they had on them the blood of the President, which Dr. Humes deemed unseemly.

    The ARRB General Counsel, Jeremy Gunn, had reason to suspect that an early draft of the autopsy report had also been destroyed, based upon an analysis of inconsistencies between Dr. Humes’ previous testimony about when he wrote the draft report, and existing records documenting its transmission to higher authority. After extremely thorough and persistent questioning by the Review Board’s General Counsel in February of 1996, Dr. Humes admitted, under oath, that both notes from the autopsy, and a first
    draft of the autopsy report (which had been prepared well after the autopsy’s conclusion and had no blood on it), had been destroyed in his fireplace.

    The First Signed Version

    A simple study of the receipt trail for the transmission of the autopsy report reveals that the first signed report is missing as well.

    On April 26, 1965 the Secret Service transferred the autopsy photographs and x-rays, and certain vital documents and biological materials to the custody of the Kennedy family at the request of Robert F. Kennedy. That receipt lists, among other things:

    “Complete autopsy protocol of President Kennedy (orig, & 7 cc’s)-Original signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist.”

    Evelyn’s Lincoln, secretary to the late President Kennedy, signed for
    receipt of all of the items the same day.

    Incredibly, on October 2, 1967 the head of the Secret Service signed a letter transferring the original of CE 387, the autopsy report placed in evidence by the Warren Commission, to the National Archives; the National Archives signed a receipt for CE 387 the next day, October 3, 1967.

    Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin, in a declassified transcript of a January 27, 1964 Executive Session of the Commission, discusses details of the content of “the autopsy report” which are not consistent with the details of the report in evidence today, CE 387, thus confirming that the first signed version contained different conclusions.

    The dilemma presented here can best be summarized by the following rhetorical question: How could the U.S. Secret Service transfer the original JFK autopsy protocol to the National Archives (or to anyone else, for that matter) on October 2, 1967 when they had previously given it to the Kennedy family on April 26, 1965? The answer, of course, is that there were two separate reports. The first smooth, or signed version, was given to the Kennedy family at the specific request of Robert Kennedy, and has disappeared. The second signed version is in the National Archives today.

    Conclusion

    The destruction of both the first draft and the first signed version of the autopsy report are clear evidence of the ongoing malleability of the autopsy report’s specific conclusions during the initial 2 weeks following the conclusion of the post mortem examination. Furthermore, it is clear that when Dr. Humes testified under oath to the Review Board that there was only one autopsy report, and that he only signed one autopsy report, he committed perjury.~Douglas Horne

    http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Navigation/autopsy.htm
    \\][//

  63. AGENCY: HSCA
    ORIGINATOR: HSCA
    FROM: RICHARD SPRAGUE
    TO: FILE
    MEMORANDUM
    March 18, 1977
    TO : FILE
    FROM : RICHARD A. SPRAGUE

    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 had
    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.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/Dr_Burkley.html

    Burkley to HSCA
    Reference copy, JFK Collection: HSCA (RG 233)

    AFFIDAVIT

    I, VICE ADMIRAL GEORGE G. BURKLEY (M.C.) (Ret.) living in Los Angeles, California, being duly sworn make oath as follows: I was interviewed in January, 1978 by T. Mark Flanagan, Jr. and Donald A. Purdy, Jr. of the staff of the Select Committee on Assassinations. During the interview I set forth the substance of the information which follows. At this time I reaffirm that this information is accurate and truthful to the best of my knowledge. This statement is made freely, voluntarily, and with out threats, promises, assurance, or remuneration from any source.

    I was Personal Physician to President John F. Kennedy in November 1963 and accompanied President Kennedy on the Texas trip. I was at Parkland Hospital and later at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of November 22, 1963. I saw President Kennedy’s wounds at Parkland Hospital and during the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

    1. I was with President Kennedy in Dallas. I arrived at the Parkland Hospital within five minutes of the President’s arrival. I checked the Presidents physical condition, gave the doctors working with the President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being administered. My findings clearly indicated that death was certain and imminent.

    2. One of the doctors reported to me vital signs of life no longer could be elicited. I rechecked the vital signs of President Kennedy and there was no sign of life. I reported to Mrs. Kennedy who was nearby in the treatment room that President Kennedy was dead.

    3. I remained with the President’s body in the treatment room until the body was placed in the coffin and I saw it closed. There was no movement or manipulation of the body other than removal of the intravenous equipment during that time.

    4. In Dallas I traveled from the hospital to the Air Force One in the ambulance with the President’s body in the casket and also on the plane; the casket was neither opened or disturbed in any way.

    5. I had ordered the United States Naval Hospital to be prepared for performing an autopsy on the body of John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, the permission having been granted by Mrs. Kennedy while enroute. It was to be a complete autopsy with no limitations and no curtailment in time necessary for completion.

    6. I traveled from Andrew’s Air Force Base in the ambulance with the President’s body to the Bethesda Naval Hospital and accompanied the coffin to the autopsy laboratory and saw the body removed from the coffin and placed on the autopsy table.

    7. I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets.

    8. The autopsy material was retained in a secure area and subsequently turned over by Captain Stover USN to me and a member of the Secret Service. We took this material immediately to the EOB Building where it was placed in a locked file cabinet by the Secret Service.

    9. Senator Robert Kennedy, representing Mrs. Kennedy and the Kennedy family, directed that the autopsy material be transferred to the National Archives. This was done on April 26, 1965. See attached letter of transmittal with listing of individual items. The notation under Item #9, one stainless steel container, 7″ in diameter x 8″, containing gross material, represents the container of the brain. This material was accepted and signed for by Mrs. Evelyn Lincoln and witnessed by three people. Signed copies of these affidavits are attached.

    I understand that this affidavit may be introduced and received into evidence by the Select Committee on Assassinations of the United States House of Representatives, and may lead them to make various findings of fact, and the statutes applicable to Congressional investigations, including but not limited to those concerning false statements, obstruction, or misleading, would subject me to criminal penalties for not telling the whole and complete truth in this affidavit.

    GEORGE G. BURKLEY SIGNATURE
    Vice Admiral George G. Burkley (M.C.) USN (Ret.)
    Personal Physician to President John F. Kennedy

    STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

    Signed and sworn to before me this 28th day of November, 1978
    RUTH F. LAWLESS SIGNATURE
    NOTARY PUBLIC
    My Commission Expires April 20, 1980

    http://www.jfklancer.com/burkleyhsca.html
    \\][//

    • Another of the pathologists, 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:
      http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=67789
      . . . . . .
      http://22november1963.org.uk/pierre-finck-jfk-back-throat-wounds

      \\][//

  64. 24 November 1963

    C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E

    I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to Medical School Autopsy Report A63-272 nd have officially transmitted all other papers related to this report to higher authority.

    –Signed
    J.J. Humes
    CDR, MC, USN

    . . . . . .
    \\][//

    • Here is Humes testimony in his own words:

      The deposition of DR. JAMES JOSEPH HUMES BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD
      Re: PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
      College Park, Maryland on Tuesday, February 13, 1996
      . . .
      The astute reader will note that Humes gets quite testy under cross examination by Mr. Cornwell, he bristles and is very defensive in his responses:

      Q. Dr. Humes, let me show you part of your testimony to the HSCA. Question by Mr. Cornwell- I’ll read this into the record. It’s from page 330, and it is Exhibit 21 to this deposition.
      “Mr. Cornwell: And you finally began to write the autopsy report at what time?”
      “Dr. Humes: It was decided that three people couldn’t write the report simultaneously, so I assumed the responsibility for writing the report, which I began about 11 o’clock in the evening of Saturday November 23rd, having wrestled with it for four or five, six hours in the afternoon, and worked on it until 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning of Sunday, the 24th.”

      “Mr. Cornwell: Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the –

      “Dr. Humes: I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.”

      Now, again, the question would be: Did you copy the notes so that you would have a version of the notes without the blood on them but still notes rather than a draft report?

      A. Yes, precisely. Yes. And from that I made a first draft, and then I destroyed the first draft and the notes….
      Q. So there were, then, two sorts of documents that were burned: one, the draft notes, and, two, a draft report?

      A. Right.

      Q. Is that correct?

      A. That’s right. So that the only thing remaining was the one that you have.

      Q. Why did you burn the draft report as opposed to the draft notes?

      A. I don’t recall. I don’t know. There was no reason-see, we’re splitting hairs here, and I’ll tell you, it’s getting to me a little bit, as you may be able to detect. The only thing I wanted to finish to hand over to whomever, in this case Admiral Burkley, was my completed version. So I burned everything else. Now, why I didn’t burn the thing that J wrote, I have no way of knowing. But whether it was a draft or whether it was the notes or what, I don’t know. There was nothing left when I got finished with it, in any event, but the thing that you now have, period.

      Q. Well, the concern, of course, is if there is a record related to the autopsy that is destroyed, we’re interested in finding out what the exact circumstances-

      A. I’ve told you what the circumstances were. I used it only as an aide-memoire to do what I was doing and then destroyed it. Is that hard to understand?

      Q. When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it was that it had the blood of the President on it.

      A. Right.

      Q. The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of-

      A. Well, it may have had errors in spelling or I don’t know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don’t know. I can’t recall. I absolutely can’t recall, and I apologize for that. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I didn’t want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don’t know. But it doesn’t make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else’s.
      […]
      http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

      \\][//

  65. Q. What we’re referring to is a fragment that appears to be semicircular.
    A. Yeah. I don’t know.
    Q. Looking at that X-ray, 5-B No. 1, could you correlate any damage that you see on the right hemisphere of the skull with the photograph that’s to your left now, which is color photograph–
    A. Oh, sure. The skull defect is obvious. Now, not the brain. You can’t tell much about the brain from here. The brain doesn’t–in plain films it doesn’t, you know–it’s not well imaged at all.
    Q. To the lay eye–and I mean this to not have any presumption of being accurate–there is a large gap in the top right quadrant of the skull. That’s on the left side of the X-ray, the right quadrant.
    A. Right.
    Q. What does that signify, as best you recall, having been present at the autopsy?
    A. That’s the bone that was removed by the path of the missile.
    Q. Was the frontal bone present on–was the

    Page 215

    frontal bone still intact on the President?
    A. It was intact, yes. I can’t even make it out here, really.
    Q. You can’t see it there, but it was present?
    A. No. It was present, yes, sir.
    Q. Could we look at the second X-ray, please? This will be a right lateral view of the skull, 5-B No. 2. Dr. Humes, can you identify 5-B No. 2 as being an autopsy X-ray taken on November 22, 1963?
    A. I guess so. That’s really–it’s got some very–it’s a peculiar exposure. These are the spines of the vertebrae here, of course, and these are the bodies of the vertebrae. And these lines are some of the fractures that were present in the skull.
    Q. You’re referring to the lines that are in the top of the parietal bone–
    A. Right.
    Q. –and into the occipital bone; would that be correct?
    A. Right. Those were the fracture lines, and

    Page 216

    it’s difficult–I don’t know why this is so radio- opaque, this whole area.
    Q. You’re referring to the right frontal area.
    A. What seems to be the frontal portion of it. I don’t understand why that is. You’d have to have some radiologist tell me about that. I can’t make that out.
    Q. I’d like you to see if you could identify where you understand the entrance wound to have been on the skull, looking at this lateral X-ray.
    A. Well, back in this area.
    Q. You’re referring to the very low back of the cranium–
    A. Cranium.
    Q. –very near to the vertebra; is that correct?
    A. Well, fairly near, yeah. You can’t see it here. I can’t see it.
    Q. Do you see any fragments, stellate or otherwise, that would be consistent with an entry wound in that point?

    Page 217

    A. Well, there’s no fragments there. There’s fragments or what appear to be fragments up higher towards the vertex in this picture. Maybe one right in the middle of the picture. And this may be–do you see where this increased density is here? There may be two pieces–it may be overlapped. This piece of bone may overlap that one so it looks more dense there.
    Q. Okay.
    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

    \\][//

  66. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
    Pages 214 — 217:

    Q. Was the frontal bone present on–was the frontal bone still intact on the President?

    A. It was intact, yes. I can’t even make it out here, really.

    Q. You can’t see it there, but it was present?

    A. No. It was present, yes, sir.

    Q. Could we look at the second X-ray, please? This will be a right lateral view of the skull, 5-B No. 2. Dr. Humes, can you identify 5-B No. 2 as being an autopsy X-ray taken on November 22, 1963?

    A. I guess so. That’s really–it’s got some very–it’s a peculiar exposure. These are the spines of the vertebrae here, of course, and these are the bodies of the vertebrae. And these lines are some of the fractures that were present in the skull.

    Q. You’re referring to the lines that are in the top of the parietal bone–

    A. Right.

    Q. –and into the occipital bone; would that be correct?

    A. Right. Those were the fracture lines, and it’s difficult–I don’t know why this is so radio- opaque, this whole area.

    Q. You’re referring to the right frontal area.

    A. What seems to be the frontal portion of it. I don’t understand why that is. You’d have to have some radiologist tell me about that. I can’t make that out.”
    ….

    This is the X-ray being discussed – NOTE the clearly missing frontal bone in this X-ray. That is why Humes couldn’t “make it out”.
    It is clear that this X-ray does NOT portray what Humes himself saw at the autopsy. Why not?

    There was no large wound in the right face. The president’s wounds were a small entrance wound in the pre-tracheal area, a large exit wound in the posterior inferior cranium and bullet entrance wound in the back at T3, 10 centimeters to the right of the spinal column.

    \\][//

    • RUDIMENTARY EXAMINATIONS LEFT UNDONE
      During the Shaw trial, Finck testified that he was ordered not to dissect JFK’s back wound by a superior in the morgue whose name, like the “in-charge” general, just wouldn’t come to mind. Defending his failure to perform this key exam, Finck testified, “Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that [the dissection of the neck wound] doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.” Finck’s version was corroborated by Lattimer who, after an interview with Humes, reported that, “[Commander Humes’s and Boswell’s] request for permission to dissect out this bullet hole, which led into the upper back and possibly into the neck, was denied.” No further information was provided to answer the obvious next question, “By whom?” The CBS memo suggests it wasn’t RFK.

      And then there is the fascinating 1965 memo Finck sent to his superior, General Joe Blumberg, the man who ordered Finck to report to JFK’s autopsy team. Conveniently absent in JAMA’s glowing account, in this memo Finck informed Blumberg that, “I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who out-ranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest.” It is impossible to imagine that any physician would have ever denied a forensic expert’s request to examine JFK’s clothes on the grounds they were “only of academic interest.”
      Both the dissection of Kennedy’s back wound and the inspection of his clothes would have been aspects of the most rudimentary search for clues to the trajectory of the shots. Humes’ being denied permission for these exams, as well as being directed to do an incomplete autopsy, suggests control of the autopsy did not rest with the physicians. Had Humes really been in charge, it is impossible to imagine that he, of all people, would have refused his own consultant’s access to JFK’s back wound. Nor Finck’s access to JFK’s clothes, especially since in JAMA, Humes lamented that, “If only we had seen the President’s clothes, tracking the second bullet would have been a piece of cake, but we didn’t have the clothes.” (Though outside the scope of this discussion, it would have been of considerable interest if the autopsists had examined JFK’s clothes, because matching holes in JFK’s shirt and coat were found well below where they appear in autopsy photographs of JFK’s back.)
      ~Dr. Gary Aguilar

  67. A critical look at Luis Alvarez’s jet effect explanation for the head movement of John Kennedy when he was assassinated on November 22, 1963
    By Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer April 17, 2012
    \\][//

  68. JFK MOTORCADE ROUTE

    “The route of the presidential parade violated Secret Service protocol by involving turns of 90 and 120 degrees. During interviews with this correspondent, the route was strongly criticized by former DNC advance man Underwood and former uniformed Secret Service agent Norris. In addition, Jerry Behn, the # 1 agent in JFK’s detail, told me that the Dallas route was changed from another, as yet unknown route — a fact he offered, under oath and in executive session, to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. That testimony remains, as of the date of this publication, unpublished. Former agents Lawson and Kinney confirmed to me that alternate routes (two, according to Kinney) were available.

    PUBLICATION OF MOTORCADE ROUTE — Although Secret Service Chief James J. Rowley adamantly denied to the Warren Commission that his agency was responsible for the newspaper printing of the Dallas motorcade route, I have traced this critical decision to LBJ aide Bill Moyers, who in turn attributes it to “the agent in charge of the Dallas trip.”

    THE RYBKA TAPE — An important discovery was made by this correspondent during review of video of the Dallas trip shot by the ABC television affiliate in that city. During the start of the fatal motorcade at Love Field, Secret Service agent Henry J. Rybka begins to jog alongside the presidential limousine. He is immediately called back by his shift leader and commander of the follow-up car detail, Emory P. Roberts.

    Rybka’s dismay and confusion is made manifest by his unambiguous body language: He throws up his arms several times before, during and after the follow-up car passes him. He was not being allowed to do his job — and it was not JFK who was ordering the stand-down.

    Despite the discovery by this correspondent of three reports to the contrary (two by Roberts) written on November 22, 1963, this newly discovered photographic evidence confirms that frustrated and vocal-in-his-objections Rybka did not enter the follow-up car and was left behind at the airport.

    THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF AGENT ROBERTS — The activities of Emory P. Roberts during as well as before the shooting are difficult to understand. As the first shots were fired, he recalled agent John D. Ready, who was attempting to run to the president’s car. The initial explanation for this order — the speed of and distance between the cars was too great for effective protective measures to be taken — has been contradicted by photographic and eyewitness testimony.

    And Kinney, the driver of the follow-up car who was seated beside Roberts, said that his shift leader, upon hearing what he later admitted he immediately knew to be a rifle shot, ordered his agents not to move.

    Thus, during the most critical seconds of the Dallas motorcade, John F. Kennedy was denied potentially life-saving protection as the result of a direct order given by a ranking member of the United States Secret Service.

    During taped interviews and/or in signed correspondence, several agents and others stated for the record that they believe JFK was a victim of a conspiracy. These individuals include agents Kinney, Bolden, Martineau and Norris, and DNC advance man Underwood.

    In addition, according to his widow and daughter, agent Kellerman “knew” that there was more to the assassination than has been officially acknowledged.

    The suspect actions and inaction of Secret Service agents during the planning stage of the 1963 Texas trip, and in the Dallas motorcade on November 22, 1963, cry out for explanation.

    Thanks to the courage of former Secret Service agents who told the truth for the record, defenders of the discredited Warren Commission theory of the assassination no longer can accuse JFK of complicity in his own murder. One fact remains clear: President Kennedy did not seal his own fate by ordering his guards to stand down.

    That order originated elsewhere.”~Vincent M. Palamara

    http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html

    \\]//

  69. Distance downward from jacket collar to hole:

    FBI: 13.75cm.

    CP: 12cm.

    HSCA: 13.5cm.

    Distance to the right of jacket midline:

    FBI: 4.5cm.

    CP: 5cm.

    HSCA: 5cm.

    Distance downward from shirt collar to hole:

    FBI: 14.7cm.

    CP: 14cm. [5.5 inches]

    HSCA: 14cm.

    Distance to the right of shirt midline:

    FBI: 2.9cm.

    CP: 2.5cm.

    HSCA: 2.5cm.
    . . . .
    This photograph, taken by Phil Willis at the same time as frame 202 of the Zapruder film, shows that the jacket was in its normal position less than half a second before Kennedy came into view from the sixth–floor window.

    Testimony of Michael Baden, Head of the Medical Panel

    Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

    Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

    Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

    Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
    This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
    [1 HSCA 196: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf%5D

    The hole in the jacket was 5.5 inches below the upper margin of the jacket collar, and the hole in the shirt, 5 3/4 below the upper margin of the shirt collar [7 HSCA 83] about where witnesses said the back wound was – well below the base of the neck.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched2.htm
    See also:
    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/EMSappIII.html
    \\][//

  70. “Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Analysis Proves Oswald’s Guilt?”
    by Gary L. Aguilar

    INTRODUCTION
    “In his book, Reclaiming History, author Vincent Bugliosi highlights the dubious, if long-held, claim that bullet evidence in the Kennedy case scientifically establishes Oswald’s guilt to a high degree of certainty. The proof, he says, consists of two related elements that show that only two bullets from Oswald’s rifle struck anyone in JFK’s motorcade on November 22nd.
    Commission Exhibit 399
    Commission Exhibit 399, the so-called “magic bullet,” allegedly found on a stretcher in Parkland Memorial Hospital on the afternoon of 22 Nov 1963. But new evidence has raised doubts that this Mannlicher Carcano bullet is the same bullet that was originally found and turned over to the U.S. Secret Service. See The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
    First, both the nearly whole bullet that was recovered on a stretcher at the hospital where JFK and Governor John Connally were treated, as well as both of the other large bullet fragments recovered from JFK’s limousine (consisting of the copper jacket and the lead core of a single bullet) were shown to have been fired from Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. Second, a sophisticated analytical test, neutron activation analysis (NAA), proves that all the smaller, recovered bullet fragments were separated from the larger specimens. Thus, only two bullets struck, both from Oswald’s weapon.
    As inescapable as the logic behind the theory may seem, and Bugliosi does an admirable job of making it seem inescapable, two recent reports in the technical/scientific literature have shot holes through it. The second debunking was published six months after Bugliosi claims to have stopped his inquiry and so he can’t be faulted for not addressing it. But Bugliosi was fully aware of the first article, which, by itself, posed fatal problems which he glossed over. The manner in which Bugliosi dealt with this important evidence tells us much about his general approach to the subject of the Kennedy assassination. And to understand that, some background is in order.

    But almost immediately, there were doubts about the statistical analysis. Then, something unexpected happened. Two scientists from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory who were avowedly agnostic on the conspiracy question, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D., published a paper in the Journal of Forensic Science calling both Guinn’s original report and the two papers by Rahn and Sturdivan into serious question.
    One of Randich and Grant’s objections was that, although Guinn worked in good faith, he didn’t understand elemental bullet metallurgy, which was Randich’s area of expertise. (Nor, they made clear, did Rahn or Sturdivan.) Guinn was wrong that Mannlicher Carcano bullets were unique because the trace levels of component Sb varied. The levels of antimony in MCC bullets do vary, they said. But so do Sb levels in many bullets that, like MCC shells, are jacketed. It is the non-jacketed bullets that have consistent levels of trace components. And the levels are controlled for a very good reason.
    For while with jacketed bullets it is the jacket that provides the hardness and not the lead inside the jacket, in non-jacketed bullets the hardness of a bullet is determined by how much antimony is mixed into the lead. To strictly control bullet hardness, an important quality control issue, manufacturers strictly control the quanta of antimony used in the lead of non-jacketed ammo. But with jacketed bullets, Sb levels vary because no effort is expended to control antimony as it has no bearing on the bullet’s hardness.
    As it happens, the non-MCC bullets Guinn used in his comparison tests were non-jacketed, and so, bullet to bullet, had homogenous Sb levels. Imagining that his test samples were typical of the universe of all non-MCC shells, Guinn drew the wrong conclusions. The varying Sb levels he found in JFK’s fragments did not prove they had come from MCC shells; they could have come from many kinds of jacketed rounds.
    Randich and Grant also disproved another, key Guinn contention: that there is little variation in Sb levels within a single bullet. Using exquisite micrographs showing MCC bullets cut in cross section, Randich and Grant demonstrated that MCC bullet lead exhibits a “crystalline” type structure, with Sb tending to “microsegregate” around crystals of lead. The crystals are large enough that a sample taken from one portion of a bullet might easily have an Sb level one or two orders of magnitude higher or lower than one taken from another portion of the same bullet. Guinn found Sb matches within the MCC bullets he tested because he measured bits taken from only a very small portion of his test bullets, which said nothing about what he would have found had he sampled an entirely different area of the bullet. Thus, fragments with similar antimony levels could have come from one bullet, or more than one, and those with different antimony levels could have come from but a single bullet.
    Finally, Randich and Grant analyzed the statistical model Guinn presented to the HSCA. They determined that the number of samples he had evaluated and the number of tests he performed were inadequate to draw the sweeping statistical conclusions Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan had drawn.

    A NEW STUDY
    In May 2007, a second paper appeared reporting on a chemical, forensic and statistical analysis of bullets derived from the same batch as those supposedly used by Oswald. The authors, Cliff Spiegelman, professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in bullet lead analysis, William A. Tobin, the FBI’s former Chief Forensic Metallurgist, William D. James, research chemist with the Texas A&M Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis, and Stuart Wexler, brought considerable expertise to their study. As with Randich and Grant, they also concluded that, “evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed.” They reported that, “many bullets within a box of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition.” Thus, it was not true, as Guinn had said, that such matches are extraordinarily rare.”

    https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html
    \\][//

  71. Willy Whitten — June 4, 2016 at 1:58 pm
    “Knoll shooter is not exist”.~HIDEJI OKINA

    I emphatically disagree Mr Okina. I think there is more than enough evidence that a shooter was firing from the knoll area. I don’t think that the shot to JFKs head was fired from that spot, but the throat shot to Kennedy may have been, and a shot to Connally’s right wrist may have been.

    Regardless of whether any of the shots from the knoll actually hit a target, there were most certainly shots fired from there.

    Virgil (Ed) Hoffman, a deaf man saw the shooter behind the fence.
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhoffman.htm

    S. M. (Skinny) Holland, reported four shots which sounded as though they came from the trees on the north side of Elm Street where he saw a puff of smoke.
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKholland.htm

    Lee Bowers, saw a flash of light and a puff of smoke near the fence and trees on the knoll.
    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbowers.htm

    Plus the great number of people including police that rushed up the knoll as soon as the firing was over cannot be lightly dismissed.
    \\][//
    http://jfkfacts.org/whats-judgment-rush-judgment/#comment-880326

  72. Oswald’s Marine Rifle Marksmanship Scores

    In the late 1950s, US Marines were categorised at three levels of shooting ability, according to the scores they achieved at a standardised test of their accuracy:
    Expert: a score of 220 to 250.
    Sharpshooter: 210 to 219.
    Marksman: 190 to 209.

    According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was *tested twice:

    In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
    In May 1959, he scored 191: *one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.

    Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:

    The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)

    Folsom agreed with his questioner that Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311).

    http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-marksman-sharpshooter

    \\][//

  73. Means, Motive, Opportunity, Intent, Modus Operandi, Cui Bono
    — The main features of Criminal Investigation.

    In U.S. criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a common summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime (means), the reason the defendant committed the crime (motive), and whether the defendant had the chance to commit the crime (opportunity). Opportunity is most often disproved by use of an alibi, which can prove the accused was not able to commit the crime as he or she did not have the correct set of circumstances to commit the crime as it occurred. Motive is not an element of many crimes, but proving motive can often make it easier to convince a jury of the elements that must be proved for a conviction.

    Establishing the presence of these three elements is not, in and of itself, sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt; the evidence must prove that an opportunity presented was indeed taken by the accused and for the crime with which he or she is charged. For an example, consider this ruling in the case of a suspect accused of robbery and assault:

    … evidence of motive, means, opportunity, and *consciousness of guilt* are not enough to establish guilt. Compare Commonwealth v. Mandile, 403 Mass. 93, 98 (1988) (evidence of motive, means, unexplained possession of property, and consciousness of guilt not enough to establish robbery). On this record the evidence is insufficient to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the victim’s assailant… Nothing in the record sufficiently links the defendant to the crime to permit the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the perpetrator.

    Contrary to fictional depictions, the court cannot convict merely on these three elements; the prosecution must provide convincing evidence, and prove an opportunity actually acted upon by the defendant.

    For example, if a criminal shot someone with a handgun and took his/her money when the victim was in an isolated, secluded area at night, the means would be the handgun, the motive financial (i.e., the money they stole), and the opportunity the fact that it would be unlikely someone else would witness or stop them. For the majority of crimes, means and opportunity are the easiest to prove; however, for some offenses (such as rape or serial killing), the motive can be hard to define.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means,_motive,_and_opportunity

    **Consciousness of Guilt Law & Legal Definition
    Evidentiary rules allow a prosecutor to introduce testimony that tends to show that the defendants actions prove he knew he was guilty (at least of something). This is sometimes referred to as “consciousness of guilt”. For example, such evidence may include actions the defendant took to “cover up” his alleged crime. Flight, when unexplained, may indicate consciousness of guilt if the facts and the circumstances support it. A person’s false statements as to (his/her) whereabouts at the time of the offense may tend to show a consciousness of guilt.
    http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/consciousness-of-guilt/

    Motive

    Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime.

    **However, a defendant’s motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators.**

    Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant’s motives were honorable-for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

    In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant’s motive.

    **Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.**

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/motive

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    **In JFK Assassination case we are at the stage of Discovery**~WW
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Discovery (law)

    Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

    \\][//

  74. Oswald had no motive to shoot the President. There is no actual evidence to prove that he fired the rifle.

    There is however a blatant motive for the Military Industrial Complex to remove Kennedy. And those issues have been proven definitively already.

    “The Commission could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives. It has endeavored to isolate factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.”

    http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=46

    \\][//

  75. “The limo was not moving straight away from the sniper’s nest during the shooting. This was a fib inserted into the Warren Report to help sell Oswald’s guilt. That this fib was deliberate, moreover, is demonstrated by the testimony of the FBI’s Gauthier. He brought along a picture demonstrating the straight trajectory from the sniper’s nest. There was a problem, however. The picture was taken from the roof of the Dal-Tex Building. Oops.”~Pat Speer

    \\][//

  76. The Struggle for the Revolver

    Officer McDonald of the Dallas police, who arrested Oswald, stated that he had struggled with Oswald for possession of the revolver and that in the course of the struggle, “I heard the snap of the hammer, and the pistol crossed my left cheek … the primer of one round was dented on misfire at the time of the struggle. …” so However, none of the cartridges found in the revolver bore the impression of the revolver’s firing pin. 81 In addition, the revolver is so constructed that, the firing pin cannot strike a cartridge unless the hammer (which bears the firing pin) has first been drawn all the way back by a complete trigger pull. 82 Had the hammer gone all the way back and then hit the cartridge, it is unlikely that the cartridge would have mis-fired. 83 It would be possible for a person to interject his finger between the hammer and the cartridge, but the spring driving the hammer is a very strong one and the impact of the firing pin into a finger would be clearly felt. 84 However, the cylinder and the trigger are interconnected and the trigger cannot be fully pulled back if the cylinder is grasped. 85 Therefore, if Oswald had pulled on the trigger while McDonald was firmly grasping the cylinder, the revolver would not have fired, and if the gun was grabbed away at the same time the trigger would have snapped back with an audible sound. [86]

    http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-10.html#revolver

    The whole issue of Officer Hill and his .380 Auto casings:
    His lying about making that call reporting those casing, and finally the proof that he did indeed make that call found in the records of the DPD itself.
    The fact that Hill wrote in his report that there was a firing-pin indentation on one of the .38 cal he placed in evidence, that was proven to be another lie during the testimony of firearms expert to the Warren Commission.

    Four bullets were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit. In Nicol’s opinion one of the four bullets could be positively identified with test bullets fired from V510210 revolver, and the other three could have been fired from that revolver. In Cortlandt Cunningham. ‘s opinion all four bullets *could have been* fired from the V510210 revolver, but none could be positively identified to the revolver –that is, in his opinion the bullets bore the revolver’s rifling characteristics, but no conclusion could be drawn on the basis of microscopic characteristics.

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_Cunningham.pdf

  77. Richard Sprague: Memo re Dr George Burkley

    George Burkley and the Single–Bullet Theory
    Burkley made two contributions to the documentary record, both of which tended to undermine the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald alone had killed Kennedy:
    On the death certificate that Burkley signed, the back wound was located “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra” (ARRB MD6, p.2).

    The autopsy descriptive sheet, the pathologists’ official diagram of the wounds to the body, placed the back wound in the same location. Burkley signed the sheet, “Verified” (ARRB MD1).
    The third thoracic vertebra is typically four to six inches, or 10 to 15 centimetres, below the point at which the shoulders meet the neck, and is consistent with the location of the bullet holes in the backs of President Kennedy’s shirt and jacket, both of which are almost six inches below the tops of the collars. A bullet that entered Kennedy’s back at a downward angle at this location could not have gone on to injure Governor Connally. If Burkley’s evidence is correct, the Warren Commission’s single–bullet theory must be false, and the assassination cannot have been the work of just one gunman.

    Dr Burkley and the HSCA
    In 1977, George Burkley’s lawyer contacted Richard Sprague, Chief Counsel of the newly established House Select Committee on Assassinations, claiming that Burkley “has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated,” and that Burkley was willing to talk. Sprague wrote a memo for the record, which is reproduced below.
    Richard Sprague came under pressure from the media and from political opponents, and was obliged to resign from the HSCA. His place was taken by G. Robert Blakey. Like the Warren Commission, the HSCA did not feel the need to interview Dr Burkley, who merely supplied an uninformative affidavit.
    Burkley Repeats his Claims of Conspiracy

    Dr Burkley made at least two other references to his apparent belief that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy:
    In an oral history interview with the Kennedy Library, he was asked whether he agreed with the Warren Report’s conclusions about “the number of bullets that entered the president’s body.” He replied, “I would not care to be quoted on that” (Oral History Interview with Admiral George G. Burkley, Kennedy Library, Boston, 17 October 1967, transcript, p.18).
    The author Henry Hurt claims that “in 1982 Dr Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy” (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt: An Investigation into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Henry Holt, 1985, p.49).

  78. First quoted in the Report is FBI ballistics expert Frazier:
    From my own experience in shooting over the years, when you shoot at 175 feet or 260 feet, which is less than 100 yards, with a telescopic sight, you should not have any difficulty hitting your target. (R190)

    Frazier testified at the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, where he modified his previous Commission testimony. How would the added consideration of a moving target affect his previous assessment?
    it would be a relatively easy shot, slightly complicated, however, if the target were moving at the time, it would make it a little more difficult.[2]
    The next “expert” quoted is Marine Sgt. James A. Zahm, who was involved in marksmanship training in the Marine Corps:
    Using the scope, rapidly working the bolt and using the scope to relocate your target quickly and at the same time when you locate that target you identify and the crosshairs are in close relationship to the point you want to shoot at, it just takes a minor move in aiming to bring the crosshairs to bear, and then it is a quick squeeze. (R190)

    Zahm never used the C2766 Carcano; his comments related to four-power scopes in general as aids in rapid shooting with a bolt-action rifle. Another expert, Ronald Simmons, was directly involved in tests employing the Carcano. Although this is not reflected in the Report, he told the Commission that, contrary to Zahm’s generalization of a “minor move” necessary to relocate the target in the scope, such a great amount of effort was needed to work the rifle bolt that the weapon was actually moved completely off target (3H449). There is yet another factor qualifying Zahm’s evaluation. This was brought out during Frazier’s New Orleans testimony:

    Mr. Oser: . . . when you shoot this rifle . . . can you tell us whether or not in rebolting the gun you had to move your eye away from the scope?
    Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir, that was necessary.
    Mr. Oser: Why was that necessary?
    Mr. Frazier: To prevent the bolt of the rifle from striking me in the face as it came to the rear.[3]

    At best, the Report drastically oversimplified the true nature of the shots. It is true that shots fired at ranges under 100 yards with a four-power scope are generally easy. However, the assassination shots, in accordance with the Commission’s lone-assassin theory, were fired in rapid succession (indeed the first two would have occurred within the minimum time needed to operate the bolt) and at a moving target. The difficulty of such shots becomes apparent when it is considered that operation of the bolt would have thrown the weapon off target and caused the firer temporarily to move his eye from the sight.

    One is prompted to ask what caliber of shooter would be required to commit the assassination alone as described above. Simulative tests conducted by the Commission, while deficient, are quite illuminating.
    The Commission’s test firers were all rated as “Master” by the National Rifle Association (NRA); they were experts whose daily routines involved working with and shooting firearms (3H445). In the tests, three targets were set up at 175, 240, and 365 feet respectively from a 30-foot-high tower. Each shooter fired two series of three shots, using the C2766 rifle. The men took 8.25, 6.75, and 4.60 seconds respectively for the first series and 7.00, 6.45, and 5.15 for the second (3H446). In the first series, each man hit his first and third targets but missed the second. Results varied on the next series, although in all cases but one, two targets were hit. Thus, in only two cases were the Commission’s experts able to fire three aimed shots in under 5.6 seconds as Oswald allegedly did. None scored three hits, as was demanded of a lone assassin on November 22.

    These tests would suggest that three hits within such a short time span, if not impossible, would certainly have taxed the proficiency of the most skilled marksman.[4] In his testimony before the Commission, Ronald Simmons spoke first of the caliber of shooter necessary to have fired the assassination shots on the basis that only two hits were achieved:

    Mr. Eisenberg: Do you think a marksman who is less than a highly skilled marksman under those conditions would be able to shoot within the range of 1.2 mil aiming error [as was done by the experts]?
    Mr. Simmons: Obviously, considerable experience would have to be in one’s background to do so. And with this weapon, I think also considerable experience with this weapon, because of the amount of effort required to work the bolt. (3H449)
    Well, in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes. But I think with the opportunity to use the weapon and to get familiar with it, we could probably have the results reproduced by more than one firer. (3H450)

    Here arises the crucial question: Was Lee Harvey Oswald a “proficient man with this weapon,” with “considerable experience” in his background?
    While in the Marines between 1956 and 1959, Oswald was twice tested for his performance with a rifle. On a scale of expert-sharpshooter-marksman, Oswald scored two points above the minimum for sharpshooter on one occasion (December 1956) and only one point above the minimum requirement for marksman on another (May 1959) — his last recorded score. Colonel A. G. Folsom evaluated these scores for the Commission:
    The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot.” (19H17-18)
    There exists the possibility that Oswald’s scores were either inaccurately or unfairly recorded, thus accounting for his obviously mediocre to horrendous performances with a rifle. However, there is other information independent of the scores to indicate that Oswald was in fact not a good shot. In his testimony, Colonel Folsom examined the Marine scorebook that Oswald himself had maintained, and elaborated on his previous evaluation:
    Mr. Ely: I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
    Col. Folsom: No, no, he was not. His scorebook indicates . . . that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.
    Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?
    Col. Folsom: I would say so. (8H311)
    Thus, according to Folsom, Oswald’s best recorded score was the result of having “a good day”; otherwise, Oswald “was not a particularly outstanding shot.”
    Folsom was not alone in his evaluation of Oswald as other than a good shot. The following is exerpted [sic] from the testimony of Nelson Delgado, one of Oswald’s closest associates in the Marines:
    Mr. Liebeler: Did you fire with Oswald?
    Mr. Delgado: Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on the same line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position . . . and I remember seeing his. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of “maggie’s drawers,” you know, a lot of misses, but he didn’t give a darn.
    Mr. Liebeler: Missed the target completely?
    Mr. Delgado: He just qualified, that’s it. He wasn’t as enthusiastic as the rest of us. (8H235)

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp9.html
    \\][//

  79. No Identifiable Fingerprints
    No fingerprints were found on any of the three empty bullet shells found in the TSBD, or on the intact bullet. Nor were any prints found on the rifle clip that held the intact bullet and into which the shells must have been loaded by hand (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.253, 258-60).
    Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas police examined the rifle, and found faint traces of two fingerprints on the metal housing by the trigger. He took photographs and applied a protective layer of cellophane to the area (Warren Report, pp.122f).
    Shortly before midnight on the day of the assassination, the rife was flown to Washington. Sebastian Latona, a fingerprint expert at the FBI laboratory, examined the rifle and the photographs, but concluded that no identifiable prints were present (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.21). The rifle was returned by the FBI to the Dallas police on 24 November.
    http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-fingerprint-palmprint-evidence
    \\][//

    • “The last big import wave of M1 Carbines came in from blue Sky and Arlington Ordnance decades ago. In 1963, about 240,000 M1 Carbines were decommissioned and sold (without magazines) to NRA members for a $20 each ($17.50 plus $2.50 S&H). There is a large quantity of surplus carbines warehoused in South Korea, but the current administration prohibits their importation. The good news is that Auto-Ordnance and the new Inland Mfg. offer new versions of the original “Light Rifle” in a host of variations for both collectors and shooters.”

      https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/5/14/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-m1-carbine/
      \\][//

  80. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE / The Rifle
    THE GUN THAT DIDN’T SMOKE*
    Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew

    [Editor’s Note: The authors present a definitive study
    establishing the existence of conspiracy in the death of
    JFK revolving about a seemingly minor matter of evidence
    –a rifle clip–that contaminates the ballistic evidence.
    George Michael Evica has characterized this study as one
    of the most important in the history of the case.]

    Despite claims of prima facie evidence in the murder of John F. Kennedy, the basic issue remains, in any real sense, unresolved. Thirty years after the publication of the Warren Report, the debate over whether or not a conspiracy killed President Kennedy continues. Most people, in their day-to-day affairs, despite what they may believe, act as if the case is closed.

    Journalist Robert Sam Anson once noted that “The lack of positive evidence of conspiracy surely hampers an investigation of John Kennedy’s death; it need not deter it. Oftentimes negative information is almost as important. Thus, each bit of conscious disinformation that was put out after the assassination should be followed to its source. All attempts to deflect the original investigators from the truth should be rigorously followed up.” University of California, Berkeley, Professor Peter Dale Scott further noted that such deflections “…should be closely examined, for in this case damage control (as well as truth) is evidence: a clue to what relevant truths are being concealed….Just as we believe the defendant who pleads guilty more readily than the one who pleads innocent, so we will pay more attention to the official record when it raises questions about its own reliability.” In 1993, former Warren Commission Assistant Counsel Burt W. Griffin stated that rejecting the single bullet theory [a belief that one bullet caused seven wounds in two men despite its timing, flight path, points of entry and exit, and resulting condition] requires the assumption that ballistics evidence went undiscovered or was suppressed. Griffin, now Judge Griffin, is correct. He also admitted that he and other Warren Commission staff members did not believe that the Dallas Police, the FBI, the Secret Service, or the CIA, did a thorough job in investigating the crime.1

    There are actually several conflicting single bullet theories,2 a good reason, among many, to reject them. Rejecting them means there was more than one shooter. It also means there are problems with the ballistics evidence. This article endeavors to end assumptions about the suppression of that evidence. Notwithstanding the failure of the single bullet theories, and actually precluding them, we argue that the existence of a conspiracy is sufficiently proved by exposing two unreliable claims of the Warren Commission; by exhausting all conceivable innocent explanations for those claims; by arguing that they were instead “damage control” attempts to deflect honest inquiry; and by calling into question long-accepted theories about the alleged murder weapon and its alleged misidentification.

    We demonstrate how the planting of specific evidence — a part of the weapon — was based on an error. The perpetrators quickly realized the mistake but not soon enough to correct it or hide it. All they could do was deflect attention from it. It was an error so obvious that it would have exposed, within hours of Lee Harvey Oswald’s arrest, the conspiracy to frame him. In fact, the error has never been hidden, just confused. We therefore show that damage control was the motive for the unanticipated, but criminally necessary and deliberate, prolonged misidentification of the weapon.

    Failing that proof, we further argue that there is only one other explanation for the weapon-related facts: traditional interpretations that a second reported murder weapon was deliberately replaced with one that could be traced to Oswald. If either argument is correct — both establishing planted and suppressed ballistics evidence — we will have sufficiently proven conspiracy.3

    From the beginning, there has been no reason to deny the conspiracy. Four of the seven Warren Commissioners — the majority — including the Commission’s chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren, expressed doubts about the Commission’s conclusions within a decade of their report. They were joined by a fifth Commissioner in 1978, when John J. McCloy told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), that “I no longer feel we had no credible evidence or reliable evidence in regard to a conspiracy….” Lyndon Johnson never believed the report he commissioned. The official policy of the FBI is that the case is not closed, a policy begun by J. Edgar Hoover himself.4 And those were the people who had supposedly found the truth.
    [….]
    It is well-known that the rifle allegedly used as the murder weapon was identified as a 6.5 millimeter caliber, Italian-made, bolt-action, military rifle called a Mannlicher-Carcano, after its two inventors. It is largely unknown that during WWII, it was one of only two military-use rifles in the world that fed a cartridge into the chamber from a clip. The other was the M-1 Garand. The difference between the two is that the clip on the M-1 Garand ejects when the last round is fired, while on the Carcano the clip ejects when the last round is chambered. “In the clip system, the clip remains attached to the rounds on loading and forms an essential part of the magazine system, a follower forcing the rounds out of the clip and presenting them in turn to the bolt for loading.”8

    According to the Warren Report, when the weapon allegedly used to kill the President was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), one cartridge remained, and it was in the chamber.9 Therefore, if operating properly, the rifle had automatically ejected the clip. The Warren Commission reported, however, that when the rifle was found, it contained a clip.10 Firearms experts for the HSCA explained the discrepancy. On September 8, 1978, Monty C. Lutz of the Committee’s firearms panel, was asked about this by Pennsylvania Representative Robert W. Edgar.

    Mr. Edgar. The cartridge clip was removed from CE-139 by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963 at the crime laboratory for the police department. Shouldn’t a clip automatically fall out once the last cartridge has fed into the chamber?
    Mr. Lutz. This rifle is designed to incorporate that feature so that the last cartridge is stripped out of the clip, then that allows the clip itself to fall or to drop from the opening that you see in the bottom of the box magazine. However, in many cases, and in this particular case, where we functioned the rifle, fed cartridges through it, we found this clip to stay in the rifle after the last round had been stripped and fed into the chamber. Because the lips or the edges of the clip many times will open up, they will spring against the walls on the inside of the box magazine and it will hang up in that areaa [sic], and even though it is supposed to drop out, many times it will hang up in the box area.11

    That explanation seems reasonable enough. But it is not. It is true that the clip must be deformed to have any chance of getting as stuck as this one. But once bent, it stays bent. Commission Exhibits (CEs) 574 and 575 are photographs of the alleged clip in its normal, unbent condition. And five years after the HSCA reported the clip deformed, Life magazine photographer Michael O’Neill photographed it in normal condition for Life’s November 1983 issue.12
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    [39.] John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical & Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980) p. 299; hereafter cited as Lattimer 299. Lattimer’s objectivity and credibility on the assassination have long been suspect. After Lattimer became the first private doctor to view the JFK autopsy photos and X-rays, Sylvia Meagher noted that, “Dr. Lattimer has made emphatic assertions which verge on the omniscient. He tells us that a bullet entered the back of the neck at a point even higher than ever claimed before, which happens to coincide with the point of entry on a sketch used by Dr. Lattimer in his lectures on behalf of the Warren Report as early as 1969 or some three years before he saw the autopsy photos. He does not explain how this bullet high in the neck produced holes in the coat and the shirt more than five inches below the top of the collar, except to offer the lame suggestion about the garments riding up that was discredited long ago.” Seven years after Lattimer located the back wound higher, the HSCA’s panel of forensic experts examined the alleged same X-rays and photos he had examined, and placed the same wound lower than the Warren Commission’s placement. (Sylvia Meagher, “The case of the urologist apologist,” The Texas Observer May 26, 1972, pp. 22-24. Guth and Wrone xxix, citing 7 HH).

    http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html#N_63_

    \\][//

  81. Dr. BADEN
    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf
    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_6_Baden.pdf

    Pg 233 [HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf]

    Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize that drawing, Doctor?
    Dr. BADEN. Yes, Sir; I recognize this as a drawing made for the
    Warren Commission depicting the same track from back to front
    neck region that we have been describing.
    Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, does that drawing made for the Warren Commission
    fairly and accurately represent the location of the entry
    wound and the exit wound and the path of the bullet?
    Dr. BADEN. Not precisely. The exit perforation in the neck is
    approximately at the proper area, but the entrance wound in the
    back is higher than the medical panel concluded from examining
    the documents, the photographs as to the point of entrance. We
    place the entrance perforation a bit lower, almost 2 inches lower
    than depicted in the Warren Commission exhibit .
    . . . .
    Pg 233 [HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf]

    Mr. KLEIN. Do you recognize that drawing, Doctor?
    Dr. BADEN. Yes, Sir; I recognize this as a drawing made for the
    Warren Commission depicting the same track from back to front
    neck region that we have been describing.
    Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, does that drawing made for the Warren Commission
    fairly and accurately represent the location of the entry
    wound and the exit wound and the path of the bullet?
    Dr. BADEN. Not precisely. The exit perforation in the neck is
    approximately at the proper area, but the entrance wound in the
    back is higher than the medical panel concluded from examining
    the documents, the photographs as to the point of entrance. We
    place the entrance perforation a bit lower, **almost 2 inches lower
    than depicted in the Warren Commission exhibit .**
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    \\][//

  82. Hank Sienzant says:
    “You need to show evidence the jacket was not bunched during the shooting sequence, particularly at the time of the first shot that struck.”
    . . . . . . . . . .

    I am sorry but Hanky is wrong.

    He needs to show evidence the jacket was actually bunched during the shooting sequence, particularly at the time of the first shot that struck.

    He needs to explain how Kennedy’s shirt which was tucked into JFK’s pants and held in place by the tightly fitting back brace could possibly have bunched up with the jacket at the time the bullet struck Kennedy in the back.

    As well, the presumed ‘COINCIDENCE’ of all the other points here needs to be explained:

    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Boswell’s autopsy facesheet.
    > 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 Burkley’s autopsy report.
    > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

    Boswell autopsy facesheet:

    This photograph, taken by Phil Willis at the same time as frame 202 of the Zapruder film, shows that the jacket was in its normal position less than half a second before Kennedy came into view from the sixth-floor window:

    As well as Baden testifying that the bullet holes in the flesh, the shirt, and the coat aligned. Asserting that the flesh on Kennedy’s back “bunched up” along with his suit coat and shirt is, of course, laughable.
    . . . . .
    Baden’s testimony yet one more time:
    Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

    Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

    Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

    Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
    This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.
    . . . . .
    \\][//

  83. Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.
    –Circular Reasoning.
    \\][//

  84. Previously it had been told there were no notes taken from the Oswald interrogations the weekend of President Kennedy’s assassination, but first FBI Agent Hosty found his notes (included in his book) and now the Fritz notes are found. Released by the ARRB 11-20-97.
    http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

    \\][//

    • Hank Sienzant says:
      “He wants to pretend he’s discovered some great secret of the shilldom, whereas he’s just exposing his ignorance of how to discuss anything civilly.”

      No, no, no Hanky, I am showing you your own face. Your face, remember your Persona, your facade, your Janis Mask of Tragos.

      We delve deeper than you have ever gone into your deluded psyche to discover the core of your epistemic error. Your insides are out and your outsides are in, we trace it back to where it all begins.

      The Journey has begun.

      The escapades must go on!!

      You are in there somewhere Hanky, even though it is subliminally hiding. You have the memory inside of when you gave up. When you decided to love Big Brother, when you made the conscious decision to obey authority for some practical benefit, socially, economically, politically–likely all three combined.

      Do not push it from your memory Hanky, embrace it, ponder it; how much have you given up to blend in with the bewildered herd?
      Has it really been worth it? The lucre, the “respect”, the physical comforts, your pride and ego….
      Why did you loose yourself? What if you never find you again???

      \\][//
      https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_aep?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2IB7YQY0D91M5&cdMsgNo=3345&cdPage=134&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxCS4AMZJN34Y0#Mx2IB7YQY0D91M5

  85. So what is the definitive proof on the rifle allegedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

    Let’s have a closer look:

    DPD Detective Roger CRAIG, DPD Constable Seymour WEITZMAN, and Deputy Sheriff E.L. BOONE reported a 7.65m Mauser hidden by boxes near the back stairs of the 6th floor at TSBD, but CE139 is a 40.2″ Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. David Josephs has clearly demonstrated that it’s not even the rifle taken by Lt. Day out of the building as evidence.

    See http://www.ctka.net/2016/JosephsRifle.pdf

    To cap it all, the WC reported that LHO ordered by mail a 36″ Mannlicher Carcano carbine rifle, and the HSCA discovered that Klein’s Sporting Goods placed scopes on the carbine, not on the short rifle.

    Look at these photo’s very closely:
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb0C0UZsWTFP3-J0o6e8j4WDY6QTZsenp4aWDOA0-WgJDtc7F1MQ

    There is no proof Oswald ever picked up the rifle, as required by the U S Postal Service.

    The Evidence IS the Conspiracy –The Conspiracy IS the Evidence…

    According to CE 2585; page 4 they certainly did. The only name associated with this box was Oswald, no Hidell or any other person for that matter.
    It is alleged that Oswald ordered the rifle and the pistol under the Hidell name.
    See also: http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

    It just so happens that the sniper that made the head shot was firing from the southwest corner of Dealey Plaza, just before the triple overpass: Just beyond the parking lot of the Dallas Postal Annex.
    \\][//

    • [Colour autopsy photo. The yellow hashed area marks the approximate location of the skull defect according to a skull Boswell marked for the ARRB ]

      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 ARRB)

      ” Well, this was an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the
      wound again. And as you can see it’s 10 centimeters from right to left, 17 centi-
      meters from posterior to anterior. This was a piece of 10 centimeter bone that
      was fractured off of the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull. . . There were fragments attached to the skull or to the scalp and all the three
      major flaps.” (Boswell, interviewed by the HSCA FPP)

      Boswell is explicit that the skull is missing beneath the scalp in the autopsy picture, above :

      Q …Now I’d like to ask you a question
      about what is underneath the scalp of what we are
      looking at now. Let’s take the marking that
      appears towards the hairline right at the base of
      the neck, or where the hairline meets the neck. If
      we take the point above that, where would you say
      that the scalp is or that the skull will be missing
      underneath the scalp that we can view there?

      A Probably right about here.

      Q So you’re–

      A Just about the base of the ear.

      Q So you’re pointing to approximately
      halfway up the ruler that we can observe and to the
      right of that small fragment, so the skull is
      missing–

      A Right.

      (Boswell ARRB)

      http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
      . . . . .

      A DEMONSTRABLE IMPOSSIBILITY:
      The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence
      by John Hunt
      http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm
      \\][//

  86. It is very interesting that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes participated in the last interrogation of LHO.

    He also took some known notes of LHO’s last interrogation.

    And it goes without saying the rifle and the post office box were integral ”in the setting up of Oswald as the Patsy”.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.htm

    http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.ca/2013/07/interrogations-of-oswald.html

    It just so happens that the sniper that made the head shot was firing from the southwest corner of Dealey Plaza, just before the triple overpass: Just beyond the parking lot of the Dallas Postal Annex.

    He as well watched the events of 11/22/63in Dealey Plaza through ” binoculars” from his fifth floor office in the Terminal Annex Building according to his Warren Commission testimony.

    Some have referred to Holmes office as a “possible command centre”.

    Harry Holmes was also an FBI informant in Dallas.

    It is very difficult to know what happened on 11/22/63 because of the vast Coverup, and the WCR which was mainly an Omission.

    The preponderance of Evidence is telling us though things were definitely not as we were told back in 63.

    Mauser or Carcano, the flechette, the umbrella, the walkie talkie, the binoculars, the three tramps are just tips of the iceberg , and they are all trying to tell us something.

    Attempts were also made on the life of Harry Holmes more than once.

    Lets face it.

    The WCR did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that LHO killed JFK, and that Oswald was a lone nut.

    INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an `A. Hidell,’ would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.” – Warren Commission, XXV: CE 2585, FBI Report dated June 3, 1964
    . . . . .
    Martin Hay wrote:
    Holmes and other inspectors at the Dallas General Post Office (GPO) were well aware of Oswald long before the assassination and had informed the FBI about Oswald receiving “subversive materials.” On April 21, 1963, Holmes himself advised FBI Special Agent James Hosty that Oswald had been in contact with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. (CD11, Report of SA Hosty, 9/10/63) And this in itself gives us further reason to doubt that Oswald had ever received the rifle.

    Is it reasonable to believe that Postal Inspectors felt it was important to report that Oswald was receiving subversive materials and literature written in Russian, but did not feel it was worth informing the bureau that an alleged communist had ordered a rifle?
    \\][//

  87. 1.) Robert McClelland is definitely a “CTer”. (We know this for a fact by listening to this 80-minute interview with Dr. McClelland in 2009 (which is also embedded below), where he talks at some length about how he thinks the “mob” killed Kennedy and utilized Oswald as a patsy, etc.)

    2.) McClelland thinks the fatal head shot came from the famous Grassy Knoll. (This, too, is revealed in the doctor’s 2009 interview.)

    3.) McClelland does not think the autopsy photos are fakes.

    4.) McClelland thinks the scalp in the back of JFK’s head was intact (just as depicted in the autopsy photos).

    5.) McClelland thinks that there was a huge blasted-out hole in the right-rear of JFK’s skull.
    . . . . . . . .
    Von Peepee says in his PBS Special remarks:

    “Each doctor said that the autopsy photos depicted the President’s body
    in just exactly the way that each doctor remembers seeing Kennedy at
    Parkland. And yet the exact opposite is (of course) true — i.e.,
    before viewing the photos at the National Archives, each doctor
    pointed to the REAR of their heads for the PBS camera (which is where
    they all said the large exit wound was located on JFK’s head–with
    Dulany actually pointing to the CENTER area of the back of his head,
    nearer the cowlick or the EOP area). Dr. Pepper Jenkins, however,
    does come close to placing the large head wound on the SIDE of JFK’s
    head, instead of locating it at the far-right-rear of the head only.

    The four doctors then go into a room and view the photos and then they
    each come back out and claim, on camera, that the wounds in the pictures
    are exactly the same as what they said they saw at Parkland.
    That’s just nuts. It cannot possibly be kosher.”
    . . . . . . . . .
    Obviously Von Pein cannot grasp that there are photos in the National Archives showing the large wound at the occipital-parietal with the ‘flaps’ open, as well as other photo’s similar to the one in the public domain with the flap being pulled over the wound.
    DVP simply cannot wrap his head around such obvious information, because he is blinded by bias and hubris.

    I would note also that the PBS narrator uses scurrilous rhetoric in his summation to muddle what the doctors actually said in their interviews; turning what could have been a revelatory presentation into a vile public relations effort once again.

    What honest researchers should be asking is, WHY? Why are those 55 photos and X-rays in the National Archives being withheld from public view?

    Finally, is Von Pein really such a dolt that he cannot get this? Or is he purposely acting the stooge. My opinion DVP is a willing shill.

    As I already explained, the X-rays were taken when the mass of hair and gore was still holding the “flaps” together on the skull.
    Von Pein is ignoring not only the Parkland witness testimony now, but also that of Dr Boswell.
    . . . . . . . . .

    “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

    Is this indeed a time of universal deceit? Indeed it is, the US has become a veritable Airstrip One and under ‘RULE A-1, Doubleplusgood’.
    See: US military strategy of “Full Spectrum Dominance” in the Panoptic Maximum Security State.
    . . . . . . . .
    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.”

    http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

    \\][//

    • Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950[1]), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist, and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism.[2][3]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell

      \\][//

  88. “We know who killed Cock Robin”~John J. McCloy

    By Michael Dorman. SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, Newsday (8/11/97)

    A Warren Commission member expressed serious reservations about one of the panel’s more controversial conclusions, the theory that a single shot wounded both President John F. Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally, a long-secret document has revealed. The “magic-bullet” theory was essential to the commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin.

    Marked “confidential,” the released document was a memorandum sent by commission member John J. McCloy to the commission’s chief counsel, J. Lee Rankin. It was dated June 24, 1964, seven months after Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, and conveyed McCloy’s critique of a draft of the final Warren Commission report.

    “I think too much effort is expended on attempting to prove that the first bullet, which hit the president, was also responsible for all of Connally’s wounds,” McCloy wrote. (Note: the commas are not in the original.) “The evidence against this is not fully stated.” He added that a section of the report dealing with the possibility of shots being fired at Kennedy’s motorcade from an overpass was “not well done.” Elsewhere, McCloy questioned the commission’s account that a bullet found on a stretcher at Dallas’ Parkland Hospital – where Kennedy and Connally were treated after being shot – was the “magic bullet.” He wrote: “The statement concerning the bullet which was found on the stretcher is not particularly persuasive because there is no indication that the `stretcher bullet’ was in fact the bullet which caused the [Connally] wrist wound.”

    The “magic-bullet” theory’s importance to the conclusion that Oswald alone killed Kennedy lay in the number and timing of the shots fired at the president’s motorcade. The commission concluded there was time for Oswald to fire no more than three shots and that he did, in fact, fire three times. One was said to have missed the presidential limousine entirely. A second – the fatal bullet – was said to have struck Kennedy in the back of the head. That left just one more bullet, but it was known that Kennedy also had been struck in the lower part of the back of his neck and that Connally had suffered wounds to his back, right wrist and left thigh.

    If the commission had decided that separate bullets had struck Kennedy and Connally, it would have been forced to conclude there had been a fourth bullet. And since there had not been time for Oswald to fire more than three shots, it would have meant there must have been a second shooter. The commission responded with the “magic-bullet” theory – concluding the bullet that struck Kennedy in the neck passed through his body, hit Connally in the back, emerged from his chest, then passed through his wrist into his thigh.

    It has been perhaps the conclusion most criticized by conspiracy theorists. The document recently released by the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board – which screens Kennedy assassination documents and releases those that will not endanger national security – also contains many other suggestions by McCloy on revising the draft report. Some of those suggestions were adopted by the commission. But the commission did not revise the sections dealing with the “magic-bullet” theory. Nor did it revise other sections criticized by McCloy, dealing with the Kennedy and Connally wounds. He asked at one point, for example: “Why is there no citation of authority with regard to the wound in the president’s back and its path through his body?”

    McCloy, who died in 1989, served as Kennedy’s disarmament adviser.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.htm

    \\][//

  89. HARRY HOLMES MEMO ON FINAL INTERROGATION

    Two days after the assassination, on Sunday morning, November 24, before Oswald was to be transferred to the custody of Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker, Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes was permitted to question Oswald.

    Holmes memorandum was published as Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2064, (Volume XXIV, pages 488-492). Re: Oswald Interrogation session Sunday Morning, November 24, 1963.

    On December 17, 1963, Mr. Harry Holmes, Postal Inspector U.S. Post Office, Terminal Annex, Dallas, Texas, made available to Special Agent Charles T. Brown, Jr. a copy of a memorandum reflecting results of interview by Inspector Holmes with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 24, 1963, which memorandum is quoted as follows.

    “Dallas, Texas December 17, 1963
    MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW”

    Informal memorandum furnished by Postal Inspector H. D. Holmes, Dallas, Texas, of an interview he took part in with Lee H. Oswald on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, between the approximate hours of 9:25 a.m. to 11:10 a.m. Those present in addition to Inspector Holmes, were Captain Will Fritz, Dallas Police, Forrest V. Sorrels, Local Agent in Charge, Secret Service, and Thomas J. Kelly, Inspector, Secret Service. In addition, there were three Detectives who were apparently assigned to guarding Oswald as none of them took part in the interrogation.

    “Oswald at no time appeared confused or in doubt as to whether or not he should answer a question. On the contrary, he was quite alert and showed no hesitancy in answering those question which he wanted to answer, and quite skillful in parrying those questions which he did not want to answer. I got the impression that he had disciplined his mind and reflexes to a state where I personally doubted if he would ever have confessed. He denied emphatically having taken part in or having any knowledge of the shooting of the Policeman Tippit, or the President, stating that so far as he is concerned the reason he was in custody was because he ‘popped’ a policeman in the nose in the theater on Jefferson Avenue.”

    “P.O. BOXES – He was questioned separately about the three boxes he had rented, and in each instance his answers were quick, direct and accurate as reflected on the box rental applications. He stated without prompting that he had rented Box 2915 at the Main Post Office for several months prior to his going to New Orleans, that this box was rented in his own name, Lee H. Oswald, and that he had taken out two keys to the box, and that when he closed the box, he directed that his mail be forwarded to his street address in New Orleans.

    “He stated that no one received mail in this box other than himself, nor did he receive any mail under any other name than his true name; that no one had access to the box other than himself nor did he permit anyone to use this box. He stated that it was possible that on rare occasions he may have handed one of the keys to his wife to go get his mail but certainly nobody else. He denied emphatically that he ever ordered a rifle under his name or any other name, nor permitted anyone else to order a rifle to be received in this box. Further, he denied that he had ever ordered any rifle by mail order or bought any mother order for the purpose of paying for such a rifle. In fact, he claimed, he owned no rifle and had not practiced or shot a rifle other than possibly a .22 small bore rifle, since his days in the Marine Corps. He stated, ‘How could I afford to order a rifle on my salary of $1.25 an hour when I can’t hardly feed myself on what I make.’

    http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.ca/2013/07/interrogations-of-oswald.html

    \\][//

  90. General News 11/19/2014 at 13:20:54
    How the Warren Commission Covered Up JFK’s Murder
    By Bill Simpich

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

    For Parkland Bullet controversy see:
    http://federalevidence.com/blog/2010/june/fre-901-chain-custody-review-weight-vs-admissibility
    And:
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/weight+of+evidence

    “Although Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen received the bullet in Parkland Hospital by about 1:30 pm, 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 it to the chief of the Secret Service Rowley at Andrews Air Force Base at about 7:30 pm, who didn’t initial it either. Neither Johnsen nor Rowley could identify it when shown it later.

    The positive ID was finally made by FBI agent Elmer Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley and delivered it to Robert Frazier at the crime lab.

    Todd swore that he initialed the bullet – but his initials are not on it either. The only initials on the bullet are those of Frazier and the other crime lab examiners.

    The FBI swears that the bullet – known as “Q1” – was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 pm.

    However, this does not jibe with Johnsen’s note stating that he gave the “attached expended bullet” to his boss Chief James Rowley at 7:30 pm.
    Todd has a written receipt from Rowley dated at 8:50 pm, which again doesn’t jibe with the FBI lab’s claim that Todd delivered it to Frazier by 7:30 pm!

    How did such a troubling situation come into play? Look at this…

    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.
    In a 1967 interview by private eye Tink Thompson, Wright was described as a professional law enforcement officer with “an educated eye for bullet shapes”. Wright told Thompson that the bullet looked like a 30-30 round and had a pointed tip, not a blunt tip like the 6.5 mm magic bullet.

    It looks like someone originally planted a 30-30 bullet on or near a stretcher before the bullet was found some time between 1:30 and 1:45 pm, in an effort to align the evidence with the Dallas police dispatcher’s report at 12:44 pm that the 5 foot,165 pound shooter used a 30-30 or some type of Winchester. (30-30 ammo has been used in Winchesters since the 19th Century.)

    Many years after Thompson’s interview with Wright, a FBI memo was found which said that both Wright and Tomlinson thought that the bullet in evidence “appeared to be” the same one that they had seen on November 22.

    Thompson and his colleague Gary Aguilar sought out the memo’s author, FBI agent Bardwell Odum, and interviewed him about this contradictory evidence in 2002. Incredibly, Odum said that he never had possession of the magic bullet. Odum added that even though it was highly unlikely that he forgot such a significant event, the established procedure was to write up a report about something that important. No such memo has been found in the Archives, despite numerous searches. The use of Odum’s identity is another astonishing piece of fabricated evidence.

    The magic bullet would be excluded, based on the utter failure to create any sort of trustworthy chain of custody.”~Bill Simpich, Attorney at Law

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

    \\][//

  91. “I didn’t say they affirmed it was CE399. But they didn’t have to do so to establish the chain of custody.” ~Hank Sienzant

    Hank Sienzant says:
    “You can’t make this stuff up, folks.”

    But Hanky can. Hanky can take any clear and obvious evidence and make up some story to attempt to muddle the facts. These stories inevitably entail appeals to authority rather than to reason. Or his twisted spin rather than to rational reasoning.

    Don’t be like Hanky.

    http://22november1963.org.uk/ce-399-magic-bullet-planted-or-genuine
    Elmer Todd and Robert Frazier are the first to ID CE399.
    “Tomlinson found it, we know he gave it to Wright, we know Johnson got the bullet from Wright, and we know Johnson gave it to Rowley. And we Rowley gave it to Todd and Frazier.”~Hank Sienzant

    Hank Sienzant says:
    “I didn’t say they affirmed it was CE399. But they didn’t have to do so to establish the chain of custody.”

    https://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_yp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx1HKPVQ4TW1CJB&cdMsgNo=4243&cdPage=170&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxCS4AMZJN34Y0#Mx1HKPVQ4TW1CJB

    Weight of Evidence
    “Measure of credible proof on one side of a dispute as compared with the credible proof on the other, particularly the Probative evidence considered by a judge or jury during a trial.
    The trier of fact in a civil or criminal trial, whether a judge or a jury, must review the evidence presented, evaluate it, and determine if it meets the standard of proof. If it meets this standard, the trier of fact must return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a civil suit and must convict a defendant in a criminal trial. If the evidence does not meet the standard of proof, the trier of fact must find for the defendant in a civil or criminal case. These decisions are based on the concept of the “weight of evidence.”
    The weight of evidence is based on the believability or persuasiveness of evidence. The probative value (tending to convince a person of the truth of some proposition) of evidence does not necessarily turn on the number of witnesses called, but rather the persuasiveness of their testimony. For example, a witness may give uncorroborated but apparently honest and sincere testimony that commands belief, even though several witnesses of apparent respectability may contradict her. The question for the jury is not which side has more witnesses, but what testimony they believe.

    Particular evidence has different weight in inducing belief with respect to the facts and circumstances to be proved. Evidence that is indefinite, vague, or improbable will be given less weight than evidence that is direct and unrefuted. For example, a criminal defendant’s testimony that he had never been at the scene of a crime would be given little weight if his fingerprints were found at the crime scene and witnesses testify they saw him at the scene. Similarly, evidence given by a witness who testifies from personal observation is of greater weight than evidence offered by a witness who is testifying from general knowledge alone.”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/weight+of+evidence

    FRE 901 Chain Of Custody Review: Weight Vs. Admissibility
    For cases involving drugs, a prosecutor’s ability to show a “chain of custody” is a major vehicle for showing that the substances associated with the defendant are prohibited. Without a chain of custody it is often difficult for investigators to prove what in the defendant’s possession or control was contraband. After all, a sample of cocaine taken from one defendant probably looks much like any other sample of equivalent size and purpose. A recent Third Circuit case examined an appeal in which found the chain of custody for the charged cocaine had been broken but that this was not fatal to admission of the evidence the trial judge decided. In the case, the circuit quickly updates some of the current approach to broken chains of custody.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The context of the FRE 901 Chain Of Custody Review: Weight Vs. Admissibility:

    “For cases involving drugs, a prosecutor’s ability to show a “chain of custody” is a major vehicle for showing that the substances associated with the defendant are prohibited. Without a chain of custody it is often difficult for investigators to prove what in the defendant’s possession or control was contraband.”
    . . . . . .
    I submit that the CONTEXT of FRE 901 Chain Of Custody Review is “for cases involving drugs” as the preamble of the article states.
    Ergo, I assert that the applicability of this review to the Parkland Bullet is virtually nonexistent.
    \\][//

    • Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?

      Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

      Mr. EISENBERG. Does that have your mark on it?
      Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, it does.

      Mr. EISENBERG. The bullet is in the same condition as it was when you received it?

      Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; except for the marking of my initials and the other examiners.(3H428) [March 31, 1964]

      Frazier established that the CE-399 bullet before him was the same one he’d received from SA Elmer Todd on 11/22/63. But Frazier’s testimony that CE-399 was the same bullet handed to him by SA Todd, in and of itself, does not begin to establish whether or not it was the same bullet that actually came off the stretcher in Dallas. Oddly, Elmer Todd was never called to testify before the WC. Nor were SA Richard Johnsen, or chief of Parkland Hospital security and former DPD detective, O. P. Wright, whom both figure prominently in the chain of custody of CE-399.

      The WC did call on the employee who actually found the bullet. On March 20, 1964 the WC took Parkland Hospital orderly, Darrell Tomlinson’s testimony. That was a mere four days after CE-399 was introduced during Humes’ testimony. Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated. Having Tomlinson ID the bullet is the “proof” that would have established that the bullet’s bone fides were in order. But that didn’t happen. What did happen was that the day after Tomlinson testified, Robert Frazier delivered CE-399 to the WC (See Figure 1).

      http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

      \\][//

  92. JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET” @ 1:17:03 proves this is bogus. The bullet hitting the gel Kennedy in the back at approximately the right spot does exactly what we have extrapolated all along; it exits at the level of Kennedy’s sternum, some 7 inches below the throat. It hits the Connally gel model lower in the back as well. FAIL
    \\][//

  93. THE IMPOSSIBLE ONE DAY JOURNEY OF CE 399
    By Jim DiEugenio (with help by J. Edgar Hoover)

    1. CE 399 begins its magical journey at Parkland Hospital. A bullet rolls out from under a mat and lodges against the side of the gurney. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 79) Question: How did it get under the mat? Remember, the Commission will later say this bullet was in John Connally’s body last. No one has ever answered this question.

    2. Even Vincent Bugliosi admits that the stretcher it originated from is under question. (Reclaiming History, End Notes, p. 426) But Bugliosi understates the problem here. The weight of the evidence says that the gurney it was found on belonged to neither President Kennedy nor Governor John Connally. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pgs. 174-176; Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pgs. 154-64) It would be a physical impossibility for the bullet to somehow jump from Ron Fuller’s stretcher—where Thompson concludes it was found on- to someone else’s.

    3. When hospital attendant Darrell Tomlinson notices it, the bullet has no blood or tissue on it. (Meagher, p. 173) Yet the Commission will say that this bullet went through two men and caused seven wounds.

    4. But yet, it’s even worse than that. Why? Because the Commission will eventually say that the last resting place of this bullet was in the thigh of Governor Connally. How could 1.) The bullet reverse trajectory and work its way out? 2.) How could it emerge out of a wound it already made? Most pathologists will tell you that entry wounds slightly shrink afterwards. 3.) Further, how could it have no blood or tissue on it if it traversed backwards?

    5. Tomlinson picks up the bullet at about 1:45 PM and takes it to security officer O. P. Wright. (Thompson, p. 156) Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff’s office previously. (ibid, p. 175) Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round. (ibid) This is extremely important since this bullet will change shape and color by the end of its journey..

    6. This bullet will be passed through to Secret Service officers Richard Johnsen and Jim Rowley. (Hunt, “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet; http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html) Yet neither of them will initial the bullet. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”; http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm) And later, neither positively identified it. (Aguilar, p. 282)

    7. At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Elmer Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd. (Hunt, “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet”)

    8. Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Robert Frazier at the FBI lab enters the stretcher bullet’s arrival into his notes at 7:30! (ibid) As Hunt notes, if Frazier and Todd can both tell time, something is really wrong here. Frazier has received a bullet that Todd has not given him yet.

    9. But it’s even worse. For in an FBI document it says that Todd’s initials are on the bullet. (CE 2011, at WC Vol. 24, p. 412) Yet as Hunt has amply demonstrated, they are not there. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”) In other words, no one who carried this bullet in transit for law enforcement purposes–Johnsen, Rowley, Todd–put their initials on it. When that is what they are trained to do.

    10. Later on, J. Edgar Hoover realizes he has a problem. So he writes up a document saying that agent Bardwell Odum visited Parkland, and Wright and Tomlinson did identify the bullet in June of 1964. (Aguilar, p. 282)

    11. But later, when visited by Gary Aguilar and Tink Thompson, this is exposed as another in the long line of Hoover generated lies in this case. For Odum did no such thing, and he says he would have recalled doing so since he and Wright were friends. (ibid, p. 284)

    12. The night of the assassination, the FBI calls Tomlinson about midnight. They tell him to be quiet about what he found that day. Since what he found that day was a lead colored, sharp nosed hunting round, they must not want him to tell anyone about the bullet. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 365; David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 591) A natural question to ask is: Why? A natural answer is: Because they have realized that the original bullet will not match the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle now attributed to Oswald.

    13. When Wright composes his affidavit for the WC, incredibly, he leaves out his co-discovery of the bullet and his giving it to the Secret Service. (Lifton, ibid) Even though Johnsen recorded this and its in the volumes. (Thompson, p. 155) Since he was a former law enforcement officer, to leave something like that out, he was probably directed to.

    14. When it comes time to write the Warren Report, Wright’s name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him.

    15. In late 1966, we find out why Specter avoided him. Thompson interviews him and he rejects CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen. Twice. (Thompson, p.175) Interestingly, in Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi leaves this powerful incident out of his discussion of the issue. (Bugliosi, End Notes, pgs. 426-27, 544-45)

    To say that the chain of evidence rule has been violated in this case is a monumental understatement. Former Chief of Homicide in New York, attorney Bob Tanenbaum once said that it would be embarrassing to present this material to a jury for the prosecution. For me, the most incriminating elements is the evidence that the FBI knew that CE 399 was not the original bullet i.e. the call to Tomlinson, the fake Odum document, possibly the influence over Wright to leave it out of his affidavit, Specter avoiding Wright in the Commission inquiry.

    So from the beginning, with its reverse trajectory out of the thigh of Connally, to its incredible tunneling under a mat, to its leaping out of Ron Fuller’s stretcher and magically knowing it has to be on the governor’s, to its shocking ability to alter its form and color, and then to actually crack the time barrier and be in Frazier’s office before Todd gives it to him, the Impossible Journey of CE 399 is even more magical than anyone ever could imagine.

    What is truly incredible about the above demonstration is that I have left all the other arguments about the Magic Bullet out i.e. weight and trajectory etc. To me, in the face of the above, they are irrelevant. The CE 399 we know was not found at Parkland. And that ends this argument.

    Everything else—the computer simulations, the drawings etc.-is irrelevant. As Shakespeare said, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. At the time of the assassination, CE 399 as we know it today, did not exist.

    http://ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s