Jump to content
The Education Forum

DVP. Time to be real.


Recommended Posts

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

Robert, that is still the #1 head-scratcher for me in this whole case. It is by far this case's #1 "mystery", without doubt. And I don't have the precise answer. I have postulated a possible resolution to that mystery--and yes, it aligns with Vince Bugliosi's and Michael Baden's theory on this matter. But given what we see in the autopsy photos and X-rays--which are not fakes--this explanation makes the most sense to me (although it's still not 100% satisfying, I'll readily admit).

Quoting from pages 407 and 408 of Bugliosi's book:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." "

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The MC was sent to the FBI who couldn't find a print linking the gun to Oswald but later the DPD does?? Seems incriminating.

The reason the FBI could find no print (even though Lt. Day told the FBI they probably could still find one on the barrel) is simply because Carl Day of the DPD had already lifted the print off of the underside of the Carcano barrel. And Day talks all about this in his WC testimony:

LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm

I'll also add this:

Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a xxxx regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799.

A key excerpt:

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print.

It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?"

But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted.

J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History"

[Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.]

Geez, Dave. You repeat Bugliosi like it's gospel. Let me tell you what he leaves out.

1. When the rifle was inspected by the FBI, Latona found NO trace of a print where Day said a print had been readily evident.

2. The FBI's report on the rifle was sent to Dallas on 11-24. There was no mention of the palm print in this report. And yet the DPD said nothing about this omission. In fact, it was not until 11-26, AFTER the rifle had been returned to the DPD, that the DPD suddenly decided to send the lift in to Washington.

3. Day claimed that he'd failed to study the lift in detail on the 22nd, and never did so before sending the lift on to Washington on the 26th. Bullpucky. The DPD and FBI were DESPERATE to tie Oswald to the murder weapon in the days after the shooting. And yet Day claimed he just never got around to studying the print? No one with a brain should believe this.

4. Although there are records in the DPD's files indicating they'd retrieved a Dr. Pepper bottle from the sixth floor, and wanted it checked for fingerprints, there is NO internal DPD record of Day's lift prior to his sending it in to Washington.

5. Although the DPD provided the WC with their standard protocols regarding their crime lab, and these indicated that men like Day were supposed to create daily and weekly reports on their activities, and the tests that they had performed, NO reports on the activities of Day exist prior to the summary report of his activities on 1-28-64...more than 2 MONTHS after the shooting!

6. When Liebeler asked the FBI to clear up his questions regarding the palm print, the FBI approached Day and asked him to sign an affidavit affirming his claim he lifted the print on 11-22-63. He refused to do so, and instead offered them a copy of his 1-28-64 report.

7. As acknowledged by Bugliosi, the WC accepted a letter from Hoover in which he claimed the FBI had tested the lift, and found that it came from the rifle. There are a number of problems with this. 1. Hoover's letter was not a sworn statement, and no sworn testimony was taken on this evidence. 2. No FBI report exists in which the tests allegedly performed by Latona are described. 3. The exhibit purportedly demonstrating that the lift came from the rifle is a big smudge, and demonstrates absolutely nothing. And 4. Even if the lift came from the rifle, this says nothing about the timing of this lift. The rifle, we should recall, was returned to Dallas on the 24th, while the DPD failed to mention the existence of the lift prior to the 26th.

It follows, then, that the questions regarding this lift have never been resolved.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah...so why did Hill and a few dozen other people say JFK had a large hole in the back right part of his head?

Robert, that is still the #1 head-scratcher for me in this whole case. It is by far this case's #1 "mystery", without doubt. And I don't have the precise answer. I have postulated a possible resolution to that mystery--and yes, it aligns with Vince Bugliosi's and Michael Baden's theory on this matter. But given what we see in the autopsy photos and X-rays--which are not fakes--this explanation makes the most sense to me (although it's still not 100% satisfying, I'll readily admit).

Quoting from pages 407 and 408 of Bugliosi's book:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." "

I don't think it is a mystery at all. The mortician, Tom Robinson, clearly described a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head. He had all of the time in the world to look at it and helped fashion a piece of rubber to span the hole.

The interview with Tom Robinson, conducted by the HSCA in 1978, was suppressed until the ARRB uncovered it in 1992. This is common knowledge.

Why do you think this interview was suppressed?

Do you think Tom Robinson was mistaken? or lying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exhibit purportedly demonstrating that the lift came from the rifle is a big smudge, and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

That's your opinion. Others have a different opinion, as demonstrated by the Bugliosi book excerpt quoted earlier.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exhibit purportedly demonstrating that the lift came from the rifle is a big smudge, and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

That's your opinion. Others have a different opinion, as demonstrated by the Bugliosi book excerpt quoted earlier.

your lone nut, SBT, LHO did it all by his lonesome ship has sunk... carry on, son!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I tell ya, Bob? These pictures trump the witnesses (Robinson and all others). You really think these are fakes? .....

00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpgJFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

Yes, Dave, the photos and x-rays are, indeed, fakes.

Now, in response to my question, how could an experienced mortician describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head if it was not there?

Would you like me to post the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, just to refresh your memory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MC was sent to the FBI who couldn't find a print linking the gun to Oswald but later the DPD does?? Seems incriminating.

The reason the FBI could find no print (even though Lt. Day told the FBI they probably could still find one on the barrel) is simply because Carl Day of the DPD had already lifted the print off of the underside of the Carcano barrel. And Day talks all about this in his WC testimony:

LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm

I'll also add this:

Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a xxxx regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799.

A key excerpt:

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print.

It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?"

But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted.

J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History"

[Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.]

Geez, Dave. You repeat Bugliosi like it's gospel. Let me tell you what he leaves out.

1. When the rifle was inspected by the FBI, Latona found NO trace of a print where Day said a print had been readily evident.

2. The FBI's report on the rifle was sent to Dallas on 11-24. There was no mention of the palm print in this report. And yet the DPD said nothing about this omission. In fact, it was not until 11-26, AFTER the rifle had been returned to the DPD, that the DPD suddenly decided to send the lift in to Washington.

3. Day claimed that he'd failed to study the lift in detail on the 22nd, and never did so before sending the lift on to Washington on the 26th. Bullpucky. The DPD and FBI were DESPERATE to tie Oswald to the murder weapon in the days after the shooting. And yet Day claimed he just never got around to studying the print? No one with a brain should believe this.

4. Although there are records in the DPD's files indicating they'd retrieved a Dr. Pepper bottle from the sixth floor, and wanted it checked for fingerprints, there is NO internal DPD record of Day's lift prior to his sending it in to Washington.

5. Although the DPD provided the WC with their standard protocols regarding their crime lab, and these indicated that men like Day were supposed to create daily and weekly reports on their activities, and the tests that they had performed, NO reports on the activities of Day exist prior to the summary report of his activities on 1-28-64...more than 2 MONTHS after the shooting!

6. When Liebeler asked the FBI to clear up his questions regarding the palm print, the FBI approached Day and asked him to sign an affidavit affirming his claim he lifted the print on 11-22-63. He refused to do so, and instead offered them a copy of his 1-28-64 report.

7. As acknowledged by Bugliosi, the WC accepted a letter from Hoover in which he claimed the FBI had tested the lift, and found that it came from the rifle. There are a number of problems with this. 1. Hoover's letter was not a sworn statement, and no sworn testimony was taken on this evidence. 2. No FBI report exists in which the tests allegedly performed by Latona are described. 3. The exhibit purportedly demonstrating that the lift came from the rifle is a big smudge, and demonstrates absolutely nothing. And 4. Even if the lift came from the rifle, this says nothing about the timing of this lift. The rifle, we should recall, was returned to Dallas on the 24th, while the DPD failed to mention the existence of the lift prior to the 26th.

It follows, then, that the questions regarding this lift have never been resolved.

Pat...I'm sure that Dave will argue that the FBI was unable to find evidence of a print in the area Day claims to have found one is that...wait for it...Day "LIFTED" the print from the rifle; therefore it was "no longer there" to show any evidence that it HAD been there.

See? Simple logic. Once you "lift" a book off the table, the book is no longer on the table...and unless the book and the tabletop had both drawn dust, there is no evidence that the book was EVER on the table.

Have I got your response about right, Dave?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exhibit purportedly demonstrating that the lift came from the rifle is a big smudge, and demonstrates absolutely nothing.

That's your opinion. Others have a different opinion, as demonstrated by the Bugliosi book excerpt quoted earlier.

No, it's not an opinion. Look at the exhibit yourself. It's a big smudge, and proves nothing.

Now, I'll let you in on a secret. The Archives allowed JFK researcher John Hunt to scan the actual lift. When you look at Hunt's scan, yessirre, you can make out the marks on the lift that supposedly correspond to the rifle. But you can't make out anything on the WC's exhibit. And Bugliosi knew this.

He chose to take Hoover's word for it because it was convenient for him to do so.

But Hoover is not to be relied upon, IMO.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

On 5-14-64, a week after President Johnson waived his impending mandatory retirement, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testifies before the Commission. (5H96-120) Despite his taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he offers up the Hoover truth.

  • Hoover Truth: “I have read many of the reports that our agents have made and I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence showing any foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy.” (Note: Hoover had known for three years or more that organized crime and the anti-Castro elements likely to set up Oswald were linked and were conspiring to murder Fidel Castro, Oswald’s supposed hero. Even though this information could lead one to suspect that Oswald killed Kennedy in retaliation, or that Oswald was indeed set up, Hoover failed to mention anything about this to the Commission.)
  • Hoover Truth: “There have been publications and books written, the contents of which have been absurd and without a scintilla of foundation of fact." “I, personally, feel that any finding of the Commission will not be accepted by everybody, because there are bound to be some extremists who have very pronounced views, without any foundation for them, who will disagree violently with whatever findings the Commission makes.” (Note: two of the loudest voices to argue against the Commission’s findings were not extremists at all, but former FBI agents William Turner and Jim Garrison. More pointedly, the President for whom the report was written, Lyndon Johnson, never believed its findings. )
  • Hoover Truth: “I don’t think you can get absolute security without almost establishing a police state, and we don’t want that.” (Note: by 1964 Hoover had long been using the FBI to infiltrate and discredit organizations he found personally despicable. These FBI-trained infiltrators would frequently encourage the targeted organizations to engage in violent activity, in order to help discredit them in the public eye. Curiously, one of the organizations targeted by Hoover under this program (COINTELPRO) was the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, an organization publicly discredited in New Orleans by the actions of Lee Harvey Oswald.)
  • Hoover Truth: (When asked if he still agreed that Oswald acted alone.) “I subscribe to it even more strongly today than I did at the time the report was written. You see the original idea was that there would be an investigation by the FBI and a report would be prepared in such a form that it could be released to the public… Then a few days later, after further consideration, the President decided to form a commission, which I think was very wise, because I feel that the report of any agency of Government investigating what might be some shortcomings on the part of other agencies of Government ought to be reviewed by an impartial group such as this Commission.” (Note: Hoover failed to acknowledge that he originally told Johnson the Commission would be a “three-ring circus." Hoover also failed to acknowledge that with the FBI’s report, it was not only investigating the shortcomings of other agencies, i.e. the State department, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas Police Department, but the potential shortcomings of the FBI itself, as the FBI had failed to add Oswald’s name to the Security Index used by the Secret Service to track possible threats to the President.)
  • Hoover Truth: (When asked by Congressman Hale Boggs if he had thoughts on Oswald’s motivation.) “My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is that this man was no doubt a dedicated Communist… He stayed in Moscow awhile and he went to Minsk where he worked. There was no indication of any difficulty, personally on his part there, but I haven’t the slightest doubt he was a dedicated Communist.” (Note: Hoover was obsessed with Communism, and saw Communists as evil and everywhere. His domestic intelligence chief William Sullivan later wrote a book admitting that by the early 1960s a large percentage of American communists were in fact FBI informants.)
  • Hoover Truth: “Now some people have raised the question, why didn’t he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had.” (Note, as demonstrated by the photos of the assassination scene taken by the Secret Service, and published by the Warren commission as Exhibit 875, there was a clear shot down Houston, should a sniper have been so inclined. The only trees were to the right of the sniper’s nest, blocking its view down Elm.)
  • Hoover Truth: (When discussing the attitude of the Soviet Government, and the KGB in particular, towards Oswald) “I think they probably looked upon him more as a kind of a queer sort of individual and they didn’t trust him too strongly. But just the day before yesterday information came to me indicating that there is an espionage training school outside of Minsk—I don’t know whether it was true—and that he was trained in that school to come back to this country to become what they call a 'sleeper,' that is a man who will remain dormant for 3 or 4 years and in case of international hostilities rise up and be used.” (Note: this from the man who just swore there was not one “scintilla” of evidence indicating a foreign conspiracy. It seems Hoover couldn’t help but kick a little sand in the direction of Russia when given the opportunity.)
  • Hoover Truth: “Now, we interviewed Oswald a few days after he arrived…There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that gave any indication that this man was a dangerous character who might do harm to the President or to the Vice-President, so his name was not furnished at the time to the Secret Service. Under the new criteria which we have now put into force and effect, it would have been furnished because we now include all defectors.” (Note: here, Hoover almost certainly commits perjury. Hoover concealed from the commission that on December 10, 1963, he’d censured or placed on probation 17 employees (5 field investigators, 1 field supervisor, 3 special agents in charge, 4 headquarters supervisors, 2 headquarters section chiefs, 1inspector, and 1 assistant director) for what the inspector of the internal investigation, James Gale, termed “shortcomings in connection with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination.” When Assistant director Alan Belmont complained about this action, stating that since “all of the supervisors and officials who came into contact with this case…are unanimous in the opinion that Oswald did not meet the criteria for the Security Index…it would appear that the criteria are not sufficiently specific,” Hoover blasted him. On Belmont’s addendum to Gale’s December 10, 1963 memo, Hoover wrote “They were worse than mistaken. Certainly no one in full possession of all his faculties can claim Oswald didn’t fall within this criteria.” On September 24, 1964, the day the Warren Report, which included criticisms of the FBI’s investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination, was released, Hoover pounced again, writing that the employees who failed to properly investigate Oswald “could not have been more stupid.” He then punished these employees a second time. On September 30, 1964, Inspector Gale wrote “It is felt that it is appropriate at this time to consider further administrative action against those primarily culpable for the derelictions in this case which have now had the effect of publicly embarrassing the Bureau.” When a number of top FBI officials reacted angrily to the Warren Report’s criticism of the Bureau, and began planning ways to defend the FBI in the press, Hoover reiterated his position that the FBI was in fact to blame. On a 10-1-64 memo from Alan Belmont to Clyde Tolson, he wrote: “We were wrong. The administrative actions approved by me will stand. I do not intend to palliate actions which have resulted in forever destroying the Bureau as the top level investigative organization.” )
  • Hoover Truth: “There was very aggressive press coverage at Dallas. I was so concerned that I asked my agent in charge at Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, to personally go to Chief Curry and tell him that I insisted that he not go on the air any more until this case was resolved. Until all the evidence had been examined, I did not want any statements made concerning the progress of the investigation. Because of the fact the President had asked me to take charge of the case I insisted that he and all members of his department refrain from public statements.” (Note: immediately following Oswald’s death, Hoover’s man in Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, listed all the evidence against Oswald for the New York Times. Moreover, the Times’ 11-25 description of the evidence indicates that Shanklin misrepresented the results of the paraffin tests, stating that they showed “particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, on Oswald’s cheek and hands.” While the tests results were consistent with Oswald firing a pistol, the test results were negative for his cheek. Therefore, there was nothing whatsoever about the tests that suggested Oswald had fired a rifle.)
  • Hoover Truth: “Well, I can tell you so far as the FBI is concerned the case will be continued in an open classification for all time. That is, any information coming to us or any report coming to us from any source will be thoroughly investigated, so that we will be able to either prove or disprove the allegation.” (Note: in February 1967, Edward Morgan, a lawyer representing CIA front-man Robert Maheu and mafia strategist Johnny Rosselli, contacted columnist Drew Pearson and told him about the joint CIA/Mafia attempts to kill Castro, and the possibility they’d backfired on Kennedy. Pearson then told Chief Justice Earl Warren, who in turn told Secret Service Chief James Rowley. When Rowley told Hoover about the incident, Alex Rosen drafted the FBI response. Rosen would later testify that he was sick and that an unidentified subordinate wrote this under his name. His response: “no investigation will be conducted regarding the allegations…to Chief Justice Warren.” The letter, which was sent to Chief Rowley under Hoover’s name on 2-15-67, went on to state “The Bureau is not conducting any investigation regarding this matter. However, should Mr. Pearson, (Morgan), or (his) source of information care to volunteer any information to the Bureau, it would be accepted.” The internal memo from Rosen to White House/FBI liaison Cartha Deloach, for that matter, added: “Consideration was given to furnishing this information to the White House, but since this matter does not concern, nor is it pertinent to the present Administration, no letter was being sent.” It follows then, that if Hoover's testimony to the Warren Commission had been truthful, and that the FBI was in fact committed to investigating any leads that would subsequently come their way, well, then he had failed to tell as much to the men who would be tasked with conducting such an investigation.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple question DVP - almost twice as much evidence comes BACK from the FBI then was sent to the FBI..

Each item of EVIDENCE that belonged to OSwald was initialed and photographed IN DALLAS before sent to DC the night of the 22nd.

There is evidence given to the FBI on the 26th WITHOUT the DPD initials - and items NOT LISTED on DPD inventories, yet was returned from the FBI...? as we see, ALLEN DULLES felt it necessary to rewrite Cadigan's testimony - the man that fingerprint tested and desilvered HUNDREDS of items that weekend while there is only one page of "inventory from Dallas" which Drain signed... Good trick turning what looks like a handful of items into HUNDREDS.

Drain signed Inv sheet 11176-G on the 22nd. Lt. DAY writes in his report that Drain and the FBI took ALL the evidence... that the CSSS collected.... except for the one 6.5mm hull Fritz keeps, LHO billfold with 16 pix, and a notebook from Beckley he had since the 22nd..... ooops.

The OSWALD PERSONAL PROPERTY EVIDENCE is - in very large part - FABRICATED BY THE FBI over the weekend following the assassination... when and if DVP can authenticate any single piece of evidence we can go from there...

In the meantime... he argues conclusions based on inauthentic evidence and tautological statements ... a pure WCR apologist at his best...

Cadigantestimonychanged.jpg

DaysaysallevidencegiventoFBI11-22CROP261

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3.) The HSCA says JFK's throat wound was located anatomically higher on his body than the wound in his upper back. I firmly disagree with that assessment, and I think Chad Zimmerman's on-camera experiment in the 2004 program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet",

Chard Zimmerman's recreation showed JFK's jacket collar up at his hairline.

Chad Zimmerman offered to pay me $10,000 if I could prove that his JFK stand-in -- a guy named Stan -- actually had the same body type as Kennedy.

That's right, folks. Chad Zimmerman went on camera and claimed that Stan was equivalent to JFK then he learned to regret it and offered me 10 large if I could prove he wasn't full of BS..

Chad's x-rays proved the bullet holes in the clothes aligned with T3.

The only way Chad or Dale Myers or Pat Speer or anyone can get the bullet holes in JFK's clothes to align with the base of the neck in-shoot is to jack the jacket into the hairline.

But even Dave Von Pein admits JFK's jacket was in a normal position in Dealey Plaza.

There is no debate here, in fact there never was a genuine debate over the fact of conspiracy.

Repeating conclusions over and over isn't an argument and it isn't debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OSWALD PERSONAL PROPERTY EVIDENCE is - in very large part - FABRICATED BY THE FBI over the weekend following the assassination... when and if DVP can authenticate any single piece of evidence we can go from there...

I like this approach better --- When and if David Josephs can prove that ANY of the evidence that hangs Oswald has been "FABRICATED BY THE FBI", then we can go on from there.

Of course, that means we'll never budge an inch....because Josephs cannot possibly come within a country mile of providing a stitch of proof to back up his ridiculous claim that a "very large part" of the evidence in this case was "FABRICATED BY THE FBI".

I can tell you one of the best reasons for believing that all of the evidence in the JFK & Tippit murder cases is genuine and authentic -- and that reason is: There was simply no REASON to tamper with or fake any evidence in this case.

Why do I say that?

Because:

Oswald's Nov. 22 actions--all by themselves--tell any reasonable person that Oswald is guilty. The DPD (not the FBI) obviously felt they had ample evidence to charge Oswald with the two murders within just 11 hours of those murders occurring. (Do you want to now claim that all the evidence that led the Dallas Police to the idea that Oswald was guilty has been faked by the DPD too?)

Plus: There's the fact that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his own hands when he was arrested.

Plus: There's the fact we have FILMED PROOF (the Alyea film) that a Mannlicher-Carcano (not a Mauser) was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD:

RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm.jpg?t=1274RifleFoundInTSBDFromAlyeaFilm-2.jpg?t=12

Plus: There are the many eyewitnesses who fingered Oswald for the Tippit murder. (Were all of those people placed under some kind of spell by the cops to tell a false story about seeing Oswald fleeing the area of Tenth & Patton WITH A GUN right after Officer Tippit was murdered?)

And NONE of the above things involve Hoover's FBI at all. It's all DPD and Oswald's very own incriminating actions (plus the witnesses).

David Josephs undoubtedly ALSO thinks that Jesse Curry's DPD was up to its collective neck in the make-believe "cover-up" and frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald too. Right, David?

But as the conspiracy theorists pile on more and more conspirators and "cover-uppers", it's easy to see how utterly silly it is to think that all of these various people and different law enforcement agencies (from LBJ to the Warren Commission to the FBI to the DPD to Bill Decker's Sheriff's office) would have possessed the unified like-mindedness to want to frame an innocent Lee Oswald for two murders he never committed. Particularly the DPD, who had just lost one of their own officers. You think Curry's department just threw up their hands and allowed Tippit's real killer to walk away while they faked the evidence to convict an innocent Oswald? Just how nutty can it get?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I tell ya, Bob? These pictures trump the witnesses (Robinson and all others). You really think these are fakes? .....

00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpgJFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

Yes, Dave, the photos and x-rays are, indeed, fakes.

Now, in response to my question, how could an experienced mortician describe a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head if it was not there?

Would you like me to post the HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, just to refresh your memory?

*bump*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clint Hill at page 290 of his book Mrs. Kennedy and Me, states: "The president's blood, parts of his skull, bits of his brain were splattered all over me-on my face,my clothes,in my hair." He must have been mistaken, right DVP, because he was there, but you have seen photos?

On page 291Hill states: "As I peered into the backseat of the car, I saw the president's head in her lap. His eyes were fixed,and I could see inside the back of the president's head." Hill was there, but he must be wrong and those photos you have seen in books must be right? Was Hill also wrong about "Blood was everywhere. The floor was covered in blood and brain tissue and skull fragments." (page 291) ? Must be so because photos always trump witnesses. How many people live by that credo?

Link to comment
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...