Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

On 4/16/2018 at 10:56 AM, David Lifton said:

Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in  accordance with the approval of  'higher authority').

David, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the autopsy end right after the doctors asked the FBI men if there were a kind of bullet that wouldn't show up on x-ray or appear in the body? 

SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out.  He was informed of the Magic Bullet, and so informed the doctors. 

That answered their biggest question of the entire autopsy -- What happened to the bullet that caused the below the shoulders shallow back wound?

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

David, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the autopsy end right after the doctors asked the FBI men if there were a kind of bullet that wouldn't show up on x-ray or appear in the body? 

SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out.  He was informed of the Magic Bullet, and so informed the doctors. 

That answered their biggest question of the entire autopsy -- What happened to the bullet that caused the below the shoulders shallow back wound?

 

 

 

The body examination probably resumed after Sibert and O'Neill left, and the pathologists discovered the throat wound at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

The body examination probably resumed after Sibert and O'Neill left, and the pathologists discovered the throat wound at this time.

Probably?  Why probably?

They're not on record as discovering the throat wound, but they are on record in regards to the back wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Probably?  Why probably?

They're not on record as discovering the throat wound, but they are on record in regards to the back wound.

Dr. Perry always remembered his first of two phone calls to Humes happening Friday night. He said the second happened on Saturday, while Humes only claimed there was one phone call on Saturday.

John Stringer and John Ebersole recalled the phone call happening during the autopsy.

Joe Hagan, Tom Robinson, and Joseph Van Hoesen all described witnessing autopsy procedures for some time after they arrived.

And another thing, we have the Barnum journal:

8/20/1979 interview from BEST EVIDENCE: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David Lifton, 1980

 

[Part VII – SYNTHESIS, Chapter 20. The X-rays and Photographs Reconsidered]

[...]Nevertheless, circumstancial evidence supports this theory. My own investigation has turned up two accounts indicating that a transiting neck trajectory was being discussed on Friday night. In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"
The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."61

Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend.*

James Jenkins told me that during the autopsy, when the "civilians" were practically arguing with Humes, they put the idea to him that the bullet entered at the rear, exiting through the tracheotomy inision, and that the bullet went on to hit Connally.**62 [...]

[...]

*Barnum's account also raises this question: why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound.

**Unfortunately, Jenkins never made a written record, and so it is easy to discount his recollections by claiming he was influenced by what he later read in books and magazines.

But having spoken with him, I didn't believe that was the case. Jenkins did not follow the case and, in fact, until I spoke with him in September 1979, did not know a bullet wound at the front of the neck had been observed in Dallas. Jenkins kept referring to it as the "tracheotomy incision," and couldn't understand why those "civilians" in the autopsy room kept claiming that a bullet exited there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 11:52 PM, David Lifton said:

Micah:

I'm restricting this post to the question you have asked, and am deliberately numbering the paragraphs which follow to facilitate study and commentary on what I have to say:

1. At some point during the life of the HSCA (as I recall), Robert Groden, along with a Baltimore reporter (name I don't recall just now) took the autopsy photos and showed them to Dr. Perry, who (at that time)  was  practicing medicine in New York City. Perry looked at the "stare of death" photo, shook his head from side to side, and said words to the effect that that's not the way he left the wound. Specifically, he said to Groden (as related to me and Pat Valentino in a June/July filmed interview at Groden's home in New Jersey): "I left the wound inviolate."

2 Groden went on to say that the quote stood out (for him) because, although he knew what the word ("inviolate") meant, he had never heard it used in conversation before.

3. Everything I have described above was recorded on film, when Pat Valentino and I visited with Groden at his home in (as I recall) Hopelawn, New Jersey, in June (or July) 1989.

NOW COMES "Inviolate" - - Part 2

4A. While at Groden's home, he took out his super-clear copy (obtained from some source, which he would not reveal) of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry (probably in late 1966) excerpts of which were aired in the famous (or "infamous") June 1967 CBS Special (narrated by Walter Cronkite) which defended the Warren Report.

4B: Transcripts of that show (as I recall) were published in a book by Steve White, then affiliated with CBS News, "Should we Now Believe the Warren Report?" --published by Macmillan in 1968.

See, for example, the listing at Amazon, where a used copy can be purchased for $4.50.  Here's the link:

https://www.amazon.com/Should-Now-Believe-Warren-Report/dp/B000FMILUY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519703878&sr=1-1&keywords="Should+we+now+believe+the+Warren+Report%3F"

 

4C:  Here's why White's book was (and still is) important: it contained what purported to be very official transcripts from the CBS broadcasts.  The transcript read (from memory) that Perry explained the confusion (about whether the throat wound was entry or exit) by stating that his trach incision through the bullet wound had "rendered it invalid." (These words are the key: "rendered it invalid".)

4D: At Robert Groden's home, he put a video copy into a playback machine, and we watched.  Pat V and I were watching, and expected the video to confirm what I knew (or believed I knew) from the White transcript. But instead, as the video played, and came to that point, Perry didn't say that at all. Instead, he said (and this was on the audio track): that he left the wound inviolate.

4E: Pat and I were both astounded, and rose up off our chairs, loudly exclaiming: "What?!!!".  Groden wanted to know what the heck we were so excited about, and we asked him to back up the tape, and play it again, and again, and again. . . there was no doubt about it: Perry said, on the tape, that he left the wound "inviolate"!  However. .  (see next point)

5. In the Steve White book (again, "as I recall") it read: "I rendered the wound invalid". . whereas in official CBS transcripts I had ordered, years before, from CBS in New York,  those transcripts said something different. They transcript actually used the word "inviolate".,

6. Groden, meanwhile, wanted to know what the heck was going on, and why we were both so excited. We promised to tell him, but first wanted to interview him, on camera, before we "closed the loop" and explained our reaction. We wanted a faithful filmed record of his understanding of the matter, not influenced by any theory or hypothesis that we had.

7. So now, we set up the camera, and the lights, and the audio, etc., and had a multi-hour filmed interview with Robert Groden, in which Groden explained, in detail, his visit to Dr. Perry in New York City, and what had happened when he was shown the face-up ("stare of death") autopsy photo: how Perry shook his head from side to side and said, "I left the wound inviolate."

8. After we had this point thoroughly nailed down, and discussed every which way, we then honored our agreement, and proceeded to tell Groden (on camera) just what it was we were so excited about.

9. As I have described (above), all of this is on film.

10. I think it was within two days of that filmed shoot, that we visited with Dr. Dave Stewart, and had an important multi-hour interview with him. That interview was very important because, although Steward was not in ER-1, he had a good relationship with Perry, and so could comment on what Perry's state of mind was, and (perhaps, because I don't have a transcript in front of me just now) exactly what Perry said. But see point 11.

11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not  necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).

11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).

11C: When this matter was discussed in detail on a special private email thread run by JFK researcher Paul Hoch, the late Gary Mack contributed to the discussion. Mack wrote that he had checked the relevant CBS tapes and that yes, Dr. Perry stated that he had left the wound “inviolate.”  As I recall, JFK researcher Todd Vaughan agreed.

12. Of course, this adds a whole other dimension to the controversy: if Perry didn't have to make an incision, no wonder he was shocked when he saw the  stare-of-death photo, with its wide gash; but, more importantly, Perry twice testified under oath (once in his WC deposition, in Dallas, and then when he went before the Commission in Washington) that he had made a horizontal incision in the throat when he performed the tracheotomy. (And remember: when I called Perry on 10/27, and inquired about the incision length, he initially me it was "2-3 cm" (as I reported in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence.   If Perry didn't have to make an incision, then he perjured himself when he testified otherwise.

13. The Warren Commission (and the Secret Service and/or the FBI) was derelict in not finding this  1966 (or 1967) front page story in the Tennessee newspaper that quoted Stewart as stating that Perry told him he did not have to make an incision. That's something that should have been unearthed in the FBI investigation. (For those who may be unaware: the FBI read all the major newspapers, and stories like that were duly noted, and filed, with a routing slip that often indicated their distribution to FBI Director Hoover and all the other Assistant Directors).

14. I have never checked the original FBI records to see whether it was clipped and filed. (It ought to have been, but I can't say that it was, or wasn't).

FURTHER COMMENT:

To those who wonder why Final Charade has taken so long to complete, the above story--about something that seems "so simple" is a good example.  The issue at first may appear to be nothing but the pursuit of a simple, and perhaps inconsequential "factoid," but in fact its dead serious. At issue is not just whether the throat wound was altered (considerably enlarged, in a brutal fashion, so that, as the Bethesda autopsy states, it had "widely gaping irregular edges"); but, in addition, it has serious implications as to whether Dr. Malcolm Perry committed perjury when he testified that he made an incision in order to perform the tracheotomy. In other words, we "know" a trach tube was inserted into that opening at the front of President Kennedy's neck - -the question is, was it necessary to make an incision (as Perry testified) or was it possible that he simply was able to insert the tube through the pre-existing bullet hole which, fortuitously, was situated at just the right spot to insert a trach tube and reach the windpipe (the trachea)?   Finally, if Perry said "I left the wound inviolate," and if that is what appears in the official CBS transcripts of the June 1967 TV broadcast, then how is one to explain the CBS transcript that was published in Stephen White's book (in an Appendix at the back) and which has Perry saying "I rendered the wound invalid"?  Finally, and this is purely my personal opinion: as Pat Valentino and I watched Groden's excellent copy of the Perry interview (as broadcast in June 1967),. it seemed clear to me (and I think Pat V. would agree) that someone had monkeyed with the audio, in an attempt to clumsily conceal Perry's articulation of the word "inviolate" and (possibly) create enough confusion so that his statement could be heard as "I rendered it invalid."

This post (that I have written here) is much more detailed than anything I expected to write, in answering Micah Mileto's question, and my intention is to save it, for use in drafting a few pages in Final Charade. But this issue offers a good example of why research in the JFK case has often been compared to dealing with a bunch of "rabbit holes."

For those who take the medical evidence seriously, this particular "rabbit hole" is obviously quite important; and if (for any reason) Perry deliberately lied (i.e., was "prevailed upon" not to tell the truth, because I don't think he would do that of his own volition) and if the transcript in White's book represented deliberate misinformation (or "disinformation") then all of this constitutes an important game changer.

Feedback welcome.

DSL

2/26/2018 - 8:35 PST

Orange County, California

 

I have found something possibly contradicting the Robert Groden 1979 inviolate story.

 

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/L Disk/Livingstone Harrison Edward/Item 072.pdf

Quote

 

Since he (Groden) was my partner, I know that his M.O. is denial.  Now you see it, now you don't. He has for a long time played a  shell game with this evidence. At times I was shown different  views of the back of the had. In one of them, there is clearly a  line of small black crescents, a half an inch long and a half an  inch apart all the way around where he says there is a matte  line--just as though a can opener had been operating there. I  ask him what that is--"I don't know" he responds. Sometime later  he hauls out a picture of the back of the head again, and I  can't find the crescents. "Where are the crescents?" "I don't  know. You imagined that. There aren't any." 

 

Well, Mark Crouch saw them too. 

 

In 1979, Steve Parks and I saw both a color set of  photographs and a black and white set at Groden's house. Later  the black and white set seems to have disappeared. He says he  never had black and whites, but David Lifton and numerous others saw them. Groden doesn't seem to have them anymore. Maybe he  sold them. 

 

He claimed never to have the Stare of Death picture, but  both Lifton and myself recorded at different times having seen  this unique photograph. 

 

Groden says that he personally interviewed Dr. Malcolm  Perry, an interview I set up, but Perry, Jeff Price, the  reporter, and Steve Parks, the editor from the Sun , deny that  Groden was allowed inside the interview. His pictures were not  shown to Perry. The Sun (and most if not all newspapers) would  never allow an outsider along on any personal interview, anyway. 

 

And Groden has begun telling a colossal lie: That he  discovered the conflict between the X-rays and the photographs  and wrote a memo to someone on the Committee about it. How come  his finding is not in his long memorandum which they published- -giving him total freedom?

Nothing in between. No painting. Lately I have found this  sort of conflict in many of the facets of the evidence, and each  time there is often an either/or situation, but no third  possibility, no other ground to go, unless you look for it real  hard. And now I am finding them, and for those who have co-opted  this case, the answers I am coming up with seem to me to work a  lot better.

 

 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 10:30 PM, Jason Ward said:

 

Many thanks for taking the time to respond.   

Your peerless dedication to evidence instead of speculation makes you a lonely figure in the assassination "research" community.  You are one of the few truly valuable and essential contributors of evidence.

 

Jason Ward

PS - I noticed a few months ago you are credited in the opening sequence of the Burt Lancaster film Executive Action.  Do you agree with the broad narrative in the movie, i.e., a wealthy cabal of non-government actors ordering and financing the assassination?

So soon to be so late in thanking you for your very complimentary post.

Re Executive Action (on which I was credited as being the "Researcher" [see the film credits]); and your question: Its a good question, and I don't know the answer.  I tend to think the cabal that took JFK's life was partly "outside" and partly "inside" the USG; and, even more significantly, the municipal government of Dallas. I believe Dallas mayor Cabell had significant foreknowledge and would have "lent a hand" wherever his assistance was required.  I don't believe (anymore) that this was a "Pentagon plot," although I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it had some significant Pentagon sympathizers.  I do not believe that Sec State Dean Rusk taking so many of the "Kennedy loyalists" out of the country (for that Trade conference in Tokyo) was an accident; to the contrary, it was plot connected, and I think that Rusk had significant foreknowledge and was a "player."  I believe the highest echelons of the DPD were involved up to their ears; but so was Lyndon Johnson. I believe there was an "operational cadre" of top level people, many ex-military, who "ran" the Dallas operation; and that there was major Secret Service involvement--including SS Chief Rowley, and White House Detail Gerald Behn, and a clique of agents (Kellerman, Roberts, etc.)  Suggestion: read Luttwak's "Coup d'erat" to understand how a plot like this is structured.  For the rest, I'm racing to finish Final Charade. DSL  8/27/2018; 6:20 AM PDT

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

So soon to be so late in thanking you for your very complimentary post.

Re Executive Action (on which I was credited as being the "Researcher" [see the film credits]); and your question: Its a good question, and I don't know the answer.  I tend to think the cabal that took JFK's life was partly "outside" and partly "inside" the USG; and, even more significantly, the municipal government of Dallas. I believe Dallas mayor Cabell had significant foreknowledge and would have "lent a hand" wherever his assistance was required.  I don't believe (anymore) that this was a "Pentagon plot," although I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it had some significant Pentagon sympathizers.  I do not believe that Sec State Dean Rusk taking so many of the "Kennedy loyalists" out of the country (for that Trade conference in Tokyo) was an accident; to the contrary, it was plot connected, and I think that Rusk had significant foreknowledge and was a "player."  I believe the highest echelons of the DPD were involved up to their ears; but so was Lyndon Johnson. I believe there was an "operational cadre" of top level people, many ex-military, who "ran" the Dallas operation; and that there was major Secret Service involvement--including SS Chief Rowley, and White House Detail Gerald Behn, and a clique of agents (Kellerman, Roberts, etc.)  Suggestion: read Luttwak's "Coup d'erat" to understand how a plot like this is structured.  For the rest, I'm racing to finish Final Charade. DSL  8/27/2018; 6:20 AM PDT

David - one of the most difficult areas to penetrate is the ‘ex-military’. Have you looked at Jack Crichton’s 488th Military Intelligence Detachment? There is little documentation on the existence of this Detachment. Crichton has been quoted ad infinitum as saying that there were 100 men in this unit, 40-50 of them DPD. Names connected with that Unit include Lumpkin, Stringfellow, Westbrook, Whitmeyer, and interestingly Army Colonel Frank M Brandstetter. At least in his case we have his own word in his autobiographical book Brandy - Portrait of an Intelligence Officer, that he joined that Unit with permission of his ‘big brother’ Colonel Rose at Army Chief of Staff Intelligence (ACSI). Have you, in your research, delved into these names and this Detachment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Crenshaw was correct, estimating the diameter of the puncture neck wound  3 mm to 5 mm, Perry ( or Carrico) had to enlarge the wound, resp. make an incision, because: 

"The outer diameter of the tracheostomy tube should be about ⅔ to ¾ of the tracheal diameter. (  An adult's trachea has an inner diameter of about 1.5 to 2 centimetres (0.6 to 0.8 in) and a length of about 10 to 11 centimetres (4 in.) As a general rule, most adult females can accommodate a tube with an outer diameter of 10mm, whilst an outer diameter of 11mm is suitable for most adult males." 

 

Kennedys neckwound was enlarged twice: by Perry (or Carrico) in order to put in the tube, then  by the secret autopsy team, in order o search for a missile and destroy a "unsuitable" original wound (neckwound), which could not have been a bullet wound, by it's size of 3mm to 5 mm. (Crenshaw). 

BTW Crenshaw saw Perry making the incision, if I remember correctly. 

 

KK

Edited by Karl Kinaski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious Mr. Lifton, do you have a definitive release date yet on Final Charade? I believe the last I heard was your Night Fright appearance I think this past fall and you said it would be at least one year. Any definitive or estimated release date on that?

Edited by Jamey Flanagan
Spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2018 at 7:53 AM, Paul Brancato said:

David - one of the most difficult areas to penetrate is the ‘ex-military’. Have you looked at Jack Crichton’s 488th Military Intelligence Detachment? There is little documentation on the existence of this Detachment. Crichton has been quoted ad infinitum as saying that there were 100 men in this unit, 40-50 of them DPD. Names connected with that Unit include Lumpkin, Stringfellow, Westbrook, Whitmeyer, and interestingly Army Colonel Frank M Brandstetter. At least in his case we have his own word in his autobiographical book Brandy - Portrait of an Intelligence Officer, that he joined that Unit with permission of his ‘big brother’ Colonel Rose at Army Chief of Staff Intelligence (ACSI). Have you, in your research, delved into these names and this Detachment?

 

Note date change:  it was 1965, not 1985.  Sorry.  That was a typo.  DSL

Paul,

I telephoned Jack Chrichton--for all the obvious reasons--back around 1965 (date, fuzzy).

What I recalled is that he was a very friendly and outgoing fellow, who explained to me the role he had played in getting an interpreter for Marina, when she was brought down to the Dallas Police Department.

If you have something specific that might jog my memory, please do let me know.

FYI: I have always wondered about the other names you mentioned,  but never contacted any of them.  I have a vague recollection of attempting to speak with Lumpkin, but he wouldn't talk.  I never heard of  Frank Brandstetter (or his book).

Thanks.

DSL

8/28/18 - 6 AM PDT

Southern California

Edited by David Lifton
correcting a typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Crichton has been quoted ad infinitum as saying that there were 100 men in this unit, 40-50 of them DPD.

Paul,

 

I ran across something you might be interested in - a rundown on the 434th Military Intelligence Detachment: how it was composed, what they concentrated on, etc.

http://www.hawk1.net/public/browse-online/raven1-eleanor-white/mcf/434mid.htm

 

Steve Thomas

 

PS: The 434th is listed in Cagley's Study of MID's, page 14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 6:59 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

David, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the autopsy end right after the doctors asked the FBI men if there were a kind of bullet that wouldn't show up on x-ray or appear in the body? 

SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out.  He was informed of the Magic Bullet, and so informed the doctors. 

That answered their biggest question of the entire autopsy -- What happened to the bullet that caused the below the shoulders shallow back wound?

Response:  Sort of. . . As I recall, one of the two FBI agents called the FBI, and in that phone call, was informed the the FBI Lab had received a bullet that was found on a Dallas stretcher.  Either during that call---or it was a second call (I'm not sure)--one of the agents inquired (or was informed , by Humes) about a bullet that would dissolve--an "ice bullet."  I  addressed all of this in a post written several years ago, because to me, it was an example of Humes dark sense of humor, and in fact he was making reference to a "bad guy" character in the Dick Tracy cartoon strip, who fired "ice bullets." Something like that.  Perhaps someone can locate my post on the subject. I actually did some research on the cartoon strip, so I could get the correct quote(s), and attribute it (or them) to the proper character.  I was my belief that if in fact Humes was alluding to the Tracy cartoon strip, then he was not (at all) fooled by the "bulletless" body, and was making a sarcastic reference to it.  DSL 6/29/2018 - 8:10 AM PDT

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Response:  Sort of. . . As I recall, one of the two FBI agents called the FBI, and in that phone call, was informed the the FBI Lab had received a bullet that was found on a Dallas stretcher.  Either during that call---or it was a second call (I'm not sure)--one of the agents inquired (or was informed , by Humes) about a bullet that would dissolve--an "ice bullet."  I  addressed all of this in a post written several years ago, because to me, it was an example of Humes dark sense of humor, and in fact he was making reference to a "bad guy" character in the Dick Tracy cartoon strip, who fired "ice bullets." Something like that.  Perhaps someone can locate my post on the subject. I actually did some research on the cartoon strip, so I could get the correct quote(s), and attribute it (or them) to the proper character.  I was my belief that if in fact Humes was alluding to the Tracy cartoon strip, then he was not (at all) fooled by the "bulletless" body, and was making a sarcastic reference to it.  DSL 6/29/2018 - 8:10 AM PDT

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

David, the prosectors took the scenario seriously. 

They struggled with the nomenclature -- "plastic", "soft-nosed," "ice bullet".

Instead of researching a Dick Tracy strip why not research high-tech weapons that don't leave a trace in the body or on x-ray?

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

David, the prosectors took the scenario seriously. 

They struggled with the nomenclature -- "plastic", "soft-nosed," "ice bullet".

Instead of researching a Dick Tracy strip why not research high-tech weapons that don't leave a trace in the body or on x-ray?

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

 

This is one of those subjects the JFKA Critical Master Class maintain a "no-fly zone" -- except in cases of Louis Witt Derangement Syndrome where researchers insist the Umbrella Man had a high tech weapon as suspected by the prosectors.

Other than that, the Prosectors' Scenario is not considered a serious possibility by the JFKA Master Class.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...