Micah Mileto Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) When the HSCA asked Dr. Boswell about the throat wound, he literally changed his story in mid-interview. 8/17/1977 Boswell-Purdy HSCA Interview http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/HSCA/BOSWELL.TXT ARRB MD 26 - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=607#relPageId=3&tab=page , https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md26.pdf [...] DR. BOSWELL indicated that regarding the tracheostomy, the doctors "...thought it was a wound." He meant to convey the impression that the doctors thought it was a bullet wound. (This becomes potentially significant in later stages of the interview.) [...] DR BOSWELL indicated that "...we had gotten ourselves in dutch with the neck and throat wounds with regard to the Secret Service." DR. BOSWELL indicated that one of the agents (he wasn't sure if FBI or Secret Service) was on the phone most of the time. (He seemed to be implying they were on the phone that was in the main autopsy room.) [...]Dr. Boswell said the autopsy doctors assumed that the anterior neck wound was a wound of exit, saying that hole is not that big and that it was "...far bigger that wound of entry." He said the doctors didn't explicitly discuss the possibility of a tracheotomy having been performed but said it was assumed that this was a possibility. He said Parkland did not really do a tracheotomy in the sense that they never inserted a tube. (See notes on interview with Dr. Perry.) Dr. Boswell said that if a full autopsy had been performed they would have removed the trachea. Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. [...]Dr. BOSWELL was asked why the back wound was probed if the autopsy doctors knew the bullet had exited out the anterior neck (as Dr. BOSWELL stated earlier in the interview). Dr. BOSWELL said that Dr. BURKLEY didn't mention the fact that a tracheotomy had been performed. He said that Dr. BURKLEY was very upset and this might have explained his failure to mention this important fact. Dr. BOSWELL said (without indicating that he was being inconsistent with his previous statement), the doctors felt anterior neck damage was caused by a tracheotomy wound and in the later courses of the autopsy thought it may have included the exist wound of a bullet. He said the x-rays were examined during the autopsy in trying to accomplish what they saw as their main purpose, namely to look for a bullet. Dr. BOSWELL is a little vague as to when the doctors felt that a bullet may have fallen out the neck wound, but seemed to indicate it occurred around the time they learned the bullet had been discovered in Parkland and prior to the time when they began to feel there was a very real possibility of an exit wound in the anterior neck. The movie JFK held back too many punches because otherwise it would be a comedy. The scripts write themselves yet Hollywood won't ever touch these subjects again because they're too spicy. Edited July 13, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) OMG Davey, that was some pivot by you, worthy of Elgin Baylor. And it shows you will never admit the deliberate alteration and obfuscation of evidence by the FBI. I thought I roasted you pretty well, along with Vince, about how Vince tried to cover up what the HSCA told us about the FBI rigging the polygraph test. If you recall I pasted you all over this board on that one. But somehow, Davey now seems to forget about that issue and about how Vince deliberately covered it up in his book. That short memory serves you well in your continual denial of the facts of this case and what Hoover did in it. What about what I just mentioned? How the Bureau literally tried to paste over the remnants of the Tague hit on the curb. And how Tague was so stunned when he went back and found out the crease had been covered. Remember what the FBI said about that one Davey? It was a matter of street cleaning? This was in July, eight months after. Think Edgar had it figureed out by then? Did you ever hear your phony heroine Jean Davison say anything about these two instances in her three hundred page book? I mean the HSCA was issued four years before she published. So did she not read the volumes before she smeared Mark Lane on Ruby's polygraph? Its one thing for Hoover not to understand the facts of a case he did not give a darn about. I mean, the day after he was at the racetrack, a point that is in my book. Its another thing that weeks and months later, he was still trying to conceal important evidence in the case. And, no Davey, Jean Davison does not go into the horrendous record of Hoover in high profile cases at all and Vince cuts the worst things he did out of that record. For example what he did to Cornelius Gallagher, or his employment of false witness Harvey Matusow. You will read those in my book, but not in Davison's or Bugliosi's. Do you know who those two men were? They are fine examples of how Hoover and the FBI manipulated evidence to convict innocent men. Something he had a track record of doing quite well. Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case. That report spent all of two pages on the Tippit murder. It dealt with Mexico City in three. In that report there is not one mention of Michael Paine, George DeMohrenschildt or David Ferrie. The FBI had to know about Ferrie since they let him lie his way through his FBI interview after Garrison turned him over to them. But that is not the worst of it. In my book, I spent a full page listing instances where, like Elmer Moore, the FBI tried to get witnesses to alter their testimony on key points e.g. Nelson Delgado. I list eleven case of such stuff. Did Davison ever mention this? Did Vince? Please show us where Davey. And do it without spinning or pivoting a la Olajuwon. Edited July 13, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 "When the HSCA asked Dr. Boswell about the throat wound, he literally changed his story in mid-interview." Kind of like the Magic Bullet changed direction in mid air. Good stuff Micah, if they'd used qualified forensic pathologists it would have been a start. But the audience would have probably won anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case. Yep. And I still do.... "The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly style. Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good overview (or "Summary", as it's referred to at the Ferrell website) of the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few (pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous conclusion (revealed on Page 1 of its Report) that each of the three shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated in the Presidential limousine (JFK and Governor John Connally of Texas)....." -- DVP; April 2008 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/12-9-63-fbi-report.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 There is a sea of information indicating that the official Humes story of never conceiving that the throat wound could be a bullet hole until long after the body examination is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) I'm, frankly, amazed by the obfuscation on this thread by those defending the Warren Commission narrative. Isn't it common knowledge in 2018 that numerous witnesses from Dealey Plaza (and Parkland) had their original testimony altered and/or omitted from the WCR? That many people who "knew too much" about what happened on 11/22/63 later feared for their lives, knowing that other witnesses were being offed? One example, among many that I have read about, is James Douglass's account (in JFK and the Unspeakable) of the commercial aviator at Red Bird Airport who prepped a plane for about 20 gentlemen who flew to Houston on the afternoon of 11/22/63 after JFK was assassinated. The Cuban pilot (who helped him prep the plane) told him, before the news of JFK's murder was heard on the radio, "They are going to kill your President." The Red Bird aviator was so afraid that he refused to mention anything about what he had heard for many years. Under the circumstances, it seems plausible to me that the medical personnel at Parkland were afraid to contradict the WCR after their initial descriptions of the pathology had been altered to conform to the "Lone Nut" in the TSBD narrative. As for the obvious right forehead entry wound, (and I have seen forehead entry wounds in my medical career) I believe it was Sylvia Meagher who reported that the FBI ballistics test shots using a Mannlicher Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of the (cadaver's) face. Edited July 13, 2018 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 28 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: I'm, frankly, amazed by the obfuscation on this thread by those defending the Warren Commission narrative. Isn't it common knowledge in 2018 that numerous witnesses from Dealey Plaza (and Parkland) had their original testimony altered and/or omitted from the WCR? That many people who "knew too much" about what happened on 11/22/63 later feared for their lives, knowing that other witnesses were being offed? One example, among many that I have read about, is James Douglass's account (in JFK and the Unspeakable) of the commercial aviator at Red Bird Airport who prepped a plane for about 20 gentlemen who flew to Houston on the afternoon of 11/22/63 after JFK was assassinated. The Cuban pilot (who helped him prep the plane) told him, before the news of JFK's murder was heard on the radio, "They are going to kill your President." The Red Bird aviator was so afraid that he refused to mention anything about what he had heard for many years. Under the circumstances, it seems plausible to me that the medical personnel at Parkland were afraid to contradict the WCR after their initial descriptions of the pathology had been altered to conform to the "Lone Nut" in the TSBD narrative. As for the obvious right forehead entry wound, (and I have seen forehead entry wounds in my medical career) I believe it was Sylvia Meagher who reported that the FBI ballistics test shots using a Mannlicher Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of the (cadaver's) face. Sylvia Meagher, source, book, article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Isn't it common knowledge in 2018 that numerous witnesses from Dealey Plaza (and Parkland) had their original testimony altered and/or omitted from the WCR? No. It isn't. 32 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: As for the obvious right forehead entry wound, You really think there was an entry wound in JFK's RIGHT FOREHEAD??? You must be joking. No such wound exists---in the photographs or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: No. It isn't. You really think there was an entry wound in JFK's RIGHT FOREHEAD??? You must be joking. No such wound exists---in the photographs or otherwise. 1. Yes, David it Is common knowledge. 2. The right front entry wound, in the hairline, resulted in Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: 1. Yes, David it Is common knowledge. No, it isn't. It's a CTer invention. Nothing more. The autopsy proves there was ONE bullet hole of entry in JFK's cranium----in the back of the head. Quote 2. The right front entry wound, in the hairline, resulted in Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left, Back and to the Left. Pure fantasy, a la the conspiracy theorists. You think this autopsy report "Summary" is nothing but lies?.... Edited July 13, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: No, it isn't. It's a CTer invention. Nothing more. The autopsy proves there was ONE bullet hole of entry in JFK's cranium----in the back of the head. Pure fantasy, a la the conspiracy theorists. You think this autopsy report "Summary" is nothing but lies?.... Back, and to the Left. Spraying Bobby Hargis with blood, dura mater and more to be blunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said: Back, and to the Left. Forward....at the moment of impact. (Not a "smear", but obvious forward movement.) Edited July 13, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: I'm, frankly, amazed by the obfuscation on this thread by those defending the Warren Commission narrative. It's what they do. Spin, sneer, spin, sneer, spin...ad infinitum ad nauseum. I'm all about serving them their own words -- let them argue with themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 I really don't see the value in engaging these guys. They are just given the opportunity to shuck and jive and repeat their falsehoods with subtle nuanced changes (sound familiar?). Meanwhile, worthwhile debate, study, debate and research time is missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted July 13, 2018 Author Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: This is utterly ridiculous. As Pat Speer has noted, there was never any kind of rigorous and systematic cataloguing of the ear witness testimony. And to say there was is simply balderdash. Pat has gone through the sourcing on this chart and exposed it for the unreliable and ersatz evidence that it is. If the FBI had ever done a rigorous and systematic catalogue, then obviously the results would have been as the films show. Or are DVP and FC going to say, what you nutty people: you would believe your lying eyes over John McAdams' chart? Concerning the inane comment that the witnesses did not find anything on the GK, can the man be serious? There were two tell tale signs of a crossfire. First, the phony persons planted there as SS agents. Which is why I asked about the man at the 3:04 mark and only Rick picked up on that. There should have been no SS agents there. And, Larry Hancock, among others, has found sources that explain how those credentials got there. Secondly, there is the utterly memorable and compelling testimony of Sam Holland. How anyone can discount what Holland told Tink Thompson back in 1966 is simply astounding. It was one of the highlights of Six Seconds in Dallas. Made even more fascinating because Holland was reluctant to talk to Tink because of what the WC had done to his words. Hello everybody, I am flabbergasted (and it is perhaps an understatement…). Let's get back on track. First of all, I started this thread to ask a question to a well-known researcher, Mister David Lifton, whom I respect although I do not agree with his overall conclusions about the Kennedy-assassination case. My question was simple, and revolved around the Parkland hospital scuffle between Doctor Rose, a policemen and some Secret Service agents. My question was about the aftermath of that scuffle, and the fact that Secret Service agents took Kennedy's corpse at gun point. Did it have a consequence when they reached the presidential plane ? Did they decide, on a spur-of-a-moment decision, to take the body out of the coffin in case the Dallas police would try to impound the coffin ? That was my question (see my long post at the beginning of this thread). Now, my question might sound stupid to some of you. It might sound unimportant to others. That's fine by me. In that case, feel free to argue against it. Or find a more interesting thread elsewhere. Again, it's only a question directed to Mister David Lifton. In essence, my question to him was : could it be that you are wrong in your inferences and conclusions ? Maybe you went too far and created a sinister conspiracy theory out of thin air. Maybe you made a mountain out of a molehill. Maybe something bad happened (the temporary removal of Kennedy's corpse by some Secret Service agents in a frantic state who wanted to protect the president) but that was it. No consequence. No foul play. No conspiracy. No bad intent. Nothing sinister. In which case, Lifton went too far in his conclusions. That was my question. That's all. How in the world have we now arrived at a situation where people debate about whether there was a shooter on the Grassy knoll and James DiEugenio is complaining about Hoover going to the racetracks ????????? What does it have to do with my question to David Lifton ? Talk about a thread being distracted… Now, Mister DiEugenio, let's get back to what you wrote. I'm flabbergasted. I really am. Your post is pretty lame. If what you wrote is all that you can offer to support your belief that there was a shooter behind the wooden fence, then your post is probably the best evidence I was ever given by a conspiracy believer to show that I am right in saying that there actually was nobody there !! Let me illustrate my point : Here is what I have : - Name of shooter : Lee Harvey Oswald - location : easternmost window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository - number of shots : three - weapon : Mannlicher Carcano rifle - evidence found : three shells + the rifle + finger prints of the suspect - shooter actually seen there by witnesses before the shots : YES - alibi of suspect : NO Now, let's see what James DiEugenio has : - Name of shooter : - location : - number of shots : - weapon : - evidence found : - shooter actually seen there by witnesses before the shots : - alibi of suspect : Go ahead, Mister DiEugenio, I'm all ears. I could have filled out the blanks 55 minutes after the shooting. What can you do, on your side, 55 years after the shooting ? You actually can't fill out the blanks. What does it show to a reasonable person ? That you have been on a wild goose chase. But you'll probably reply to me by resorting to your usual tricks : you can't know because the evidence was tampered with by evil FBI agents, then covered-up by dishonest Warren commission members, then falsely spread by the stupid François Carlier and his friends. Yeah, sure… All you have is Lee Bowers who was under the impression that he saw something that he was unable to describe. As for Joe Smith, please. First of all, I hope that you have read "The man who wasn't there" by Chris Mills. Second of all, what are you actually saying ? That the shooter posed as a Secret Service agent ? So he was alone ? Or the conspiracy plan was to put only one man with a Secret Service ID to protect the shooter from the crowd who could have come from all directions ? Not very smart... Then where was his gun or rifle ? How did he manage to find the shells and pick them up before Joe Smith arrived ? Or did Joe Smith simply encountered Thomas Lemuel Johns, as is more probable ? At any rate, you have nothing. Someone who supposedly saw smoke (when any firearm expert will tell you that you won't really see any smoke coming up from the barrel of a gun), someone who felt as if he saw something that he was unable to describe, and later on a single man who was encountered by patrolman Joe Smith and showed him some credentials (we are not sure what), and that man did not seem strange in that he was not carrying a bag nor a rifle nor anything that might have made Smith suspicious enough to stop him. That's all that you have. After 55 years... Nothing special. You don't have any witness who saw a shooter there (when, on the other hand we have witnesses who saw someone with a gun on the sixth floor). You have no shells. You have nothing. Oops, I'm sorry. I take that back. You have something : you have your imagination, and your desire to smear the official investigation. Thinking of it, it's quite perplexing to see that me, a Frenchman, am more a US patriot than you are. Indeed I actually believe that Earl Warren was a decent and honest man who would NEVER have wanted to lie to the American people. I say the same about Gerald Ford (yes) and people such as David W. Belin or Dale Myers. And many more, whose reputations you spend your time smearing. Well, if that's your taste. (Anyway. I am not interested in discussing the question whether there was a shooter toward the grassy knoll. Not in this thread. I'll wait for David Lifton to answer my initial question, if he feels like it (which I hope). Otherwise, I'm done here.) Edited July 13, 2018 by François Carlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now