Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

 I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics.

One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. 

But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means.  Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics.

One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. 

But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means.  Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then.  

Jim,

I suggest running something by Craig Roberts -- I understand that many people will disagree with him regarding many things. But there is ONE thing you can sure damn take to the bank with Craig: he knows firearms. He will understand exactly the ramifications of a "slow bullet" (low velocity round) and is what I would consider a firearms expert who will immediately know the ramifications of different kinds of rounds upon the human body. 

Put simply, Craig is a gun guy. I would trust anything he has to say about firearms, and probably understand less than half of what he says unless he broke it down into layman's terms, which he can and will do. 

In the scenario you describe, Ray Marcus is suggesting that there was a subsonic low-velocity round fired, and in this situation there is also implied that a piece of the human body--a bone--splintering off and shattering, exiting the body at high velocity due to the impact of the round, the kinetic transfer of energy from the round causing the fragment to eject with great force. If I am getting the scenario correct, I think this is something Craig could very easily explain in understandable terms and also would be able to contribute additional variables that a non-firearms expert might miss. I am not a firearms expert whatsoever, so there are variables in this discussion that do not immediately come to me whereas a "gun guy" would probably know of several factors that must be considered. 

I would ask him about low velocity rounds, the reason for using one, why someone might use one, and I'd ask about the implications that come with using silenced weapons and whether a silencer would impact the speed of the round. I am operating on the assumption here that one or more of the gunman were using customized silencers--alleged to have been built for an assassin's rifle by Mitch WerBell. Sure this is speculation but we want to consider ramifications and variable impacts on our scenario both with and without silencers. 

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics.

One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. 

But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means.  Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then.  

They should all defer to Dr. Perry on 11/22/63.  He was an experienced ER doctor in an ER that saw gunshot wounds on a often times daily basis.  Entrance wound.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

They should all defer to Dr. Perry on 11/22/63.  He was an experienced ER doctor in an ER that saw gunshot wounds on a often times daily basis.  Entrance wound.

Yes but if Jim is comparing someone's theory and that theory postulates that it was an exit wound then he is going to want to accurately reflect the theory that the person is advocating.

This is less about what actually happened and more about what a person is saying they think happened. In that case Jim would want to characterize Marcus' position correctly and then perhaps later in the article suggesting it is incorrect based on Dr. Perry's observations. 

It sounds like Jim wants to understand what Marcus was advocating because the piece he is writing is about disputes between early critics. Critic A vs. Critic B. Looks to me Jim wants to get an accurate "read" of what Critic A is suggesting so he can accurately compare or contrast that with Critic B. Meanwhile, entirely possibly Critic A and Critic B are both wrong. But that's not the point--point being, what is it that the critic in question is saying they think happened?

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to post
Share on other sites

Officially, no member of the FBI ever read the autopsy protocol until mid-December of 1963. Before then, the FBI was trying to push this idea to their fellow employees that a bullet barely pierced JFK's back, another went right through his head, a fragment from the head shot went down the neck to exit the throat, and the bullet that entered the back later fell out onto the President's stretcher. In fact, the original lab report on the clothing says that the nick in the tie is consistent with a "projectile" passing through it, but an internal memo summarized the report as claiming a "fragment" passed through the tie. After the FBI's internal reports featured the Sibert and O'Neill report and the lab report on the clothing, it became widespread knowledge that Kennedy had a wound in the back. Newspaper leaks started confirming the existence of a back wound. By a few days later, the FBI began reading the autopsy protocol and began seeing Kennedy raise his arms in the the Zapruder Film and Altgens photograph, which refuted their notion that one bullet could have struck Kennedy's head while also creating the throat wound.

 

When Edward Epstein's book Inquest came out, it's appendix featured a copy of the Sibert and O'Neill report, which publicly confirmed that the pathologists originally expressed the opinion that the back wound seemed shallow. This is what the public already suspected from the earlier shallow back wound references (e.g. earlier newspaper articles, the autopsy protocol, Humes and Kellermans WC testimonies). After Epstein's book, the Sibert and O'Neill report was featured among other researchers books. Some naturally asked why the shallow back wound information was obviously different from the autopsy protocol's conclusions. Were the autopsy conclusions changed later to be politically correct? Lifton telephoned Sibert, who only told him "the report speaks for itself", "the report stands". Lifton tried writing the FBI. Media articles began discussing the discrepancy. Spokesman for the FBI responded, partially based on their re-questioning of Sibert and O'Neill, that the report was based on information "orally" furnished by the pathologists, but that their agents "were not doctors, but were merely quoting doctors". By the time of Dr. Pierre Finck's 1969 testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, it became clear that the official story was to be that the pathologists were totally ignorant of the possibility of a bullet hole in the throat at the tracheotomy site.

 

If you want more info I can paste more with links and dates

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics.

One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. 

But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means.  Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then.  

It's for sure gun shot wounds do strange things.  However, I can't get a handle on a slow round producing a fast fragment on impact.  Is that even possible?  A sub-sonic round is below 1100 feet per second.  That's a low powered round in comparison to speeds of 2600 to 3000 fps.  That's a high powered hunting or military round.  What I don't see is the lower powered round producing the shock necessary to send a faster bone fragment or fragment of itself elsewhere at a faster speed.  

I question the validity of that.  And, maybe some gun expert will provide a sensible explanation for such an event.  Maybe?

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

They should all defer to Dr. Perry on 11/22/63.  He was an experienced ER doctor in an ER that saw gunshot wounds on a often times daily basis.  Entrance wound.

Ron has an excellently good point.  There are others who said the same thing. 

Jim DiEugenio mentions two people posing such an idea.  Consdering, I think they are just distraction arguments defending gunshots wounds to the back rather than a gunshot wound to the throat from the front. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2020 at 12:26 AM, Micah Mileto said:

Officially, no member of the FBI ever read the autopsy protocol until mid-December of 1963. Before then, the FBI was trying to push this idea to their fellow employees that a bullet barely pierced JFK's back, another went right through his head, a fragment from the head shot went down the neck to exit the throat, and the bullet that entered the back later fell out onto the President's stretcher. In fact, the original lab report on the clothing says that the nick in the tie is consistent with a "projectile" passing through it, but an internal memo summarized the report as claiming a "fragment" passed through the tie. After the FBI's internal reports featured the Sibert and O'Neill report and the lab report on the clothing, it became widespread knowledge that Kennedy had a wound in the back. Newspaper leaks started confirming the existence of a back wound. By a few days later, the FBI began reading the autopsy protocol and began seeing Kennedy raise his arms in the the Zapruder Film and Altgens photograph, which refuted their notion that one bullet could have struck Kennedy's head while also creating the throat wound.

 

When Edward Epstein's book Inquest came out, it's appendix featured a copy of the Sibert and O'Neill report, which publicly confirmed that the pathologists originally expressed the opinion that the back wound seemed shallow. This is what the public already suspected from the earlier shallow back wound references (e.g. earlier newspaper articles, the autopsy protocol, Humes and Kellermans WC testimonies). After Epstein's book, the Sibert and O'Neill report was featured among other researchers books. Some naturally asked why the shallow back wound information was obviously different from the autopsy protocol's conclusions. Were the autopsy conclusions changed later to be politically correct? Lifton telephoned Sibert, who only told him "the report speaks for itself", "the report stands". Lifton tried writing the FBI. Media articles began discussing the discrepancy. Spokesman for the FBI responded, partially based on their re-questioning of Sibert and O'Neill, that the report was based on information "orally" furnished by the pathologists, but that their agents "were not doctors, but were merely quoting doctors". By the time of Dr. Pierre Finck's 1969 testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, it became clear that the official story was to be that the pathologists were totally ignorant of the possibility of a bullet hole in the throat at the tracheotomy site.

 

If you want more info I can paste more with links and dates

Could you do that Micah--paste more info? 

It just seems that the interpretation in the Sibert and O'Neill report was basically correct or close to it, and it is puzzling how Humes' interpretation seemed to change so dramatically overnight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 8:52 PM, Ron Bulman said:

They should all defer to Dr. Perry on 11/22/63.  He was an experienced ER doctor in an ER that saw gunshot wounds on a often times daily basis.  Entrance wound.

JFK was shot in the throat from the front.

This issue should have been settled back in the 60’s, but the JFKA Critical Master Class evidence fetishists must keep the false mystery going — otherwise much of their work is moot.

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

JFK was shot in the throat from the front.

This issue should have been settled back in the 60’s, but the JFKA Critical Master Class evidence fetishists must keep the false mystery going — otherwise much of their work is moot.

Well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Could you do that Micah--paste more info? 

It just seems that the interpretation in the Sibert and O'Neill report was basically correct or close to it, and it is puzzling how Humes' interpretation seemed to change so dramatically overnight.

 

 

While Kennedy's body was being examined at Bethesda Naval Hospital, the autopsy pathologists had trouble explaining why they couldn't find a bullet in the body to account for the wound in the back. They tried probing the back wound, which only revealed a path in the tissues less than the length of a finger. They theorized that a bullet lodged in the back and subsequently fell out through it's point of entry. Two FBI Agents attending the autopsy, James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, were tasked with recording information and retrieving physical evidence. The agents' reports failed to acknowledge a bullet wound in the throat which had been obscured by a tracheotomy incision (WC D 7, p. 280, 11/26/1963 FBI report).

At some later point, the pathologists settled on the conclusion that a bullet entered the back and exited the site of the tracheotomy. Between this unknown period of time, lead pathologist Dr. James Humes telephoned Parkland Hospital's Dr. Malcolm Perry, who confirmed to him that a small bullet wound was seen in the throat before the incision was made (WC D 77, autopsy protocol [text]). There is a question of whether this contact took place during or after the autopsy. In Humes' handwritten notes (WC Vol. 17, p. 29), the autopsy protocol (WC D 77 [text]), and Humes' 3/16/1963 testimony to the Warren Commission (WC Vol. 2, p. 347 [text]), the call was said to have taken place on "Saturday morning" 11/23/1963. Technically, this could mean any time between 12:00 – 11:59 AM. The examination may have lasted past midnight, and the pathologists remained in the morgue until the body was prepared for burial by around 3:30-4:00 AM. When Humes was interviewed on 9/16/1977 by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he said that he remembered the call taking place "11 in the morning, perhaps 10:30, something like that", only after he had time to go home, attend a religious function with his family, then return back to Bethesda Hospital (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 243 [text] [audio]). When Humes appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the article said the call happened at 7:30 AM (JAMA, 5/27/1992, JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy [text]). When Humes gave his deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board on 2/13/1996, he said he thought the call happened "...8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday morning" (ARRB, 2/13/1996 [text]). In contrast, Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that he orginally remembered being called by Humes TWICE, and thought he was called on Friday 11/22/1963 (WC Vol. 6, p. 7, 3/25/1964 testimony [text]; WC Vol. 3, p. 366, 3/30/1964 testimony [text]). Perry's colleague, Dr. Paul Peters, similarly claimed to remember information from the autopsy leaking among themselves on the same day (Interview by Ben Bradlee, 5/1/1981). Autopsy photographer John Stringer said he remembered the pathologists contacting Dallas and learning of the throat wound while they were still in the morgue (ARRB MD 19, HSCA report on a 8/17/1977 interview with Stringer [text]; ARRB MD 227, report on the ARRB's 4/8/1996 interview with Stringer; Stringer's ARRB deposition, 7/16/1996 [text] [audio]). So did radiologist John Ebersole (Ebersole's 3/9/1978 interview by Gil Delaney, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David S. Lifton, Chapter 23; ARRB MD 60, Ebersole's HSCA testimony, 3/11/1978 [text] [audio]; Ebersole's 12/2/1992 interview by David Mantik, Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then about the Death of JFK, edited by James H. Fetzer, Appendix E [audio]). Likewise, William Manchester wrote in his 1967 book The Death of a President: "Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1".

Humes was never totally clear whether he considered a bullet passage in the throat prior to his phone call with Perry (WC Vol. 2, p. 347, Humes WC testimony, 3/16/1964 [text]); HSCA Vol. 7, p. 243, 9/16/1977 HSCA interview with Humes and Boswell [text] [audio]; HSCA Vol. 1, p. 323, Humes HSCA testimony, 9/7/1978 [text]; Humes ARRB deposition, 2/13/1996 [text]). Autopsy assistant Dr. J. Thornton Boswell claimed they deduced this DURING the body examination, based on their observation of bruising on the right lung and pleural cavity (Baltimore Sun, 11/25/1966, Richard H. Levine [2nd print]; ARRB MD 26, HSCA report on 8/17/1977 interview with Boswell [text]; Boswell's 3/30/1994 interview by Gary Aguilar [audio, partial]; Boswell's ARRB deposition, 2/13/1996 [text]). Dr. Pierre Finck, the assisting forensic pathologist, claimed the defect in the throat was overlooked as a tracheotomy during their whole time in the morgue (ARRB MD 28, Reports From LtCol Finck to Gen. Blumberg (1/25/65 and 2/1/65); Finck's Shaw trial testimony, 2/24-2/25/1969 [text]; ARRB MD 30, Finck's HSCA testimony, 3/11/1978 [text] [audio]; JAMA, 10/7/1992). Finck's version of the story is the most suspect. Finck said he examined the defect in the throat and found no sign of a bullet passage, and yet the autopsy protocol and statements of Dr. Humes indicate that pre-mortem bruising was observed on the strap muscles beside the trachea, in addition to the bruising on the right lung and pleura (WC D 77 [text]; WC Vol. 2, p. 347, 3/16/1964 Humes WC testimony [text]). Also, the autopsy photographs (NSFW) show what may be a partial bullet hole in the skin around the trach incision, as noted in the 1968 Clark Panel report (ARRB MD 59 [text]) and the HSCA Medical Panel Report (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 93).

Numerous other witnesses indicated that a bullet passage in the throat was discussed on the night of the autopsy – including pallbearer George Barnum (Barnum's 11/29/1963 statement, 8/20/1979 interview by David S. Lifton, Best Evidence), Admiral/Dr. Calvin Galloway (Arlen Specter, report on 3/11/1964 interview [page 1] [page 2]; HSCA 180-10079-0460, HSCA report on 3/17/1978 interview with Galloway [text]), Jim Snyder/Robert Richter of CBS (ARRB MD 16, 1/10/1967 CBS memo), mortician Tom Robinson (ARRB MD 63, HSCA interview, 1/12/1977 [text] [audio]; ARRB MD 180, ARRB report on 6/21/1996 interview), Lieutenant Richard Lipsey (HSCA interview, 1/18/1978 [transcript] [audio]; ARRB MD 87 [text]), and laboratory technician James Jenkins (9/23/1979 interview by David S. Lifton, Best Evidence; 4/6/1991 panel discussion [Video, 58:18]).

 

What does it mean if the pathologists considered a bullet passage through the neck on the night of the autopsy? To say the least, they were incompetent if they didn't dissect or preserve the organs of the neck. Or the "throat wound ignorance" story could have been part of a cover-up for something the pathologists didn't want to talk about. The organs of the neck are not listed in the autopsy protocol or supplementary report. According to Dr. Finck, the organs of the neck were not removed for preservation (ARRB MD 28, Reports From LtCol Finck to Gen. Blumberg (1/25/65 and 2/1/65); testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw, 2/24-25/1969 [text]). Finck also said they didn't dissect the wounds in the torso, and that their handling of the body should not be considered a "complete" autopsy by standards of the American Board of Pathology (Shaw trial testimony, 2/24-25/1969 [text]; Resident and Staff Physician, 5/1972, Observations based on a review of the autopsy photographs, x-rays, and related materials of the late President John F. Kennedy by John Lattimer). There are, however, some statements suggesting the neck organs WERE removed (The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop, 1968; ARRB MD 63, HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, 1/12/1977 [text] [audio]; 4/6/1991 Dallas conference [Video, 5:34]; ARRB 2/26/1996 Boswell deposition [text]). James Curtis Jenkins even said the spinal cord was removed (6/16/1991 interview by Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, Chapter 6). Autopsy witness Dr. Robert Karnei said he didn't remember the spine being removed. Dr. Boswell denied the spine being removed. When Dr. Humes was asked whether the spine was removed, he hung up (High Treason 2, 1992, Chapter 7 [draft], chapter 8; Killing the Truth, 1993, Appendix J). Either way, the throat wound problem alone is ample evidence that the pathologists were not telling the full truth about what they knew.

 

Neither FBI Agents, Sibert nor O'Neill, reported hearing any discussion of a bullet through the throat. But they would not have to be lying for their statements to make sense with the rest of the evidence. For instance, maybe the pathologists just didn't communicate with them enough. In the same room while the body was being examined, Sibert and O'Neill spent some time talking with Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman, who sat in the front passenger seat of the Presidential Limousine. Sibert and O'Neill reported on Kellerman's claim that he literally heard Kennedy speaking after the first loud gunshot, exclaiming "Get me to a hospital" or "My God, I've been hit" (WC D 7, p. 3, report on first interview with Kellerman; WC D 7, p. 7, report on 11/27/1963 interview with Kellerman; ARRB MD 154, Specter report on 3/12/1964 interview with Sibert and O'Neill). If Sibert and O'Neill believed Kellerman, their memories could have been affected by the realization that Kennedy couldn't have been able to speak in that moment if he had just been wounded in the throat. Dr. Boswell openly disagreed with Sibert and O'Neill's information, suggesting that they simply weren't paying close enough attention, mentioning that at least one of them spent a lot of time on the phone (Baltimore Sun, 11/25/1966, Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report by Richard H. Levine [2nd print]; 10/2/1990 interview by Richard Waybright, High Treason 2 by Harrison Livingstone, Chapter 8 [draft]; 3/30/1994 interview by Gary Aguilar [Transcript] [audio, partial]; ARRB, 2/26/1996 [text]) - further suggesting that the pathologists had knowledge of the throat wound on the night of the autopsy. Not only did Sibert never really decribe being sure the auopsy was finished before they left, but O'Neill actually seems to have crafted a fake story about staying in the morgue long enough to see the body being restored. As shown in these links:

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvhs5/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_23_siberts/

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvi5r/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_24_oneills/

 

The existence of a wound in Kennedy's back was first leaked shortly after the same time members of the FBI received the 12/9/1963 summary report, which contained the reports on the autopsy from agents James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, and the 1/13/1964 Supplemental Report, which contained the lab results on the clothing. The first leak was a 12/12/1963 Dallas Times-Herald article by Bill Burrus headlined KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK. Burrus, citing an unnamed source, correctly reported the official autopsy conclusions, with a passage from the back to the throat, describing the back wound as being "above President Kennedy’s right scapula – commonly called the shoulder blade" (Lifton, Best Evidence, Part II: A New Hypothesis, Chapter 7: Breakthrough, Distinguishing the FBI and Navy Versions). Burrus apparently had insider knowledge the FBI was unaware of - the Bureau said they did not obtain a copy of the official autopsy protocol until 12/24/1963 (FBI 62-109090-29, WC HQ File, Section 1; FBI 62-109060-4236, JFK HQ File, Section 102). Before receiving the protocol, the FBI only had the information from Sibert and O'Neill, the clothing worn by Kennedy at the time of the shooting, and the reports from the staff at Parkland Hospital. In a 12/13/1963 memo, the FBI even tried disputing the accuracy of Burrus' article by citing the reports from Sibert and O'Neill which claimed the back wound had no exit (ARRB MD 161). Lifton made comments on this forum stating that Burris' source was a person identifying themselves as Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore, the same person who visited Parkland Hospital and explained the autopsy protocol's conclusions to the staff there who handled Kennedy. Starting on 12/18/1963, more mainstream publications began running stories acknowledging the existence of the back wound (e.g. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Secret Service Gets Revision on Kennedy Wound After Visit by Agents, Doctors Say Shot was from Rear" by Richard Dudman; Washington Post, "Kennedy Autopsy Report" by Nate Haseltine). The FBI began publicly promoting the idea promoted the idea that the back wound had no exit and the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot (PatSpeer.com, A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination by Pat Speer, Chapter 1b: Establishing the "Facts"). This was already the private position of some in the FBI - for example, a memo from Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Lab Ivan Conrad to the Lab's Special Agent Roy H. Jevons stated that the tears on the front of Kennedy's shirt resembled an exit for a bullet FRAGMENT (FBI 62-109060-1086, JFK HQ File, Section 14), even though the original lab report only said the tears resembled an exit for a "projectile" (WC D 205, p. 154). Eventually, it became understood that the photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza, like the Zapruder film and the Altgens 6 photo, showed Kennedy reaching for his neck moments BEFORE the fatal head shot. Officially, Kennedy's head was struck by only one bullet, so his body language ruled out the possibility of throat wound coming from the head shot.

 

By 1966, critics of the Warren Commission were questioning the medical evidence which was publicly available. The critics asked why the official autopsy protocol had a different set of conclusions than the report from Sibert and O'Neill. FBI spokesmen stated publicly that the report was "based on the medical evidence at that time" (Washington Post, 5/29/1966), "the FBI report was wrong when it said "there was no point of exit", "The FBI agents were not doctors, but were merely quoting doctors" (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/1966). On 11/2/1966, David Lifton telephoned Agent Sibert, who declined to comment, saying only "The record speaks for itself", “...the report stands for itself, I think”, “...if you have any further question, I’d just suggest that you write to the Bureau Headquarters” (Lifton, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, 1980, Part III: A Search For New Evidence, Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum). When Lifton did try writing a letter to the FBI, the Bureau’s Assistant Director Alex Rosen wrote 11/16/1966 memo stating that Sibert and O’Neill’s report "sets forth information orally furnished to them by the autopsy physician" (ARRB MD 173). There were several similar memos responding to popular media that questioned the official story and referenced the information Sibert and O'Neill (ARRB MD 165ARRB MD 166; ARRB MD 157; ARRB MD 167; FBI 62-109090-520, WC HQ File, Section 29; ARRB MD 169; ARRB MD 158; FBI 62-109060-4209, JFK HQ File, Section 102). On 11/23/1966, J. Edgar Hoover himself responded to a journalist's letter which included similar talking points (FBI 62-109090-539, WC HQ File, Section 29). Between a 11/25/1966-11/26/1966, various media outlets reprinted Hoover's statement that the reports from Sibert and O'Neill were based on “oral statements made by autopsy physicians (Associated Press, 11/25/1966, Oswald Was By Himself Says Hoover; Washington Star, 11/25/1966, All facts show no accomplice, critics are told, FBI chief charges Warren Report is misinterpreted [scan 2]). The CIA's infamous 7/19/1968 memo "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" attached a short writing titled "The Theories of Mr. Epstein", again with similar talking points.

 

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 10:11 PM, James DiEugenio said:

 I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics.

One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. 

But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means.  Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then.  

I know nothing about Ray Marcus idea about a slow bullet / fast fragment.  What really confused me is if this is CE 399, is that not the bullet that was supposed to have gone through JFK's "upper back", out his throat, traversed Connally's rib, out his nipple, smashed a bone in his wrist, penetrated his thigh, then fell out on the stretcher in the hospital?  It could not have lost much velocity when it struck JFK if it was to do as much further damage as as claimed.  A fast fragment off this bullet exiting JFK's throat, when they say that bullet itself exited his throat?  A bullet with less weight missing from it than was left in Connally's wrist and thigh?  And a fragment big enough to cause the small exit/entrance wound in his throat came off of it?  I thought the fragment out the throat theory had it coming from a head shot.  A slow one?  I also thought the potential "slow" shot was the one to JFK's back at T-3 that also possibly fell out on a stretcher.  It is all quite confusing.  Maybe on purpose?  Making the single magic bullet sound more reasonable?

Regarding Lifton Jim, I had the impression you two didn't really collaborate much.  No disrespect intended to either of you.  Best regards to both. 

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

While Kennedy's body was being examined at Bethesda Naval Hospital, the autopsy pathologists had trouble explaining why they couldn't find a bullet in the body to account for the wound in the back. They tried probing the back wound, which only revealed a path in the tissues less than the length of a finger. They theorized that a bullet lodged in the back and subsequently fell out through it's point of entry. 

Much appreciated Micah. The big problem with making sense of the information from the autopsists that the wound in the back could not be probed through-and-through to any exit and was shallow, is what kind of firearm would cause only ca. 2" penetration into JFK's back?--not a very lethal hit.

I do not know whether this has been previously suggested as a possible connection to the problem of the JFK back wound, but there was a police report of a find of a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper sack found lying near a curb about 8 blocks north of Dealey Plaza, early in the morning of Sat Dec. 23, 1963. Who leaves a snub-nosed revolver in a paper bag in a street by mistake? Nobody does by mistake. It is someone ditching a weapon on purpose that has been used. Who is ditching a weapon sometime before the morning of Dec 23? Maybe someone making a getaway. Why is it found Dec 23? Could it be related to the JFK assassination at Dealey Plaza of Dec 22? 

"On 11/23/63, Patrolman J. Raz brought into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas PD, a brown paper sack which contained a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, SN 893265 ... had been found ... near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat ..." (quoting from report to FBI Dallas Field Office SAC, Nov. 25, 1963)

From what I read on firearms sites, a bullet fired from a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson may have a velocity of only ca. 700-800 fps and a criticism of their use in self-defense is poor terminal ballistics, that is poor penetration. The advantage is the revolver is so easy to conceal. Normally anticipated to be used on targets at ca. 0 to 15 feet range in self-defense, they can reach 50 or more yards within several inches accuracy, though the snub-nosed due to its shorter gunsight is said to be harder to aim accurately but can be by those who practice.

On the one hand, there is this unaccounted, to my knowledge never otherwise explained, very odd finding of someone abandoning a snub-nosed .38 after the JFK assassination not too far from Dealey Plaza. And there is the odd back wound of JFK which--if one accepts the shallow penetration of ca. 2" of the autopsists probing--is not easily explained but could it be accounted for as from a snub-nosed .38 at 70 yards?

But why would anyone fire a snub-nosed .38 at JFK's back at 70 yards, which would not be a kill shot? All it would do would be to make noise and call attention to the location of the shooter ... but maybe that was the whole point?

On the hypothesis that Oswald was framed, and was not the shooter nor involved with the shooting, a scenario could be imagined in which a team of two are on the sixth floor. One holds the rifle to be planted and points it out the window so as to be seen, pretending to fire but not firing. The second person, also on the 6th floor firing through an open window but unseen by those outside, fires the snub-nosed .38 at the presidential limousine and JFK at the appropriate moment. This is the "firecracker" sound that so many witnesses heard sounding somewhat different in sound than the following shots, which were intended kill shots. All heads turn toward the sound of the first shot and a man is seen pointing a rifle out the window of the 6th floor as if he is firing. The actual shot came from the .38 aimed by the second man back from the window enough so as not to be seen. The shot hits JFK in the upper back and the bullet does not penetrate very far. JFK raising his elbows and arms is in response to this being hit nonfatally in the back. Back at the TSBD in the aftermath of the shooting, an appropriate number of shell casings are left at the scene, and the rifle linked to LHO is left at the scene also to be found. Following the shooting the two men descend the stairway assumed by those who see them to be Secret Service and exit the building. The snub-nosed .38 which fired the first shot of the JFK assassination also leaves the TSBD, concealed on the person of one of the two. The .38 is carried a little distance away from Dealey Plaza and abandoned, about 8 blocks north of the TSBD. The news reported around the world is that the shots were fired from a rifle from the 6th floor TSBD--witnesses saw a man in that window shooting a rifle out the window--and the rifle is pegged to LHO of the TSBD with his links to the Soviet Union and/or Cuba, who is himself quickly killed.

The bullet from the .38 entered JFK's back and remains there with JFK as JFK is taken into Parkland. Wheeled into the emergency trauma room JFK is lying on his back as the doctors work on him, and through gravity, or perhaps the attempts at heart massage manipulation or both, the bullet works itself out and falls out accidentally. That stretcher of JFK is taken to an adjoining room and from there moved into the hallway near the elevator, where the bullet is noticed and found as the original "stretcher bullet", seen by those who found it as an intact bullet but pointed, unlike C399 which is intact but not pointed. C399 linked to the rifle identified with Oswald is secondarily substituted for the actual stretcher bullet, which came from JFK's back, not from Connally.

The suggestion is of a possible connection of the otherwise-unexplained snub-nosed .38 found abandoned a few blocks from Dealey Plaza the morning after the JFK assassination, with the separate puzzle of what could cause the shallow wound of JFK's back (for those who accept that wound was shallow in agreement with the reports of the findings of the autopsists). The scenario of the framing of Oswald is of course speculative. A key point is whether those who are firearms authorities or knowledgeable would assess a 2" penetration wound into JFK's back at 70 yards is consistent or compatible with or possible from a shot fired from a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson from the 6th floor of the TSBD. 

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...