Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Where is the exit?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You need to back up to Page 75 of that ARRB deposition of Edward Reed, because you, Cory, have totally misrepresented what Reed was talking about when he mentioned a "bullet". He was clearly talking about being aware during the autopsy that a bullet had been found in Dallas. He wasn't referring to any bullet being recovered from JFK's body during the autopsy.

In fact, when discussing whether any bullet was found by the autopsy surgeons during the autopsy, Reed specifically said these words on Page 77 of his 1997 ARRB deposition --- "But there was no bullet."

And to show how bad Mr. Reed's memory was about some things in 1997, he stated he was pretty certain that President Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda at about 4:30 PM on November 22nd. (Mr. Reed apparently was not even aware of the fact that JFK's body didn't even land in Washington on Air Force One until 5:58 PM on 11/22/63, which means his "4:30" body arrival time is impossible.)

With blatant errors like that "4:30" mistake on display in Mr. Reed's deposition, it makes you wonder what other things Reed might have misremembered 34 years after the assassination.

ARRB Footnote....

Interestingly (and humorously) enough, according to that document issued by the ARRB which features the testimony of Edward Reed, apparently little 2-year-old "John F. Kennedy, Jr." was the President who was really assassinated in Dallas.

Well, I guess this means that even an Assassination Records Review Board can make an honest mistake every now and then. :)

 

I can return to what it said or did not say later,

but, for now,

you have provided your logical rule.  Let us confirm them here.

1)  Based on what you said about the arrival time it is clear from your statement that this means his whole testimony is questionable and should be thrown out.

So, we will conclude that going forward, any witness statement or recollection which has a mistake or wrong statement in it is therefore thrown out.

Thus, applying your rule to the W.C., uh oh, lots needs to be thrown out.  But, let me just apply your rule to one thing.

The back wound.  President Ford moved it.  Fact.   So applying your rule... 

I understand you are weighing credibility with this testimony, but, as a trier of fact, you have to apply the same rules consistently across the board to all evidence, including w.c. evidence and witnesses.

This rule really does not help your SBT LHO did it case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the CTs on this thread don't realize is that when they argue with David Von Pein, Von Pein wins.

His thing is to run endless debate over small issues -- and y'all playing into that.

We could learn something from the Republican Party.

What do Republicans excel at?  Winning elections with short, simple messages endlessly repeated.

David Von Pein stipulates to the fact JFK's jacket was elevated only "a little bit" on Elm St., which puts the back wound at T3 and the SBT off the table.

If we all stuck to that fact the dude would STFU and go away.

I think deep down David Von Pein wants to surrender on the fact of conspiracy but by arguing with him over minutia -- you guys won't let him!

Conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a fact to be observed not a matter to be debated.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

You only discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy because they make a simple mistake over the time and add "Jnr" to the end of the President's name, if you are DVP.  He consider these "blatant errors" because they disagree with his arguments.

Oh brother. The Pot/Kettle irony is so thick in that last quote of Ray's, you could slice it with O.J.'s knife.

The fact is, of course, that conspiracy theorists will constantly "discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy...because they disagree with [their] arguments". Like, say, the following extremely important conclusions reached by three people who "were actually at the autopsy":

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. .... The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

Conspiracists own the patent on "discounting evidence because they disagree" with it. Don't they, Ray?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh brother. The Pot/Kettle irony is so thick in that last quote of Ray's, you could slice it with O.J.'s knife.

The fact is, of course, that conspiracy theorists will constantly "discount evidence of people who were actually at the autopsy...because they disagree with [their] arguments". Like, say, the following extremely important conclusions reached by three people who "were actually at the autopsy":

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds. .... The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. .... The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." -- Page 6 of JFK's Autopsy Report [Warren Report, Page 543]

Conspiracists own the patent on "discounting evidence because they disagree" with it. Don't they, Ray?

 

Dr. George Burkley either suspected or believed that Kennedy may have been struck in the head by more than one missile. He was not called by the warren commission to testify about his experience beginning at the motorcade, at the Dallas emergency room, in Maryland for the autopsy, etc; he only wrote a 11/23/1963 Death Certificate and a 11/27/1963 affidavit which did not mention any specific evidence about the head wounds except the fact that they were fatal.

In this 10/17/1967 interview at the Kennedy Library, Burkley stated "My conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium". The interviewer did not bring up the possibility of more than one gunshot to Kennedy's head, Burkley did. Independently. When asked "Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?", he replied "I would not care to be quoted on that". Then, a 3/18/1977 memo from Dr. Burkley's attorney said "he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated", and that Burkley would be available to interview. A short August 1977 interview report written by Dr. Purdy of the HSCA medical panel reads "Dr. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets. Dr. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes the possibility of there having been two". Burkley then gave a 11/12/1978 affidavit to the HSCA saying  "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated", "I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets". And finally, author Henry Hurt interviewed Burkley in 1982 (Reasonable Doubt, page 49):

It is significant that Dr. Burkley had been with the President in Dallas, with him in the Parkland Hospital emergency room, with his body as it was flown east, and present during the autopsy. It is also significant that even though he was the only doctor present both at Parkland and at Bethesda, Dr. Burkley's testimony was never taken by the Warren Commission, nor was it taken later by the House Select Committee.

In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

This startling statement, after so long a silence, amplified an obscure exchange Dr. Burkley had in an oral-history interview on file at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

[...]

When he originally telephoned the author, Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance

Approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. The word "occiput" is also used.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


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

Dr. George Burkley either suspected or believed that Kennedy may have been struck in the head by more than one missile.

But Dr. Burkley didn't perform the autopsy on the President's body, did he?

https://drive.google.com/audio file/Interview With George Burkley

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim you sure stirred up David with this subject, it's almost like his boss is on his butt or something.  I'd bet close to half the posts on the thread are his.  Then again if enough people find out there is no exit wound for a frontal throat shot (repeatedly stated by Dr. Perry on 11/22/63),  that Magical, Pristine Single bullet could not have existed.  So it might be a touchy subject with his handlers.  Nah, he hasn't brought in the Calvary yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

...a frontal throat shot (repeatedly stated by Dr. Perry on 11/22/63)...

Go to 4:195:22 in this video.

Do you think Dr. Perry was merely lying his butt off in that 1967 interview? (More of Elmer Moore's handiwork perhaps?)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Go to 4:195:22 in this video.

Do you think Dr. Perry was merely lying his butt off in that 1967 interview? (More of Elmer Moore's handiwork perhaps?)

 

Maybe he was just protecting his future. 

"Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively . After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate"]. 

 

How do you account for the wound changes David? 

 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Jim you sure stirred up David with this subject,

DiEugenio threw a batting practice softball so Von Pein could strut his stuff.

"Where is the exit?"    The question presumes the existence of an exit wound!

How is it that we have two published authors on this thread who, with a bounty of undue confidence, betray the fact they know next to nothing about the throat wound evidence?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake Debate such as this thread isn't always useless as long as you find the exchange with the nutter instructive, a productive exercise.

I wouldn't know because I elect not to read it much at all.

I used to do a lot of Fake Debate researching the back and throat wounds.

I milked that Fake Debate beyond dry and then I quit.

Now with the zealotry of the converted I condemn it!

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How do you account for the wound changes David? 

But what about Dr. McClelland's observations concerning the throat wound?....

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOODhkYTRkOFdNUlU/view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP only responds to the accusations with the lightest evidence presented! Like ignoring the evidence that the autopsy payhologists were aware of a bullet wound in the throat.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Maybe he was just protecting his future. 

"Dr. Perry made an incision across the bullet wound, just large enough to accommodate a breathing tube. During a phone conversation in 1966 with author David Lifton, Perry said the incision was "two to three centimeters" wide. Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, also present in trauma room one, said the incision was "sharp" and "smooth," respectively . After the breathing tube was removed, the incision closed, revealing the original wound in the throat, as described by Drs. Charles Crenshaw and Malcolm Perry. Dr. Crenshaw recalled, "When the body left Parkland there was no gaping, bloody defect in the front of the throat, just a small bullet hole in the thin line of Perry's incision" Dr. Perry described the bullet wound in the throat as "inviolate"]. 

 

How do you account for the wound changes David? 

 

I've noticed the butchering of the wound in the "death stare" photo before.  It looks like someone took a hacksaw to his throat.  That photo contributes to my wondering about the validity of all the autopsy photos and x-ray's.  I've wondered before, doesn't a doctor close the eyes when he declares someone dead or have a nurse do it?  If not, the priest after last rite's or a mortician from the funeral home who brought the casket, interns or whoever placed him in it?  That picture almost seems created for the shock effect, like someone opened eyes that should have already been closed, like a small entrance wound that was slit to insert a small tube was butchered to resemble an exit wound.

I thought about this a few days back.  When I posited the possibility the throat entrance wound might have been a small caliber frangible bullet that caused no exit wound Cliff questioned why there were no fragments in the upper body x-ray. I don't Know.  First, as I mentioned I wonder about the validity of the photographs and x-ray's, if some of the photo's and maybe all of the x-ray's are of him.  But also, given the butchering of the throat entry wound in the death stare photo I wonder if it might have been probed, in depth.  If there was pre autopsy surgery as some have suggested, might part of it have involved removal of fragments from the throat wound?

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...