Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

What's the deal with Michael Baden???

Recommended Posts

I still don't know all the major characters in the JFK assassination and related investigations, etc. One who I haven't studied till now is Michael Baden. Jim DiEugenio brought his name up in one of the other threads, so I decided to learn more about him. I am really taken aback by what I've seen so far.

In all the years I've been studying the assassination, It's been my general impression that the highly intelligent players don't really buy the WC conclusions, the single bullet theory, and other such nonsense. If they do, it's because they are playing a part in the cover up.

Well it appears that Michael Baden -- based upon what I've seen so far -- has shattered my impression. I mean, he seems to be a highly intelligent man, apparently widely respected, highly credentialed. He's even is a critic of the WC, according to what I've read.

But the man BELIEVES IN THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY. I'm watching a debate between him and Cyril Wecht, and he actually stated that the SBT is not a theory, but rather a fact!

Well right there he lost credibility with me. Not so much because the SBT is nonsense, but because he would go so far as to claim it to be factual. No intelligent, honest, informed person would say such a thing in my opinion. So frankly, I have to conclude that either Baden isn't highly intelligent, isn't very honest, or isn't well informed on the matter.

I'd like to get some opinions from other forum members. What do you guys make of Baden?

BTW, Jim D. informed me that Baden is the guy who told Ida Dox to exaggerate/fabricate the cowlick hole on her back-of-head autopsy drawing. ("Exaggerate/fabricate" are my words, not Jim's.) Which seems like a dishonest thing to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy:

The irony with Baden is that he was brought in, along with Wecht, to be the original first two medical authorities for the HSCA.  This was done while Sprague and Tanenbaum were running the show.

Well, if you read my interview with David Giglio, you will see that once Sprague left, and then Tanenbaum, a sea change overtook that committee.  Baden agreed to go along with Blakey's, shall we call them,  new ideas and approach.  Wecht would not.  Therefore, Blakey made Baden head of the medical panel and they isolated, deliberately isolated, Wecht. 

Baden saw this opening as a way to make a national name for himself, which he really did not have up until that time.  Until that time, the New York pathologist who had done so was Milton Halpern, who Baden had worked under.

Well, good ole Mikey took the ball and ran with it.  And he did what Tanenbaum and Sprague would not have done.  He made and endorsed a bunch of naked assumptions in order to create a false conclusion.  He himself has admitted that the JFK autopsy was one of the worst in history.  But somehow, after it was modified by the Clark Panel, with no exhumed body, Baden said it was OK in its conclusions.

Pat Speer and Gary Aguilar have done some really good work on the joke that is Baden.  So has Milicent Cranor.  

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply, Jim. That explains everything. (Though if anybody  else wants to weigh in, please do so.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, when Davey Boy said that I was giving priority to the autopsy report over the Z film concerning directionality and number of bullets, that is another distortion by him.

I did not say that.  I said, the autopsy, period.  Not the autopsy report.

The autopsy in this case is not just utterly incompetent, as Baden characterized it.

It is worse than that.  And I should say, that Sprague, Tanenbaum and Al Lewis had decided that was the case before they left.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Wecht insists on (because it makes a good story), but is almost certainly not true, is the version of events where the autopsy doctors were ignorant of the throat wound the night of the autopsy. The evidence suggests that they learned about it around midnight, a little after Sibert and O'Neil departed the morgue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 7:31 AM, James DiEugenio said:

This was done while Sprague and Tanenbaum were running the show.

Blakey set the investigation back 20 years.  The magnitude of this change within the discovery of truth in history is terribly understated outside of these pages.

 

For those less aware of the story:  Attached is the FBI memo (not SS) with Tolson telling Belmont that Shanklin reports agents who know Oswald's voice say the tape sent by CIA not Oswald...


Sprague called David Phillips to testify before the Assassinations Committee in November, 1976. According to Sprague, Phillips said that the CIA had monitored and tape recorded Oswald's conversations with the Soviet Embassy. The tape was then transcribed by a CIA employee who then mistakenly coupled it with a photograph of a person who was not Oswald. Phillips said that the actual recording was routinely destroyed or re-used about a week after it was received.

Sprague subsequently discovered an FBI memorandum to the Secret Service dated November 23rd, 1963. It referred to the CIA notification of the man who visited the Russian Embassy. The memo noted that "Special Agents of this Bureau who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

Sprague was intrigued: How could the FBI agents have listened to a tape recording in November when Phillips said it had been destroyed in October? Sprague decided to push the CIA for an answer. He wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused. He contended that would be in direct conflict with House Resolution 222 which established the Assassination Committee and authorized it investigate the agencies of the United States Government. "How," he asked, "can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I'm supposed to be investigating?" He indicated he would subpoena the CIA's records.

Shortly afterwards, the first attempt to get the Assassinations Committee reconstituted was blocked.

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

What Wecht insists on (because it makes a good story), but is almost certainly not true, is the version of events where the autopsy doctors were ignorant of the throat wound the night of the autopsy. The evidence suggests that they learned about it around midnight, a little after Sibert and O'Neil departed the morgue.


Micah,

I believe you're right about the autopsists knowing about the throat wound the night of the autopsy, rather than the following morning as later claimed by Humes. There is a good deal of evidence for that, as I have been compiling here.

But I wouldn't characterize Cyril Wecht's acceptance of Hume's version of the story as being "because it makes a good story." I watched Wecht's debate with Michael Baden and found myself impressed with his knowledge of the "controversial" issues surrounding the assassination. I found his assessment to be spot on. What he said in the debate demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is an intelligent man with an open mind who isn't swayed by peer pressure. If Wecht believes that the autopsists didn't know about the throat wound until the following morning, I think it's because he isn't aware of the evidence pointing otherwise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read The Last Investigation, so I knew that Richard Sprague left the HSCA over his refusal to sign a CIA secrecy agreement. And I knew that the whole HSCA investigation shifted gears when Robert Blakey was brought in.

I know that Blakey had a fixation on the Mafia being behind the assassination. What I don't know is if Blakey was an honest broker, or if he was complacent in or complicit with the committee's efforts to further the WC cover up.

Does anybody have an opinion on this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to offer something that I've posted before related to the head injuries as described by Dr Humes.

The following is a quote from his WC testimony.  I then took that description and illustrated it.  

At the core.. a shot thru the top of the man's skull somehow cleanly severs the spinal cord exactly as a craniotomy would do

All credit to David Lifton and Best Evidence for making the point of how JFK at 8pm looked as if he had already gone thru a craniotomy.  

With regards to the back wound... you've been lied to, the holes were probed just not dissected for good reason, there was no channel that ran from back to front... besides, it was in the wrong spot to help them anyway

 

"We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the sagittal plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately (1 & 2) 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.  The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.In addition, there was a (3) laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.(4) When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies. This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions."

   

 

And here is a quick analysis of the Boswell drawing/notes.  

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Micah,

I believe you're right about the autopsists knowing about the throat wound the night of the autopsy, rather than the following morning as later claimed by Humes. There is a good deal of evidence for that, as I have been compiling here.

But I wouldn't characterize Cyril Wecht's acceptance of Hume's version of the story as being "because it makes a good story." I watched Wecht's debate with Michael Baden and found myself impressed with his knowledge of the "controversial" issues surrounding the assassination. I found his assessment to be spot on. What he said in the debate demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is an intelligent man with an open mind who isn't swayed by peer pressure. If Wecht believes that the autopsists didn't know about the throat wound until the following morning, I think it's because he isn't aware of the evidence pointing otherwise.

 

I did a good compilation of evidence for that on internationalskeptics.com. Here are the links:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931229&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931291&postcount=962

Since Sibert and O'Neil always said they left the autopsy around the time the Gawler's funeral home was supposed to start their work, and the main Gawler's guys arrived at 11:00 PM, that leaves a perfect window of time for an early phone call with Dr. Perry around midnight.

My top 5 reasons to believe the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound the night of the autopsy:

1. The 11/29/1963 Barnum diary obtained by David Lifton, reading [Dr. Burkley said, regarding the shots that hit JFK, that] "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..."

2. The consistent statements by John Ebersole and John Stringer describing the revealing phone call as happening during the autopsy. Stringer said that a probe was also inserted into the throat.

3. Dr. Perry's confusion over whether his contact with Dr. Humes happened Friday night or Satuday morning.

4. Dr. Boswell's Freudian slips (in a 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article, his bizarre 8/17/1977 HSCA interview report, and to the ARRB in 2/26/1996.

5. Richard Lipsey vividly describing the doctors "debating" about what the throat wound represented, concluding that it was an exit for a bullet entering the base of the head near the EOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baden was my professor for Legal Medicine Class in law school. my sense was he went along with the official story to help his career path. However, he told some funny stories about what happened when Rockefeller died having sex with Megan Marshak.....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 11:52 AM, David Josephs said:

Blakey set the investigation back 20 years.  The magnitude of this change within the discovery of truth in history is terribly understated outside of these pages.

 

For those less aware of the story:  Attached is the FBI memo (not SS) with Tolson telling Belmont that Shanklin reports agents who know Oswald's voice say the tape sent by CIA not Oswald...


Sprague called David Phillips to testify before the Assassinations Committee in November, 1976. According to Sprague, Phillips said that the CIA had monitored and tape recorded Oswald's conversations with the Soviet Embassy. The tape was then transcribed by a CIA employee who then mistakenly coupled it with a photograph of a person who was not Oswald. Phillips said that the actual recording was routinely destroyed or re-used about a week after it was received.

Sprague subsequently discovered an FBI memorandum to the Secret Service dated November 23rd, 1963. It referred to the CIA notification of the man who visited the Russian Embassy. The memo noted that "Special Agents of this Bureau who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Tex., have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."

Sprague was intrigued: How could the FBI agents have listened to a tape recording in November when Phillips said it had been destroyed in October? Sprague decided to push the CIA for an answer. He wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused. He contended that would be in direct conflict with House Resolution 222 which established the Assassination Committee and authorized it investigate the agencies of the United States Government. "How," he asked, "can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I'm supposed to be investigating?" He indicated he would subpoena the CIA's records.

Shortly afterwards, the first attempt to get the Assassinations Committee reconstituted was blocked.

597a1a074203f_63-11-23TolsontoBelmont-ShanklinsaysvoicenotOswaldafterlisteningtoCIAtape-highlighted.thumb.jpg.6562622a7cc488ca4cff1c5391a7c979.jpg

"Blakey set the investigation back 20 years."  Yes David, but was it intentional on his part?  I have to wonder if he was not used also.  Think about Lopez and Hardway being shut down by Joannides.  He was pointed to the Mob did it story.  Myself and others jumped on the bandwagon in the early 80's.  Those were the books on the front shelves at the time, no internet reviews or discussion of the subject.  He said just a few years ago "if we were deceived on this...".   Now he and Hardway are suing the CIA for their own files from the time.

The whole story of how he came to the position is worthy of a thread itself if not an article or even book.  Was Henry Gonzalez demonized?  Was the intent of the original investigation derailed?  Gonzalez, Tannenbaum, Sprague gone.  Yes.  Justice was perverted and History was hijacked.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron:

For that story, read my two part article "The Sins of Robert Blakey".  Its in The Assassinations, or on the Probe CD.

Short answer:  there was a conscious effort to fabricate the conflict between Sprague and Gonzalez. Then, the evidence says that Chris Dodd had a role in bringing on Blakey.  

From the start, the Blakey approach was quite different than the Sprague approach.  As I talked about in my David GIglio interview: 1.) Blakey worked in secret: no press conferences,  everyone signs non disclosure agreements. 2.) The FBI, and CIA would have right to final review as to what made it into the Final Report and volumes.  Which is why the Lopez Report was not published until the ARRB. And Blakey never complained in public about what the FBI and CIA were doing to his committee.  And then he, Billings, and two other people stuck around to write the Final Report.  Everyone else was gone.  In many places, that Final Report is full of baloney.  

And lastly, here is a guy who gave back something like 425,000 dollars of his budget, and then laid off employees like Al Gonzalez, and did not test every site in the plaza for he acoustics evidence.

Edited by James DiEugenio

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...