Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There's no way that would fool 15 doctors. With one staring right down into the hole from a distance of 18 inches. And a couple of nurses who prepared the body for delivery. They were handling the body, not looking at a few photos.

Like I said, it could have been an optical illusion seeing it in real life just as much as seeing the photographs. I bet if you applied perfect gore special effects to someone's parietal-temporal area, and had them lay on a hospital table with their chin tilted back, it would give the illusion of an occipital wound. And with all of the dura mater covering the brain, who's to say that this illusion couldn't give even a doctor the false suggestion that cerebral or dura tissue coming out of the wound was cerebellar tissue?

The way this kind of wound is situated on the head, while laying down it would also probably give someone the impression that the large defect extended all the way to the occipital.

See this well-known photo of building 7 showing the damage to the south-west corner of the building:

From this perspective, the damage to the building looks catastrophic. But look closely at this rarely-seen photograph of the building and you will find that the corner gash in that the first photograph gave the false suggestion that the gash extended way farther than it really did.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Okay. But I don't know why you are telling me that.

 

Because an assassin could have been aiming way above Kennedy's head at Connally.

[Cliff Varnell]

14 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What's wrong with the throat wound being a fragment from a shot entering near the EOP?

Because of the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process.

14 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

 

The torso X-rays clearly show an air cavity traveling down the lower neck and changing paths from the first rib to near the location of the throat wound. The bruises on the neck would support it, as well as explaining what happened to the bullet that entered near the EOP. The EOP wound is just as established as the tiny throat wound.

The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying the T1/C7 transverse processes.

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Because of the hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process.

The neck x-ray shows an air pocket overlaying the T1/C7 transverse processes.

In this scenario, a missile would have entered near the EOP, deflected downwards through his neck tissues, deflected off of his first rib which then hit and bruised the right lung, then exited the throat at very low-velocity.

[Michael Walton]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes, he does.

On page 2:

"There is evidence of alteration of the autopsy skull x-rays and of some of the autopsy photographs"

Yes that would be lazy. But who is doing that?

Chesser did not go into WHAT is fake in photos. And even if he did, it does not change the fact that based on his analysis of the wound he can see in the X-ray, he's saying that there was a front shot in the hairline.

Then, assuming that back of head photo with him spread out on the table showing a black spot in the hairline, it matches the blue dot that Chesser put on his picture.

Now - and don't take the easy way out and say "Chesser said the photos are fake so therefore they are and therefore nothing can be verified" - don't go that way.  Ask yourself - if that black dot is something sinister, why would they not fake it by taking it out? Or put another way - for argument's sake let's say that black dot is real.  It's exactly the way it looked when the photo was taken that night.

So assuming that - and I'm not quite sure you know how to do this as you tend to immediately fall back into your own counter-belief of things - but let's assume:

The photo is real, including the black dot
The x-ray is real and does show a forehead temple wound and fragment spray from front to back
A medical doctor puts a dot on a photograph showing where that wound would be in the X-ray
He does this 6 months AFTER I posted the January "hairline" thread
Jim DiEugenio says that the funeral guy said he plugged a "temple" hole

...do you care to speculate what that black hole is?

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Michael Walton said:

Chesser did not go into WHAT is fake in photos. And even if he did, it does not change the fact that based on his analysis of the wound he can see in the X-ray, he's saying that there was a front shot in the hairline.

Then, assuming that back of head photo with him spread out on the table showing a black spot in the hairline, it matches the blue dot that Chesser put on his picture.

Now - and don't take the easy way out and say "Chesser said the photos are fake so therefore they are and therefore nothing can be verified" - don't go that way.  Ask yourself - if that black dot is something sinister, why would they not fake it by taking it out? Or put another way - for argument's sake let's say that black dot is real.  It's exactly the way it looked when the photo was taken that night.

So assuming that - and I'm not quite sure you know how to do this as you tend to immediately fall back into your own counter-belief of things - but let's assume:

The photo is real, including the black dot
The x-ray is real and does show a forehead temple wound and fragment spray from front to back
A medical doctor puts a dot on a photograph showing where that wound would be in the X-ray
He does this 6 months AFTER I posted the January "hairline" thread
Jim DiEugenio says that the funeral guy said he plugged a "temple" hole

...do you care to speculate what that black hole is?

Do you mean the semicircular black dot above the right eye in some photos? Couldn't that be a lock of hair that caught the shadows just right?

[Michael Walton]

12 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Do you mean the semicircular black dot above the right eye in some photos? Couldn't that be a lock of hair that caught the shadows just right?

Yes that...

You could be right.  It sure doesn't look like a lock of matted bloody hair. But it could be.  But yes, that's what I meant.

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Yes that...

You could be right.  It sure doesn't look like a lock of matted bloody hair. But it could be.  But yes, that's what I meant.

Seems pretty likely considering the morphing head gif below. Notice where the source of light is.

 

[Pat Speer]

On 12/4/2017 at 12:20 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

That's not what the HSCA concluded.

quote on)

...(U)nder ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative.

(quote off)

 

Hubba-wha?

I demonstrate that the photographs would have been admissible in a court of law, and that the chain of custody is not a problem.

And you respond with this quote, in which the HSCA FPP wrote that a defense attorney MIGHT be able to sustain an objection to the introduction of the photographs.

Perhaps a bit of context is in order. Forensic Pathologists normally work in tandem with detectives and DA's. The question of admissibility, in their experience, is usually a question of gratuitous gore. Are the photographs needlessly gory? Will they shock the jury? Baden, for one, has complained that the photos (which most people assume are supposed to show the body as is) showed too much gore.

So, to be clear, defense attorneys have at times made sustainable objections that certain autopsy photographs are needlessly gory, and would unfairly bias the jury against the person supposedly causing this carnage, but the defense in this case might very well have asked certain photos be shown, so the jury could see the abundant evidence for a second shooter.

In any event, the photographs would have been admissible for the defense, should they have decided to use them, and probably for the prosecution as well.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

 

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

Concerning autopsy protocol there's this:

HSCA vol 7

<quote on>

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact,

under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable

and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such

poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.

Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about

using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than

informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of

the autopsy.

<quote off>

The autopsy photos are worthless.

•  

 

[Micah Mileto]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Hubba-wha?

I demonstrate that the photographs would have been admissible in a court of law, and that the chain of custody is not a problem.

And you respond with this quote, in which the HSCA FPP wrote that a defense attorney MIGHT be able to sustain an objection to the introduction of the photographs.

Perhaps a bit of context is in order. Forensic Pathologists normally work in tandem with detectives and DA's. The question of admissibility, in their experience, is usually a question of gratuitous gore. Are the photographs needlessly gory? Will they shock the jury? Baden, for one, has complained that the photos (which most people assume are supposed to show the body as is) showed too much gore.

So, to be clear, defense attorneys have at times made sustainable objections that certain autopsy photographs are needlessly gory, and would unfairly bias the jury against the person supposedly causing this carnage, but the defense in this case might very well have asked certain photos be shown, so the jury could see the abundant evidence for a second shooter.

In any event, the photographs would have been admissible for the defense, should they have decided to use them, and probably for the prosecution as well.

 

Why did John Stringer disagree about the type of film used on the photographs? 

[Cliff Varnell]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Hubba-wha?

I demonstrate that the photographs would have been admissible in a court of law, and that the chain of custody is not a problem.

No, you claim without proof that the low back wound witnesses would not testify to the inaccuracy of the autopsy photo.

Quote

And you respond with this quote, in which the HSCA FPP wrote that a defense attorney MIGHT be able to sustain an objection to the introduction of the photographs.

Which contradicts your assertion that the photos would be certainly be admissible.

Quote

Perhaps a bit of context is in order. Forensic Pathologists normally work in tandem with detectives and DA's. The question of admissibility, in their experience, is usually a question of gratuitous gore. Are the photographs needlessly gory? Will they shock the jury? Baden, for one, has complained that the photos (which most people assume are supposed to show the body as is) showed too much gore.

So, to be clear, defense attorneys have at times made sustainable objections that certain autopsy photographs are needlessly gory, and would unfairly bias the jury against the person supposedly causing this carnage, but the defense in this case might very well have asked certain photos be shown, so the jury could see the abundant evidence for a second shooter.

Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence, and since the bullet defects in the clothes contradict the wound location in the autopsy photo surely the defense would go with the strongest evidence.

Pat, your argument is based on a non sequitur --- because the BOH photo can be used to argue for multiple shooters that proves the photo is authentic.

But that does not follow logically.  The failure of an attempt to fake evidence of a single shooter does not magically render the evidence authentic.

What you insist on obfuscating is the nature of the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.  The low back wound could not have been associated with that fracture, which establishes the throat wound as an entrance.

You are attempting to weaken the prima facie case for conspiracy for reasons only you can answer.

Quote

In any event, the photographs would have been admissible for the defense, should they have decided to use them, and probably for the prosecution as well.

The defense is probably not going to muddy the case for your convenience, Pat.

Gentle reader, please note that Pat Speer cannot argue for the authenticity of the BOH photo, only that it would be admissible in court.

Hey Pat -- when are you going to show us how you jack four inches of clothing entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar?

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Why did John Stringer disagree about the type of film used on the photographs? 

John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, repeatedly claimed he'd taken the autopsy photographs, and that they showed the wounds as he recalled them.

He did, however, at the age of 78, claim the film used in the subsequent brain photographs was not the kind he used.

People with an agenda then conflate this into his saying he said the autopsy photos are fake...when he said the exact opposite...on numerous occasions.

As far as the brain photos, because of the interference of the government, the whole autopsy and post-autopsy was performed in a manner unlike the normal routine for Bethesda. It seems possible, then, that Stringer was provided equipment he was not used to using. Or even that someone else took the photographs.

But it doesn't matter much. The brain shown in the photos is not consistent with a brain injured in the manner described by the WC or HSCA, but is consistent with a brain struck by a tangential blow to the right hemisphere--precisely as described by Dr. Clark in the original press conference regarding Kennedy's wounds. As a result, I suspect the photos are both legitimate. and clear-cut evidence for more than one shooter.

[Pat Speer]

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

No, you claim without proof that the low back wound witnesses would not testify to the inaccuracy of the autopsy photo.

Which contradicts your assertion that the photos would be certainly be admissible.

Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence, and since the bullet defects in the clothes contradict the wound location in the autopsy photo surely the defense would go with the strongest evidence.

Pat, your argument is based on a non sequitur --- because the BOH photo can be used to argue for multiple shooters that proves the photo is authentic.

But that does not follow logically.  The failure of an attempt to fake evidence of a single shooter does not magically render the evidence authentic.

What you insist on obfuscating is the nature of the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process.  The low back wound could not have been associated with that fracture, which establishes the throat wound as an entrance.

You are attempting to weaken the prima facie case for conspiracy in order to inflate the value of your own research.

The defense is probably not going to muddy the case for your convenience, Pat.

Gentle reader, please note that Pat Speer cannot argue for the authenticity of the BOH photo, only that it would be admissible in court.

Hey Pat -- when are you going to show us how you jack four inches of clothing entirely above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar?

 

I have no interest in "proving" the photo is authentic.

The government claims it is authentic.

I don't have a problem with this because the photo proves the back wound was too low to be consistent with the single-bullet theory.

The government inadvertently admitted this, moreover, by hiring a trajectory expert to support the single-bullet theory, who promptly moved the wound up two inches to make it work.

 

This is stuff I discovered years ago, and discussed in my 2014 presentation at Bethesda, which represented the final nail in the single-bullet theory. (If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda, where WC counsel Burt Griffin stormed out of the room when I proved that Arlen Specter called the wound a back wound until he was shown a picture of the wound proving it was on the back and too low to support the single-bullet theory, whereupon he started calling it a "back-of-the-neck" wound. It was only fitting, moreover, that Fonzi's wife, Marie, attended this presentation, and congratulated me afterword, telling me her husband would have been so proud. To my mind it had come full circle, and the single-bullet theory was dead. There has most certainly not been anything since 2014 to bring it back alive.)

That you would have people ignore all this--is undoubtedly disappointing.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

To sum up, Chesser/Mantik and others have made the argument the autopsy materials are fake, or have been altered, and that this proves conspiracy.

This is a wobbly and misguided stance, IMO, because it opens the door for other better qualified experts to say no, they are legit.

I, on the other hand, took a look at these materials (plus the Z-film, and eyewitness statements) under the assumption they are legit, and found they don't indicate what the government said they indicated... And that they actually suggest Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter...

I have based many of my arguments, moreover, on the textbooks written by the government's experts.

While I am constantly updating and improving my arguments, for that matter, it grows increasingly clear that my approach, if not my arguments, will win the day.

Of course, to be fair, I'm not the first to adopt this approach. Dr. Randy Robertson, who spoke at Lancer, has been at it a lot longer than me and shares this approach. Robertson firmly believes the materials are legit and clear evidence for conspiracy. I wasn't taking a poll, but I'm pretty sure his presentation was at least as well received as Chesser's, even though the majority of those in the room believe the materials to have been altered.

In getting back to Chesser, moreover, it should be noted that his main contribution, if you will, is in drawing attention to an area of the forehead which may show fragments, and may indicate a bullet entrance. While I'm not as yet convinced of this, I congratulate him on bringing up an argument based upon what is on the x-rays, as opposed to what he thinks has been concealed.