David Josephs

Excellent points Jon... in our discussion though we ought to at least try to authenticate the evidence which was offered or else why bother having the discussion (which is where the DVPs of the world fall all over themselves).... The WC did indeed take evidence, physical evidence, and did provide its authentication by means of testimony which was, as you pointed out, never crossed and therefore never really authenticated... all by means of avoiding having to establish a chain of possession...

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen.

The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality.

The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing.

The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony.

Stephen - I get the abstract aspect of your argument completely.

Should I be insisting upon the right to debate, or present a POV, for something that has been proven demonstratively wrong just becasue I have yet to accept its wrongness?

In certain cases I can see where that stifles intellect and progress... when there are actually 2 sides to a topic.

I have to say though that in this case, where not even the basic rules of debate or discussion (or common decency) are adhered to by the offending party, where logic and reason can be dismissed based on faith and speculation,

and where evidence authentication and corroboration takes second seat to unsupported hypothesis - there comes a time when enough is enough.

I asked you before if you had ever been convinced by a presentation from DVP that we/you were wrong about a lie the WCR told and supported - and you say he's made some good points...

Reiterating the evidence and then subverting it from some agenda does not qualify to me as debate or discussion...

How many times does the entire Rifle sequence need to be presented before those of DVP's POV understand that our Ozzie did not have a rifle, never had a rifle and all the evidence that can be found does not support his ever having a rifle in the US...

Let's realte a story close to my current home - Sept 23 1963. When Ruth and Marina leave New Orleans with the children, the WCR claims Oswald takes a bus from NOLA to Houston. There is no record of this and those who were asked say he left with two small suitcases about 18" across. Ruth and Micheal relate that no rifle was removed from the car when unpacking in Irving. Oswald did not take a rifle to Mexico.

Yet magically a rifle appears on the 6th floor on the right day... this entire discussion and debate revolves aroung the authenticity of the evidence.

If you can point to a single statement posted by DVP where he authenticates any single piece of evidence he offers as FACT, please let us know.... to me he sounds like Arlen Specter...

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion

I'd imagine you'd Give Arlen the time of day as well to present such nonsense and call it debate/discussion as opposed to the wholesale rejection of moral and physical law. The problem here is that the dabate is not two sides of the same coin but instead a denial that the coin even exists.

How does one debate or discuss that ...?.

"We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

edit: I should add that the analysis of the evidence can be fruitful when looking to uncover the conspiracy... but not to discover the details of the assassination... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... so by default, defending the evidence is basically defending the conspiracy.

I hope you come to find that I don't like to post anything unless there are sources involved... No worries when others check the source and find my analysis or paraphrasing incorrect... I'm here to learn like the rest...

Whether or not Kellerman/Burkley were criminally liable in the taking of the body was never a question... like Ruby shooting Oswald, the WHY remains the important part...

Not so much WHY specifically, but what acceptable, innocent reason can be offered for their taking the body ?

The "sparing of the agony" line is what Ruby used related to killing Oswald... that Kellerman and Ruby use the same excuse does not bode well for credibility in my eyes.

Jon -

I don't know how much you know about Kellerman and the autopsy at 6:45... When the empty casket arrives with the Navy Ambulance at 6:55 at the front of Bethesda Kellerman jumps out and runs to the Morgue while the ambulance and Greer just sits there... Galloway speaks with McHugh and there is quite a delay. I'd suggest reading Best Evidence or Horne's synopsis of it in Volume 4... in fact, imho reading Best Evidence is required if anyone is ever to have an understanding of the Bethesda charade although I tend to agree with Horne that most of the surgery to the top of the head occurs at Bethesda yet more and more evidence seems to be surfacing about surgery in the belly of AF-1.

At 7:17 per the FBI SA's Sibert and O'Neil, the casket is brought into the morgue, and then again at 8pm.... So we come to find that the body has a broken chain of possession. That even Lipsey says there was a decoy planned and that the ambulance at the front was a decoy for the body being loaded in back... he just never explains when the body was moved from decoy casket to real casket... and it gets weirder still... yet you can find that out on your own.

For our purposes, the stealing of the body was much more significant than the breaking of a law... the differences in the injuries between Parkland and Bethesda are monumental... if ROSE does the autopsy the conspiracy falls apart.

Mr. GREER. We stayed there until everything was settled up. I believe there was a judge came in there and I think, someone came in and made the decisions on removing the body and the casket was brought in, and the body was put in the casket. I had this, his clothing, I kept it in my hand at all times, all the time. Then I went, when they removed the casket from the emergency room, I was in front of it going out to make a path to get it to the ambulance.

So, he(ROSE) frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home. Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?"
And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir." But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance.

I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.

David,

The best way I can respond to your post #5 is to play Criminal Law professor.

Let's say Texas law defines a crime -- this is a hypothetical Texas statute, passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. The statute provides:

If one individual is killed by another individual, the coroner for the county where the individual who was killed shall conduct an autopsy of that individual's remains as soon as practicable following that individual's death. Failure to perform such an autopsy is a Class B felony. Any person who causes a failure to perform such an autopsy commits a Class B felony.

If this statute was in effect in Texas on 11-22-63, Kellerman violated it, apparently, and thereby committed a Class B felony.

Apologies -- I don't know how else to respond.

Jon,

From my understanding there was no Federal law at the time which would supercede Texas law regarding the handling of a murder victim by changing jurisdictional control... A Texas murder resulted in Texas laws being followed.

And these are the Texas laws which apply....http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm

Mr. KELLERMAN. This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy."

I said, "No, we are not."

And he said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it."

---

I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed."

Kellerman (with Burkley's help) knowingly and purposefully broke the law.... one wonders on whose orders or what situation would result in the showing of teeth and weapons so that a qualified physician following the law is stopped from doing so. As Salandria put it, an innocent government simply does not behave this way.

DJ

Art. 49.04. DEATHS REQUIRING AN INQUEST.

(a) A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county served by the justice if:

(1) the person dies in prison under circumstances other than those described by Section 501.055("B") - (Sec. 501.055. REPORT OF INMATE DEATH.), Government Code, or in jail;

(2) the person dies an unnatural death from a cause other than a legal execution;

(3) the body or a body part of a person is found, the cause or circumstances of death are unknown, and:

(A) the person is identified; or

("B") the person is unidentified;

(4) the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by unlawful means;

Art. 49.05. TIME AND PLACE OF INQUEST; REMOVAL OF PROPERTY AND BODY FROM PLACE OF DEATH.

(a) A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest immediately or as soon as practicable after the justice receives notification of the death.

Art. 49.06. HINDERING AN INQUEST.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly hinders the entrance of a justice of the peace to a premises where a death occurred or a body is found.

("B") An offense under this article is a Class B misdemeanor.

Art. 49.10. AUTOPSIES AND TESTS.

(a) At his discretion, a justice of the peace may obtain the opinion of a county health officer or a physician concerning the necessity of obtaining an autopsy in order to determine or confirm the nature and cause of a death

Art. 49.17. EVIDENCE. A justice of the peace shall preserve all tangible evidence that the justice accumulates in the course of an inquest that tends to show the real cause of death or identify the person who caused the death. The justice shall:

(1) deposit the evidence with the appropriate law enforcement agency to be stored in the agency's property room for safekeeping; or

(2) deliver the evidence to the district clerk for safekeeping subject to the order of the court

Federal law is amended:

(Added Pub. L. 89–141, § 1,Aug. 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 580

(h)If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.

Again: To try and frame a discussion as "My side is legitimate and your side is not legitimate" is anti-intellectual.

"Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.[is this a fact or an opinion?] The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such."

Your position appears to be that defense of the WCR in debate form is in itself a legitimate and intellectual pursuit - and that this presentation should be allowed and encouraged here simply because a debate requires two sides and the "winner" of such a discussion of opposing views is decided upon by those who view it...

I've read and enjoyed your work for years Stephen and if you feel it productive to "debate" the defense of the WCR and related conclusions - have at it.

A question then... Have you at any point in time been swayed by DVP's debate to accept the conclusions or evidence of the WCR (or whatever it is he is offering as a "side") thru his presentation in a superior context?

---------------

As Cliff refers... there is no debate about the physical realities of the clothing evidence and what they suggest..

there is no debate over the laws of physics yet you would give soapbox to an argument that requires one suspend one's knowledge/understanding of the physical world and accept the "context" which one side of the argument must create for such events to exist.

I agree whole heartedly with the statement I quoted of yours above...what is "anti-intellectual" is to allow the ongoing use of published tactics to derail forums and intelligent conversation

How many times do the conclusions offered by DVP need to be proven wrong in discussions, debates, analysis or whatever else you want to call it - before it stops being used as ammunition in these "debates", ??

Take care Stephen... I'm done with this - At least debating 2 + 2 = 4 has some mathematical and philosophical possibilities. Debating/discussion the following declarations from the WCR apologist is a waste of my and your time and should no longer be necessary. the wheels on the bus go round and round...

COINTELPRO #19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

As for the "HOW?" part of your question, Jon -- That's not very difficult....

....Lee Oswald had ready access to a weapon (Carcano Rifle #C2766) that he knew was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage. (Hence, the reason for making up the "bookend" set of "I'm getting curtain rods" lies to Buell Frazier on both Thursday and Friday.)

....Lee had ample firearms training in the U.S. military, reaching the grade of Sharpshooter in 1956. (But, for some reason, some conspiracy believers think the United States Marine Corps was in the habit of dishing out "Sharpshooter" ratings to Marines who were rotten shooters. Go figure that logic. I can't.)

....Marina testified in her 1978 HSCA session that Lee, on more than one occasion, would take his rifle out to "target practice" in New Orleans during the summer of 1963

The formula is pretty simple: Redefine the undesired opinion as foolish to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason. A real discussion-stopper.

No offense taken.

Key to this statement is opinion versus authenticated evidence... All the WCR crowd can build upon is their insistance upon the Faith we should continue to have for these esteemed men and the WCR staff...

http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html

"Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that Oswald was indeed at the SE 6th floor window at 12:30, and shots from there are fired by him, AND that he planned to kill JFK with the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. He surely could not have killed JFK with a rifle that was not there in the first place. Oswald has a few items of information he MUST have in order to pull this off, the most important being the knowledge that the motorcade and JFK's limo would pass within shooting distance of the building. Where would he get such information, and what would that info say specifically?"

Stephen (and others), I hope you can take the time to read thru this simple exercise regarding what it takes at the bare minimum to enable WCR/DVP's Ozzie to have done what he and the WCR claims he did.

If he doesn't have a rifle and is not at the window at the correct time, he cannot accomplish the feat. A simple presentation of the authenticated evidence which accomplishes this has never been offered.

Just so we are clear... these are the conclusions being defended... if you feel the evidence from which these conclusions are derived deserves defending then we should find in this defense the evidence to establish this unconnected loner did it. We have conclusions about where shots were fired, how many shots, Tippit, the interrogation, Ruby killing Oswald, conspiracies and SS agents (not) doing their jobs...

with only Conclusion #4 being of any real bearing on establishing the guilt of Oswald. starting with "innocent until proven guilty" 4a thru 4f requires authentic evidence and (g) has already been dismissed as unsubstantiated.

Let's have him try sticking to the case at hand and present as well as authenticate the evidence which convicts Oswald...

As a lawyer Jon, you should have a field day with his presentation - and I for one would appreciate your showing us the legal aspect of such proof...

DJ

1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository.

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald

(a) The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were tired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald.

(Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963.

© Oswald, at the time of the assassination was present at the window from which the shots were fired.

(d) Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcnno rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired.

(e) Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.19

(f) Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters.

(g) Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10,1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer.

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

There was a man who argued that giving any reasonable audience to insanity as the alternative to the truth is to demean the truth and give credibility to the insanity.

He too was considered condescending in his intolerance for the abuse of the truths that have surfaced to make a mockery of official explanations.

I leave then to others the fencing task DVP evokes, the give and take of truth for more officially sanctioned explanations supported by the full extent of the evidence.

No offense to you intended Mr. Roy.

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

David Josephs just described a lot of JFK conspiracy theorists.

Thanks, DJ.

{chuckle}

David, don't you think that you're a little too old for the "I know you are, but what am I" come-back?

Given what you choose to defend and how, it really is no wonder that's the best you've got.

What you do is akin to defending cigarette smoking as not addicting or detrimental to your health and school children should start taking in the bullsh!t as early as possible...

No worries, it wont kill you... {roll eyes}

Ain't it grand how the Gov't defenders have become the freak show

Rock on Dave, rock on.

{sigh}

Making an intelligent argument that "Black" is "White" may be constitutionally and philosophically acceptable....

it still remains pretty foolish looking to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason.

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

Has the CIA at any time made a statement, backed with facts, that Oswald visited Mexico City in late September 1963?

Made a statement? Like to the public...? Not that I know... to the FBI and State Dept... yes

Starting with the Oct 10th cables to Navy, State & FBI the CIA HQ assumed that the person speaking who identified himself as LEE OSWALD was Lee HENRY Oswald with all the same descriptions of our Ozzie.

Between Oct 1 and Nov 22 State, CIA and FBI worked together in Mexico since Amb Mann was very keen on establishing connections between Oswald and Cuba.

Again, the big disconnect is assuming that the person claiming to be Oswald on the tapes, and the person they claimed crossed into and out of Mexico are the same person.

On Nov 23rd the CIA sends cables admitting that the man IN THE PHOTOS is not Oswald yet never admits to the voice conclusions since they claim the tape was destroyed and only transcripts came to DC... They lied.

Here is document where the CIA's John Whitten explains why it believes the phone calls are LEE HENRY/Harvey OSWALD

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1629&relPageId=3

I am actually writing about this now, CASH from INS gets info on the 23rd that Harvey Oswald Lee entered Mexico at Nuevo Laredo (how they knew it was there is addressed in this last article) and conveys this information to CIA who in turn will convey to FBI and LITEMPO (Win Scott's spy network in Mexico) who is to look for signs of Oswald in Mex City

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=2091&relPageId=3

The inspector whose stamp appears on O.H. Lee's visa is MAYDON who tells the FBI that he SEEMS to remember that Oswald was in a car with 3 "a young couple".. possibly the Brills.

The info also says he leaves Mexico by Auto

I write that I believe this was done on purpose since if the CIA or anyone else wanted to leave a wake of evidence of a bus ride, they would have. A young couple in a car suggests a conspiracy, Alvarado's story is a Cuban conspiracy and Alvarado was a documented CIA asset.

Despite the fact that the photos, voice and description of this man are all NOT Oswald, the evidence continues to claim it was Oswald while specifically stating the only time they are sure Oswald is at the Cuban Embassy was on the 28th https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=7602&relPageId=18 btw - that entire file of cables is a great way to see a good chunk of the info in context...

Sorry to be so long winded yet nothing about Mexico is cut and dried.... although admitting it was not him, the accusation of his trying to get thru Cuba to Russia is never dropped...

From Oct 18 or so on the FBI/State/CIA tried in vain to find evidence of Oswald leaving New Orleans after Sept 24 going and staying in MC, and winding up in Dallas on Oct 4.

I hope my work at CTKA shows they were not very successful and what happened to change a Phase 1 Commie plot incrimination to a Phase 2 Lone Nut, unconnected disgruntled little man incrimination leaves a wake of evidence and glaring contradictions. (I just read where it is claimed that Duran, from her "interrogations" was also shown the 1959 Russian stamped passport... exactly like the Australian Mumford on a bus Oswald was never on... just sayin')

Thank you Jon...

The real questions, if one considers the then law, are [a] whether Kellerman or Burkley could have been sanctioned by a Texas court for taking control of JFK's remains as they did, and perhaps whether there was some mechanism that could have been employed under Texas law, such as an injunction, that might have prevented them from doing what they did.

So does Kellerman's actions constitute Reasonable Standard for the SS protection of the POTUS regardless of the actual and applicable law at the time? No state of emergency was declared and there was no vehicle for them to have invoked any rule under law that would allow them to take the body of a murder victum out of the state of Texas.... POTUS or Not. There would be no difference under the law if it was JFK or Oswald. Texas murder = Texas Autopsy.

Was Rose and Texas authority going to fight LBJ and the Secret Service? of course not. But imho they could have - I just don't know whether the circumstances can spercede the law, lawfully. If that makes sense.

IMO Kellerman, the SS, and since AF-1 is military, the military as well broke Texas law by taking the body of the dead president

I would assume that in court, "Reasonableness" could be argued... it becomes the judge's decision as to whether it affects the intent of the law?

DJ

Peter,

The reasonable person standard is bedrock to the law, especially as your tag suggests to tort law.

Courts, which have made most of tort law, are accustomed to applying the standard in cases involving allegations of negligence.

One formulation of the standard is to ask whether a reasonable person could have foreseen the consequences of his or her act, an act leading to injury to a third party.

The language you quote indicates correctly that a higher standard of care is expected of certain persons. For example, a public transportation company is held to a higher-than-ordinary standard of care in transporting members of the public.

A big arena of the reasonable person standard is the medical malpractice arena, in which medical experts are often called to opine as to whether a defendant physician acted reasonably.

I'm curious, though, as to the point of your diary here. If it is to ask whether Humes, Boswell, and Finck acted reasonably in conducting the autopsy of JFK. I believe the answer is clear: they did not.

Jon...

How does "reasonable standard" apply to military orders on penalty of court-martial?

Does this standard apply to a Military trial?

The need to have a MILITARY autopsy becomes painfully obvious... the Govt could not legally interfere with Rose's autopsy as it should have been performed, could they?

Mr. KELLERMAN. This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it."

With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed."

So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home. Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?"

And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir." But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance.

I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.

Mr. SPECTER - What do your current duties involve?

Commander HUMES - My current title is Director of Laboratories of the Naval Medical School at Naval Medical Center at Bethesda. I am charged with the responsibility of the overall supervision of all of the laboratory operations in the Naval medical center, two broad areas, one in the field of anatomic pathology which comprises examining surgical specimens and postmortem examinations and then the rather large field of clinical pathology which takes in examination of the blood and various body fluids.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; both in anatomic pathology and in clinical pathology in 1955.

Mr. SPECTER - What was your specific function in connection with that autopsy?

Commander HUMES - As the senior pathologist assigned to the Naval Medical Center, I was called to the Center by my superiors and informed that the President's body would be brought to our laboratories for an examination, and I was charged with the responsibility of conducting and supervising this examination; told to also call upon anyone whom I wished as assistant in this matter, that I deemed necessary to be present.

Humes was perhaps the least qualified person in that hospital to perform an Autopsy. FINCK, from Walter Reed and the only Dr in the room qualified to do a decent autopsy, was very unhappy about the entire process when he arrived. His notes were stolen and he was marginalized for the rest of his life - thankfully he spilled some beans at the Shaw trial.

Colonel FINCK - From 1955 to 1958 I performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma including missile wounds, stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the. United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany.

So much is tossed around related to JVB and she always has an answer - or one of her minions has...

So let's put the only two pieces of evidence to rest - or see if she can address them

(NOTE: There's actually another evidence question she needs to address as well - she claims to have taken the bus with Lee to work at Reily. Has she ever given the address of this apartment or which bus she would meet Lee upon? )

The W-2 has a host of problems with it...

The forms from these years did not look like the one she offers: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/fw2--1963.pdf

In addition, COPY B would have been filed with the return. If this was how it was mailed to her, COPY A would be on top and COPY C would remain in her possession.
Has anyone seen this tax return? The COPY A or C of this document?

There is not a Withholding Tax Statement during the 60's that puts the income info below the name




In addition, the page on top of this book (she would not have been sent a book of W-2's. This appears to be Reily's book since we can see the blled thru of Reily and other info.
When I superimpose this sheet back into position onto this book, lining up the holes to the right - it doesn't fit.



Finally, This is a link to an interview page where she claims to have been interviewed by Conway.

http://doctormarysmonkey.com/jvb/pages/Witnesses%20to%20Anna%20Lewis%20interview.htm

"

In early January 2000, Debra Conway (owner and co-founder of JFK Lancer) volunteered to video-tape Anna Lewis in New Orleans. In the videotape, Anna said that she and her husband David Lewis had socialized frequently with Judy Baker and Lee Oswald in New Orleans in the Summer of 1963, including a visit to The Five Hundred Club, where they met with Carlos Marcello. Anna stressed that she thought Judy and Lee were lovers at that time. Anna's filmed testimony was witnessed by Anna's daughter Sondra, Dr. Joseph Riehl, Dr. Howard Platzman, historian Martin Shackelford, Judyth Baker, and Debra Conway who asked Anna questions as she filmed her.

The photo shown about was taken immediately following the Anna Lewis interview.

Has Debra Conway forgotten that she interviewed Anna Lewis?"

Has Debra forgotten??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyN37x3OfHs is the Debra interview posted by Wim.

At 1:45 - "In about Feb 1962, I met Lee Harvey Oswald in the Park" (by Bannister's place where she went for a date with he husband to be David Lewis, a friend of Jack Martin who was pistol whipped by Bannister.
The park as you can see from the map above, was Lafayette park.

In Feb 1962 Ozzie was in Minsk. She goes on to say she and David leave NOLA in April 1962...

Problem is that even if she meant 1963... in Feb, March and April 1963 Ozzie is in Texas.
He does not get to New Orleans until the end of April 1963.


This woman is completely lost... she ways Jack Martin and David were NOT working for Bannister when they moved back to New Orleans sometime later in 1962.
She then tells stories of Lee in NOLA in 1962...

The man Ruby killed and the claimed lover of JVB does not get to New Orleans until the end of April 1963. and NEVER lives in New Orleans in 1962...

Fromwhat I can tell - that's the sum total of the evidence which puts her in Harvey's world... and not a soul who has read her book or supports her story has addressed these conflicts.

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... especially here.

DJ

Pamela, you write with respect to Ferguson: "He had been told that LBJ wanted the limo cleaned up to use in the funeral on Monday."

Who told him this?

Was the limo ready for use in the funeral on Monday?

How credible was Ferguson? In this regard, did he have any problems such as with money, alcohol, personal relationships -- the sorts of problems that might have made him vulnerable?

The Secret Service Jon.

Piece of leather from the backseat of the Lincoln Continental in which President Kennedy was riding when he was tragically assassinated in Dallas, Texas. A haunting piece, literally cut from the limousine in which the President sat when he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald on 22 November 1963. Clipping is dark blue leather from the border of the backseat cushion of the ''SS-100-X'', the customized open-air limousine that was lengthened, reinforced, and even had the seat raised so on-lookers could have a better view of the President. Following the assassination, F. Vaughn Ferguson, the Technical Service Representative at the White House responsible for the presidential automobiles, was directed by the Secret Service to clean the limousine and get it ready in case the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson, wanted to use it to attend the funeral. When Ferguson arrived at the garage, he found parts of the limo dismantled and the bloodied leather seats ripped out, the result of an FBI search for bullet fragments. He worked throughout the weekend to get the car ready, but President Johnson didn't use it, and the auto was then shipped to custom auto body firm Hess & Eisenhardt in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ferguson kept some of the ripped-out leather as a memento, and lot includes a copy of a typed letter signed from Ferguson, on White House letterhead, which reads in part, ''...The leather, light blue and dark blue, is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was Assassinated...Four days after the Assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat. The dark blue letter is from the border of the rear seat. The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President, John F. Kennedy...'' Ferguson's limousine leather was acquired directly from him by Raleigh de Geer Amyx, owner of the famed Amyx Collection of Presidential memorabilia. The leather was then acquired from Amyx by Dr. John K. Lattimer, the ballistics expert consulted by the Kennedy family independently of the U.S. Government who confirmed the fatal shots were indeed fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. With a COA and paperwork from University Archives, documenting the chain of title. Leather piece measures just over 0.25'' x nearly 0.75''. Displayed attractively in a transparent pouch mounted to a mat with a caption and a photo of Kennedy in the limousine, all matted in dark blue velour to an overall size of 11'' x 14''. Near fine.

Source:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gruesome-jfks-blood-from-death-limo-auctioned-for-1000/article/2552460

Can't have one of those without one of these....

Given the posts of yours that I've seen and read - the careful way in which you word your responses and the intelliectual analysis/questioning you offer ...

You have benefitted this entire Forum immensely.

It truly says something, at least in my eyes, when an explanation makes sense to you...

A round about way of waying thanks for sure... yet thanks none-the-less

DJ

David, you write:

"The man Ruby killed was at Odio's on Sept 27th with two Cubans. Which side of the fence he was playing at that time (or whether he was being played) is unknown. "

What makes you believe Oswald (Harvey) was at Sylvia Odio's on 27 Sep 1963?

A Number of things Jon.

Please read her testimony taken on July 22, 1964.... http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odio.htm

Both she and her sister identified the man, not just her, and they are positive... not kinda or sorta or almost, but identified.

She tells the story a number of times before the assassination - never changing the story

She searched out no fame or notariety and in fact avoided it and was scared and disappointed by the way she was treated

The government went out of their way to discredit her and tried to substitute three other men who all contradicted this conclusion. But they waited until 9/23 to file this report and then did not change anything within the WCR.

Harvey Oswald was not found to be on any public transportation out of New Orleans... the 12:20pm bus he supposedly left on only fits the timing and that too was not discovered until Mid Sept - I show how the FBI backdates this information to Dec 1963 and then uses it as his mode of transportation... He was seen in Austin on the 25th or 26th with proof and no record of how he got there.

Do you suppose if our Harvey was actually in Mexico we'd not be thrilled to have a photo of him?

Bottom line Jon is that he was not in Mexico City or traveling to or from... He is seen and ID'd at Odio's and then again in Dallas, down the street from the SS and FBI at the YMCA on Ervay yet again, there is nothing in the public sector to get him from Mexico to Dallas... If he was not in Mexico during that time and postiviely identified by two people at Odio's while the WCR and evidence does all it can to discredit this ID by summing up with the evidence presented with, "the Commission concluded" since he could not be in two places at once... At least that's what the WCR tried to say.

In the first and 2nd essays on Mexico I show LEE in Dallas with Ruby et al, the entire time Harvey is in New Orleans.. Authentic and corroborated evidence places Harvey in Dallas on the 27th... from then to the 4th of Oct is a mystery.

One thing for sure though... the CIA and FBI conclude the following within a few days of the assassination and with the full support and assistence of assets within the record keeping portion of the country...

Unless he was snuck into Mexico (which documents show was easily accomplished)

David,

I believe as well Oswald (Marina's husband) did not go to Mexico.

Do you think Sylvia Odio's story of meeting Oswald is believable?

What do you think Oswald was doing during the time of his supposed trip to Mexico? Looking for work in Alice, Texas?

Jon,

As I've been digging into this for about 6 months now there are a few things which emerge as turths which are difficult to counter:

The man Ruby killed was at Odio's on Sept 27th with two Cubans. Which side of the fence he was playing at that time (or whether he was being played) is unknown.

Not only does Odio ID him but so does her sister as well as there being corroboration of the visit prior to the assassination. and Finally, the way the WCR treats her and her story

(never believe anything until it's officially denied)

Her WC interview was in mid July 1964 while the FBI reports, CE3147 & 3148 are dated September 1964. The report itself was finished and delivered on September 24, 1964. Ms. Odio’s story is summarized on p.321-322 followed by the declaration that since OSWALD was traveling on a bus to Mexico at the time he could NOT have been at Odio’s home in Dallas at the same time and it has been developed “that he was not in Dallas any time between the beginning of September and October 3, 1963”. Until the Hearings and Exhibits were published, this was the only mention of Sylvia Odio, 2 Cubans and Leon Oswald.

In essence – because he couldn’t have met Odio since he was on a bus to Mexico, he didn’t. The Evidence IS and will always remain, the Conspiracy.

He traveled from New Orleans, thru Austin, then up to Dallas. He stopped in Austin at the State Selective Service HQ and at a cafe where he was remembered.

When shown a photo of HARVEY, both Ronnie Dugger and Mrs. Stella Norman claim the person they met was “identical with Oswald”.

There does not appear to be any evidence related to what HARVEY was doing in Dallas between Sept 26th and Oct 4th when a long-distance call is reported by ?? (Ruth/Marina) from Oct 4th - Dallas to Irving.

Since "Oswald" was going to be incriminated and impersonated driving to Mexico with a car full of co-conspirators (per the Phase 1 "blame the Commies" plan), Harvey needed to be kept our of the way.

I wish I had some info but I believe the FBI went out of the way not to find anything on Harvey in Dallas while an "Oswald" who we all now know was not Oswald, was leaving breadcrumbs in Mexico.

http://jfklancer.com/Page1.html If you haven't you might read this... although you asking about Alice leads me to believe you already have.... From what I can tell, those sightings are either during the Mexico visit or on the drive back and was most probably LEE with a faux family in tow.

I know it's a long bit of reading yet if you start with Part one on the Trip to Mexico at CTKA I hope I build a case and compelling story for the thesis...

http://www.ctka.net/2014-Josephs/Josephs_Mexico%20City_Part%201.html

Take care

DJ

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Mexico%20Part%203A.html

So basically:

Why did the FBI stay with a fraudulent FRONTERA bus manifest until Mid-March 1964 and then drop it as if it never existed?

What did the Mystery Photos have to do with the timing of this travel?

What is wrong with the existing Del Norte bus evidence?

- Part 2 will delve a bit deeper into the FBI's Evidence from the witnesses they were able to find from the records who were on these buses to see if they saw Oswald

(again, they could find scores of people with the existing bus records to ask, they just could not find Oswald's evidence)

To reiterate, it is my theory that the MEN the evidence describes as Oswald traveling was a composite of people and fraudulent evidence... that the man at the Hotel was not the man on either the bus or the embassies/consulates.. and that other than the Sept 27th visit, I don't think an Oswald was seen by Duran. Finally, Alvarado was most definitely a CIA asset

The following gives a bit of credibility to the notion that our Oswald was NEVER in Mexico - at least not officially - from 1959 on

David, I have posted hundreds of pieces of evidence supporting the assassination four shot model, that in addition disprove every theory there is.

You want evidence please go read my threads and let me know what I have posted that is incorrect or misinterpreted.

I'll post this last thing and be done...

What you've posted is your interpretation of what witnesses said or what they are credited with saying according to FBI or DPD reports - hardly reliable sources we have come to learn and understand.

If I was to debate with you I'd say your 4 shot scenario is not possible given the number of people you continue to claim only heard 3 of these 4 shots... but I am not here to debate with you.

I posted what your main witnesses actually said and in each case they refer to shots well before z313 - I even included images to help you and others visualize these actions and statements.

I've read over your threads and they don't change from previous readings... you interpret what a witness says based on your existing conclusion of 4 monument area shots, rather than reading what they are saying and corroborating it to other statements which show your analysis to be somewhat skewed toward your preconceived conclusion.

What I've offered is rebuttal and analysis of your work and rather than expand on the evidence you claim supports this conclusion, you simply speak louder.

You write in the other thread:

David, let me give you an example of the noise level for the three rifle shots.

2 witnesses located at Record and Main recalled hearing three shots

19 sheriff deputies located outside of DP heard three shots

1 witness a block north of the TSBD to the rear of the building heard three shots

1 witness a behind and to the side of the TSBD sitting in an enclosed building heard three shots

more than 70% of the witnesses heard three or more reports.

A number of witnesses depicted in A6 reported hearing three rifle shots

How does any of the above support 4 shots from the monuments? Which is your conclusion, correct?

The Assassination Four Shot Model, is the solution to the assassination mystery, it obsoletes all other theories.

This is the only thing I could find which specifically states the calibre of the slug. I have yet to find a DPD report which states so.

Trying to determine where "30.06" comes from... I missed that

Robert,

I clicked on the second link, http://www.maryferre...absPageId=78338, and came to a page written in the first person.

Do you know who wrote this page? And where the text was written?

If you go back one page you'll see it was Groden

Let's see...

Mr. Frasier is FBI

FBI did more to hide the facts of the assassination than any other entity

FBI created more evidence than it authenticated

Can anyone offer a nugget of FBI evidence that incriminates Oswald where the FBI did NOT lie?

I have yet to discover one.

Great job Robert... as we continue to approach the evidence as it represents the conspiracy and not the assassination these revelations should become more and more commonplace while hopefully becoming more and more part of our collective knowledge of the conspiracy in action.

Good to see you posting again Greg...

That statement of Hoover's is fantastic...

Another fantastic statement: and we wonder why the evidence is so poor.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappD.html - the link to the Redlich memo

These SSA men are looking forward... yes the GK is forward as are many, many things.

How do you tell they are not looking at the Overpass? How can you tell anything about what they see or what they think without it just being speculation?

How are you in a position to state WHY they turned to their right? You conclude things are "myths" and only offer speculative circumstantial evidence... Maybe, in reaction to the firecracker/gunshot sound just after the turn onto Elm as so many witnesses state, they turned. Dal Tex, TSBD, whichever...

Will you deny that MANY witnesses see men with rifles in the TSBD between 12:15 and 12:30?

----

Hickey is looking at the result of a shot hitting the street as a number of witnesses refer to at the top of Elm.

(other thing to keep in mind is we lilve this every day - those in DP that day were not expecting this, not observing with intent to recontruct a murder scene. Even the SS who had stayed up late and drank and were definitely not in top shape.

----

"Stood Down"

Are you in a position to tell us what the noise level was in these vehicles surrounded by motorcycles? If the first shot does not occur until z220 there would be no reason to look elsewhere. Yet within 2 seconds we see witnesses looking in all sorts of directions... IF a man was on the foot sills of the limo he would have been able to cover JFK. To me, I do see what appears to be a person in the window... and we cannot see the roof at all in any image.

From your POV all these people have reasons for not looking directly at JFK? No one is reacting to a noise here which other corroborating witnesses say was a shot not a second or so before?

Maybe the shot(s) came from here? You seriously can't prove they did not come from here - you can only guess like the rest of us. And then add those wonderful Werbell silencers and a gunshot sounds like a firecracker...

Yes Robert, once the assumptions you make are accepted as facts then you can explain a 4 shot monument area scenario... but your assumptions are part of the problem since shots WERE heard, shots WERE described prior to z313. JC is never in a position to have a shot enter the back near the armpit from the monuments.

What you call "unnecessary" others call corroborated evidence of a different scenario whcih cannot be supported by your 4 shots from the monuments - but you dont want to discuss authenticating this evidence - you seem to just want to speak louder and hope we understand better...

I have followed your arguments and find them lacking and unconvincing. You seem to build a case on assumption and acceptance rather than evidence, authentication and corroboration... but I may be totally off here.

If there are others who agree that you nailed it, great. To claim that all the shots would come from anywhere but the direction they put the patsy is counterintuitive to the "Professional" plan.

I'm about done with this now Robert. Again, I applaud your passion yet would like to see more authentication - would the evidence you use to prove your conclusion be allowable in court - which is my measure of the worth of evidence

Peace

DJ

Sounds to me now you are preaching and not discussing Robert. I appreciate the passion of your conclusions and convictions yet referencing yourself is not exactly authenticating anything.

John Connally: We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot.

Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop.

BREHM AFFIDAVIT: When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed do to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. BREHM said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction

NEWMAN: from the Shaw Trial testimony: If this is the THIRD shot... wouldn't there have been a few more up Elm?

And since Moorman and Hill are directly across from Newman - wouldn't that be their third shot as well?

Mrs. HILL - After the President was shot, but I wouldn't---it wasn't with the first shot. To me he wasn't hit when the first shot hit.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is the basis for your saying that, Mrs. Hill?
Mrs. HILL - Well, I just think that he was hit after Kennedy was hit because, well, Just the way that it looked, I would say that he was hit later.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, do you associate the time that Governor Connally appeared to have been hit with any specific shot that you heard?
Mrs. HILL - The second.
Mr. SPECTER - And what specifically did you observe at the time of the second shot?
Mrs. HILL - Well, that's what I thought had happened---that they had hit someone in the front part of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe at the time of the third shot?
Mrs. HILL - President Kennedy was hit again and he had further buffeted his body and I didn't realize at the time what it was-I remarked to my friends in the police station that day--did she notice his hair standing up, because it did. It just rippled up like this.

Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.

Robert - could you please address how these statements do not support a shot heard and seen prior to Z313

I will go take another look at that thread yet witnesses hearing something does not authenticate it, it just aids in proving that the goverment's side of the story and the physical evidence offered is worthless in determining the crime.