Bernice Moore

THE PATIENTS AT PARKLAND jfklancer.com/3Patients.html THREE PATIENTS at PARKLAND Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, treats an average of 272 emergency cases a day. It is adjacent to and is the major teaching hospital for the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. It is staffed by the faculty of the medical school and has 150 interns and residents in all medical specialties. It is a modern hospital, well equipped, one of which any community might be proud. Today and for none of these reasons-Parkland has a new reputation all over the world, and historians are typing its name into manuscripts that will be textbooks for generations to come. This has happened because three particular gunshot victims were carried there out of the bright November sunlight, two to die and the third to leave by wheelchair almost two weeks later, his arm in a sling. Many Texas physicians have visited Parkland hospital; many have worked or trained there. Members of the Parkland staff are their acquaintances and friends. Many Texas physicians know personally the surviving gunshot victim, Gov. John Connally; some personally knew President John F. Kennedy, who died in Trauma Room 1; perhaps a few even knew Lee Harvey Oswald, the man charged by Dallas authorities with the assassination of the President and who was himself shot two days later. The assassination of President Kennedy, the wounding of Governor Connally, and the fatal shooting of Oswald are events of profound import to people everywhere, but they have special, personal meaning for Texans. So because a Texas hospital and Texas physicians figured prominently in this tragedy, the Texas State Journal of Medicine records for its readers of the medical profession a full account of treatment given a never-to-be-forgotten trio. When President John F. Kennedy in a moribund condition entered Parkland on Nov. 22, there was never opportunity for medical history taking. Such a history, had it been taken, would have shown that the patient "had survived several illnesses, the danger of war, the rigor of exposure in icy water, and . . . had waged grueling electoral campaigns in spite of a serious and painful back injury." Parkland records show that the President arrived at the emergency room sometime after 12:30 p.m. (There is conflict as to the exact moment.) At 1 p.m. Dr. William Kemp Clark, associate professor and chairman of the Division of Neurosurgery of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, declared him dead. During the interim of less than 30 minutes, continuous resuscitative efforts were made. Later that day, several attending physicians filed reports. The following identifies these physicians and gives the gist of their reports: Charles J Carrico - Dr. Carrico was the first physician to see the President. A 1961 graduate of Southwestern Medical School, he is 28 and a resident in surgery at Parkland. He reported that when the patient entered the emergency room on an ambulance carriage he had slow agonal respiratory efforts and occasional cardiac beats detectable by auscultation. Two external wounds were noted; one a small wound of the anterior neck in the lower one third. The other wound had caused avulsion of the occipitoparietal calvarium and shredded brain tissue was present with profuse oozing. No pulse or blood pressure were present. Pupils were bilaterally dilated and fixed. A cuffed endotracheal tube was inserted through the laryngoscope. A ragged wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. The tube was advanced past the laceration and the cuff inflated. Respiration was instituted using a respirator assistor on automatic cycling. Concurrently, an intravenous infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun via catheter placed in the right leg. Blood was drawn for typing and crossmatching. Type 0 Rh negative blood was obtained immediately. In view of the tracheal injury and diminished breath sounds in the right chest, tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Malcolm 0. Perry and bilateral chest tubes inserted. A second intravenous infusion was begun in the left arm. In addition, Dr. M. T. Jenkins began respiration with the anesthesia machine, cardiac monitor and stimulator attached. Solu-Cortef (300 mg.) was given intravenously. Despite those measures, blood pressure never returned. Only brief electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity was obtained. Malcolm 0. Perry - Dr. Perry is an assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical School from which he received his degree in 1955. He was 34 years old and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963. At the time of initial examination of the President, Dr. Perry has stated, the patient was noted to be nonresponsive . His eyes were deviated and the pupils dilated. A considerable quantity of blood was noted on the patient, the carriage, and the floor. A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted, exposing severely lacerated brain. Brain tissue was noted in the blood at the head of the carriage. Pulse or heart beat were not detectable but slow spasmodic respiration was noted. An endotracheal tube was in place and respiration was being controlled. An intravenous infusion was being placed in the leg. While additional venesections were done to administer fluids and blood, a tracheostomy was effected. A right lateral injury to the trachea was noted. The cuffed tracheostomy tube was put in place as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn and respirations continued. Closed chest cardiac massage was instituted after placement of sealed-drainage chest tubes, but without benefit. When electrocardiogram evaluation revealed that no detectable electrical activity existed in the heart, resuscitative attempts were abandoned. The team of physicians determined that the patient had expired. Charles R. Baxter - Dr. Baxter is an assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical School where he first arrived as a medical student in 1950. Except for two years away in the Army he has been at Southwestern and Parkland ever since, moving up from student to intern to resident to faculty member. He is 34 and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963. Recalling his attendance to President Kennedy, he says he learned at approximately 12 :35 that the President was on the way to the emergency room and that he had been shot. When Dr. Baxter arrived in the emergency room, he found an endotracheal tube in place and respirations being assisted. A left chest tube was being inserted and cut-downs were functioning in one leg and in the left arm. The President had a wound in the midline of the neck. On first observation of the other wounds, portions of the right temporal and occipital bones were missing and some of the brain was lying on the table. The rest of the brain was extensively macerated and contused. The pupils were fixed and deviated laterally and were dilated. No pulse was detectable and ineffectual respirations were being assisted. A tracheostomy was performed by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter and a chest tube was inserted into the right chest (second interspace anteriorly). Meanwhile one pint of O negative blood was administered without response. When all of these measures were complete, no heart beat could be detected. Closed chest massage was performed until a cardioscope could be attached. Brief cardiac activity was obtained followed by no activity. Due to the extensive and irreparable brain damage which existed and since there were no signs of life, no further attempts were made at resuscitation. Robert N. McClelland - Dr. McClelland, 34, assistant professor of surgery at Southwestern Medical School, is a graduate of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston. He has served with the Air Force in Germany and was certified by the American Board of Surgery in 1963. Regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, Dr. McClelland says that at approximately 12:35 p.m. he was called from the second floor of the hospital to the emergency room. When he arrived, President Kennedy was being attended by Drs. Perry, Baxter, Carrico, and Ronald Jones, chief resident in surgery. The President was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube had been placed and assisted respiration started by Dr. Carrico who was on duty in the emergency room when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and McClelland performed a tracheostomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury. Dr. Jones and Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of surgery, ; inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoraces secondary to the tracheo-mediastinal injury. Dr. Jones and assistants had started three cutdowns, giving blood and fluids immediately. In spite of this, the President was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Clark, the neurosurgeon, who arrived immediately after Dr. McClelland. The cause of death, according to Dr. McClelland was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head. The President was pronounced dead after external cardiac massage failed and electrocardiographic activity was gone. Fouad A, Bashour - Dr. Bashour received his medical education at the University of Beirut School of Medicine in Lebanon. He is 39 and an associate professor of medicine in cardiology at Southwestern Medical School. At 12 :50 p.m. Dr. Bashour was called from the first floor of the hospital and told that President Kennedy had been shot. He and Dr. Donald Seldin, professor and chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, went to the emergency room. Upon examination, they found that the President had no pulsations, no heart beats, no blood pressure. The oscilloscope showed a complete standstill. The President was declared dead at 1:00 p.m. William Kemp Clark - Dr. Clark is associate professor and chairman of the Division of Neurosurgery at Southwestern Medical School. The 38-year-old physician has done research on head injuries and has been at Southwestern since 1956. He reports this account of the President's treatment: The President arrived at the emergency room entrance in the back seat of his limousine. Governor Connally of Texas was also in this car. The first physician to see the President was Dr. Carrico. Dr. Carrico noted the President to have slow, agonal respiratory efforts. He could hear a heart beat but found no pulse or blood pressure. Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding. Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube and while doing so, he noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx. At this time, Drs. Perry, Baxter, and Jones arrived. Immediately thereafter, Dr. Jenkins and Drs. A. H. Giesecke, Jr., and Jackie H. Hunt, two other staff anesthesiologists, arrived. The endotracheal tube had been connected to a respirator to assist the President's breathing. An anesthesia machine was substituted for this by Dr. Jenkins. Only 100 per cent oxygen was administered. A cutdown was performed in the right ankle, and a polyethylene catheter inserted in the vein. An infusion of lactated Ringer's solution was begun. Blood was drawn for typing and crossmatching, but unmatched type O Rh negative blood was immediately obtained and begun. Hydrocortisone (300 mg.) was added to the intravenous fluids. Dr. McClelland arrived to help in the President's care. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and McClelland did a tracheostomy. Considerable quantities of blood were present in the President's oral pharynx. At this time, Dr. Peters and Dr. Clark arrived. Dr. Clark noted that the President had bled profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 by 3 cm.) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. The tracheostomy was completed and the endotracheal tube was withdrawn. Suction was used to remove blood in the oral pharynx. A nasogastric tube was passed into the stomach. Because of the likelihood of mediastinal injury, anterior chest tubes were placed in both pleural spaces. These were connected to sealed underwater drainage. Neurological examination revealed the President's pupils to be widely dilated and fixed to light. His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present. No deep tendon reflexes or spontaneous movements were found. When Dr. Clark noted that there was no carotid pulse, he began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral levels. Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so that Dr. Clark could evaluate the head wound. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the right posterior skull, at brief examination, appeared gone. The previously described extruding brain was present. Profuse bleeding had occurred and 1500 cc. of blood was estimated to be on the drapes and floor of the emergency operating room. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. By this time an electrocardiograph was hooked up. There was brief electrical activity of the heart which soon stopped. The President was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. by Dr. Clark. M. T. Jenkins - Dr. Jenkins is professor and chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Southwestern Medical School. He is 46, a graduate of the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and was certified by the American Board of Anesthesiology in 1952. During World War II he served in the Navy as a lieutenant commander. When Dr. Jenkins was notified that the President was being brought to the emergency room at Parkland, he dispatched Drs. Giesecke and Hunt with an anesthesia machine and resuscitative equipment to the major surgical emergency room area. He ran downstairs to find upon his arrival in the emergency operating room that Dr. Carrico had begun resuscitative efforts by introducing an orotracheal tube, connecting it for controlled ventilation to a Bennett intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus. Drs. Baxter, Perry, and McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Drs. Peters and Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation. Dr. Jenkins believes it evidence of the clear thinking of the resuscitative team that the patient received 300 mg. hydrocortisone intravenously in the first few minutes. For better control of artificial ventilation, Dr. Jenkins exchanged the intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus for an anesthesia machine and continued artificial ventilation. Dr. Gene Akin, a resident in anesthesiology, and Dr. Giesecke connected a cardioscope to determine cardiac activity. During the progress of these activities, the emergency room cart was elevated at the feet in order to provide a Trendelenburg position, a venous cutdown was performed on the right saphenous vein and additional fluids were begun in a vein in the left forearm while blood was ordered from the blood bank. All of these activities were completed by approximately 12:50 at which time external cardiac massage was still being carried out effectively by Dr. Clark as judged by a palpable peripheral pulse. Despite these measures there was only brief electrocardiographic evidence of cardiac activity. These described resuscitative activities were indicated as of first importance, and after they were carried out, attention was turned to other evidences of injury. There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that part of the right cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage. President Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1 p.m. It is Dr. Jenkins' personal feeling that all methods of resuscitation were instituted expeditiously and efficiently. However, he says, the cranial and intracranial damage was of such magnitude as to cause irreversible damage. . .... B.

KATHY THIS CLIPS FROM THE ITALIAN video FILM I BELIEVE IT IS 'TWO MEN' IN DALLAS AND THE SHOOTER WAS SHOT DOWN LONG TIME AGO...BY MANY RESEARCHERS BUT INTERESTING THANKS...B

KATHY HERE ARE A COUPLE MORE FOR YOU IN AN ALLEN PHOTO CRAIG IS ALSO SEEN ON THE NORTH SIDE WITH THE CROWD..AND THEN HE IS GONE...BACK TO THE SOUTH SIDE...THERE IS NO PHOTO THAT SHOWS HIM CLEARLY WHEN HE RETURNS...THERE IS ONE THAT SHOWS PARTIAL F A MAN'S BODY THAT THE CLOTHES ARE SIMILAR IN COLOUR AND SME THINK IT MAY BE HIM .....TAKE GOOD CARE..THE RAMBLER ON ELM ALSO...CROPPED AND BLOWN UP...FROM JIM MURRAY...

KATHY ='Kathleen Collins' date='Dec 13 2009, 04:43 PM' post='176077'] (Michael Hogan @ Dec 10 2009, 02:42 AM) How do you explain this? On page 44 of MIDP: Deputy Roger Craig, also in the photo, is pictured looking at the man and the station wagon. The Hertz sign, on the top of the Book Depository, shows the time at 12:40 PM. On page 47 of MIDP: This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm. I've been looking all over the Internet. Could somebody post the photo of a man resembling LHO and the station wagon -Nash Rambler? It was taken by Jim Murray, a freelance photographer, I believe. Kathy C -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8819 name='Kathleen Collins' date='Dec 13 2009, 04:43 PM' post='176077'] (Michael Hogan @ Dec 10 2009, 02:42 AM) How do you explain this? On page 44 of MIDP: Deputy Roger Craig, also in the photo, is pictured looking at the man and the station wagon. The Hertz sign, on the top of the Book Depository, shows the time at 12:40 PM. On page 47 of MIDP: This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about fifteen minutes after the shooting, heading west on Elm. I've been looking all over the Internet. Could somebody post the photo of a man resembling LHO and the station wagon -Nash Rambler? It was taken by Jim Murray, a freelance photographer, I believe. Kathy C ....HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING THIS POSTED...??WHEN I HIT AND QUOTE YOUR POST AND HIT TO POST IT...IT DOES TELLING ME THE QUOTES DO NOT MATCH WHATEVER..I HOPE THE GREMLIN IS NOT BACK..ON THE F .. SO I HAVE COPIED AND PASTED WE SHALL SEE IF THAT WORKS...B HI KATHY FYI... READ WHAT ROGER CRAIG HIMSELF STATES ABOUT ALL THIS IN HIS BOOK..A WEE PART COPIED BELOW...THAT HE WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE WHEN HE SAW HIM NOT THE NORTH... IN THE MURRAY POSTED AS SHOWN HE IS ON THE NORTH, HE THEN EVENTUALLY CROSSED BACK OVER TO THE SOUTH SIDE THEN SAW HIM, AND ALSO THE MAN RAN DOWN THE GRASSY KNOLL...NOT WALKED DOWN THE SIDE LANE SIDEWALK...ATTACHED ARE THE TWO DISTANT MURRAY'S. I BELIEVE TAKEN FROM THE SOUTH SIDE..THEIR FIRST APPEARANCE AND WHO FOUND THE MAN WAS RICHARD SPRAGUE AS FAR AS I KNOW,IN HIS AND HARRIS'S BOOK COVER-UP I AM THINKING...FWIW B.. at approximately 12:40 p.m., Deputy Craig was standing on the south side of Elm Street when he heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm and turned to see a man -- wearing faded blue trousers and a long sleeved work shirt made of some type of grainy material -- come running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the TSBD. He saw a light green Rambler station wagon coming slowly west on Elm Street, pull over to the north curb and pick up the man coming down the hill. By this time the traffic was too heavy for him to be able to reach them before the car drove away going west on Elm. after witnessing the above scene, Deputy Craig ran to the command post at Elm and Houston to report the incident to the authorities. When he got there and asked who was involved in the investigation, a man turned to him and said "I'm with the Secret Service." Craig recounted what he had just seen. This "Secret Service" man showed little interest in Craig's description of the people leaving, but seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler to the degree this was the only part of the recounting that he wrote down. (On 12/22/67, Roger Craig learned from Jim Garrison that this man's name was Edgar Eugene Bradley, a right wing preacher from North Hollywood, California and part-time assistant to Carl McIntire, the fundamentalist minister who had founded the American Counsel of Christian Churches. Then-governor Ronald Reagan refused to grant the extradition request from Garrison for the indictment of Bradley during the New Orleans Probe.) www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html B.. THE RAMBLER PHOTOS ARE FROM BARTHOLOMEW -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8819

BRAVO FOR GIL AND FOR ALL YOU CONTINUE TO DO FOR THE REST OF US..MOST OF US WHOM SEEM TO DO SO DARN LITTLE...TA...B

Garrison was no doubt a hard man to like, even by those who believed in what he was doing. That does not matter. The man was on the right track early on. Sabotaging the Garrison Enquiry 'Even at this later hour (1968) Lyndon B. Johnson could effectively wash his hand of the Kennedy murder. All he would have to do is to let the new enquiry into the assassintation that has been launched by Jim Garrison of New Orleans , take its normal course. Would it not the duty of the President of the United States to assist investigating the assassination of the murder of a President of the United States?" Joachim Joestin Garrison was an official in a Parish of the United States. I do not accept any nonsense that discredits this man which was obviously done because he was on the trail of the assassins. Garrison was an American hero, who "caught" the murderers of an American President and then was persecuted for it. Peter you may be interested in this..it was from a post some years ago on the web..sorry there was no author at the end so i cannot GIVE a name any credit..but to whomever sometime in the past a thank you..now testimonies documents etc are available on the web re the mary ferrell site and others but back some years ago that was not how it was...i found this one night while digging through old web sites, as far as i can recall that is where i have found with a crawler some interesting information..over time...this below was about and DR.PIERRE FINK'S TESTIMONY IN THE SHAW TRIAL AS QUESTIONED BY DA ALVIN OSER ..FOR YOUR INTEREST...I THINK WITH ALL THE INFORMATION BECOMING AVAILABLE FROM DOUG HORNES BOOKS AND DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THREADS IT MAY BE OF INTEREST..to you and .TO HAVE IT'S INFORMATION AVAILABLE ..showing some of the the incredible deception that had taken place and was still ongoing.....TAKE CARE B.. ''One of the many lacunae in the literature on the Garrison case is the transcript of the Shaw trial. It is not available to the public. At the trial, both sides demanded overnight typed transcripts to use on cross-examination. Regular court staff could not comply, so a private stenography firm ~ Dietrich and Pickett ~ was engaged. Writers like John Davis in Mafia Kingfish list the transcript at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond. When I called there in January of 1992, I was told it was not there. They had only the preliminary hearing and the trial testimony of Perry Russo. The tran- script, some of which remains in the form of unreadable stenotype notes, remains the property of Helen Dietrich, and she informed me that the only copies she had provided were to the HSCA and to Oliver Stone, the latter for use in his film. In my view, the transcript should be published, and perhaps it soon will. But until then, writers and researchers are left with two alternatives. One can journey to New Orleans and read the daily transcripts in the States-Item and the Times-Picayune, which are not always verbatim. Or one can rely on the summaries presented in books. Until 1988 and the publication of On the Trail of the Assassins, both responsible writers like Henry Hurt and irresponsible ones like Robert Sam Anson had to rely on two volumes: Milton Brener's The Garrison Case (1969) and James Kirkwood's American Grotesque (1970). Brener was a New Orleans attorney who defended both Layton Martens ~ a friend of David Ferrie's whose phone number was found in Clay Shaw's address book ~ and Walter Sheridan. Brener is not above attacking Garrison personally, once referring to him as a "witch hunter" (p. 267). But Kirkwood's book is by far the lengthiest treatment of the Shaw trial that I know of. Unfortunately, it can be read only with great caution. The author begins his work by comparing Garrison to a Klansman (p. 7). A few pages later the preliminary hearing is likened to the Spanish Inquisition (p. 13). Sure enough, towards the end, Garrison's assistant DAs are equated to guards at the Nazi death camps (p. 595). Kirkwood's animus toward Garrison is matched only by his sympathy for Shaw. In the last 616 of the book's 657 pages, the accused is never called Shaw or Mr. Shaw; only "Clay" or "Clay Shaw." This bias seriously colors the depiction of the trial. In a rather voluminous book that centers on a court proceeding that took 39 days, the reader would never know that the following witnesses appeared: Wilma Bond, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Willis, Billy Joe Martin, Carolyn Walther, James Simmons, Mr. and Mrs. William Newman, and Mary Moorman. In a book that supposedly centers on the possibility of a New Orleans-related conspiracy, one searches in vain for the name of Gordon Novel. The list could go on, but perhaps Kirkwood's greatest slighting is to Assistant DA Alvin Oser. With help from Vincent Salandria, Oser conducted the Dealey Plaza portion of the trial. Kirkwood refuses to concede that the prosecution shredded the Warren Report, something the jury agreed had been done. He writes about Oser in otiose, condescending, disparaging terms. He even derides his voice. But Kirkwood fails to note that, in his cross-examination of Dr. Pierre Finck, Oser was making history. This was the first and only time one of the three Bethesda autopsy doctors was exposed to informed, aggressive, relentless questioning. In my view, it is a milestone in the depiction of the autopsy as not only hapless but sinister. This theme has been furthered in the work of Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone (High Treason) and David Lifton (Best Evidence), so much so that, today, the autopsy evidence is one of the most questionable aspects of the official story. In the following excerpts, I have chosen those that show who really controlled the autopsy and those that reveal some of the dubious practices employed. It should also be noted that Oser concentrated on the shifting location of the head wound, which, to Dr. Finck's dismay, Ramsey Clark's panel had raised four inches, and on the location of the back wound, which, Oser felt, made for a rather dubious trajectory in exiting through the throat. The transcript appears as typed, with misspellings of names intact. Berkley should be Burkley, Kinney should be Kenney. My thanks and appreciation to Helen Dietrich, with whose kind permission this material is reprinted. (The ex- cerpts are from pp. 46-49, 51-52, 54-57, 92-95, 98-118, 138-141, and 152-159 of the first day, February 24, 1969; and pp. 2-8, and 30-32 of the second day, February 25, 1969.) BY MR. OSER: Q When did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital? THE WITNESS: Dr. Pierre Finck, A Are you asking me if I contacted a Dr. Parker? Q No, I asked you when did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas. A Oh, I did not contact them, Dr. Humes did. Q And did Dr. Humes relate to you what he learned from these doctors at Parkland? A Definitely. Q Do you know when Dr. Humes contacted these doctors at Parkland? A As far as I know, Dr. Humes called them the morning following the autopsy, as far as I know, Dr. Humes called Dallas on Saturday morning, on the 23rd of November, 1963. Q Doctor, can you tell me why the delay in contacting the doctors that worked on President Kennedy in Dallas until the next morning after the body was already removed from the autopsy table? A I can't explain that. I know that Dr. Humes told me he called them. I cannot give an approximate time. I can give you the reason why he called. As I have stated before, having a wound of entry in the back of the neck, having seen no exit in the front of the neck, nothing from the radiologist who looked at the whole body X-ray films, I have requested as there was no whole bullet remaining in the cadaver of the President, that was a very strong reason for inquiring if there were not another wound in the approximate direction corresponding to that wound of entry in the back of the neck, because in the wound of the head with entry in the back of the head and exit on the right side of the head, I never had any doubt, any question that it was a through-and-through wound of the head with disinte- gration of the bullet. The difficulty was to have found an entry in the back of the neck and not to have seen an exit corresponding to that entry. Q This puzzled you at this time, is that right, Doctor? A Sorry, I don't understand you. Q This puzzled you at the time, the wound in the back and you couldn't find an exit wound? You were wondering about where this bullet was or where the path was going, were you not? A Yes. Q Well, at that particular time, Doctor, why didn't you call the doctors at Parkland or attempt to ascertain what the doctors at Parkland may have done or may have seen while the President's body was still exposed to view on the autopsy table? A I will remind you that I was not in charge of this autopsy, that I was called~ Q You were a co-author of the report though, weren't you, Doctor? A Wait. I was called as a consultant to look at these wounds; that doesn't mean I am running the show. Q Was Dr. Humes running the show? A Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that ~ he said, "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, "I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions. Q But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor? A Yes, I was. Q Was this Army General a qualified pathologist? A No. Q Was he a doctor? A No, not to my knowledge. Q Can you give me his name, Colonel? A No, I can't. I don't remember. * * * Q How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy in the autopsy room? A That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy room, and when you are called in circumstances like that to look at the wound of the President of the United States who is dead, you don't look around too much to ask people for their names and take notes on who they are and how many there are. I did not do so. The room was crowded with military and civilian personnel and federal agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I cannot give you a precise breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Q Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General that was there directing the autopsy? A No, because there were others, there were Admirals. Q There were Admirals? A Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were specifically told ~ as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kenney, the Surgeon General of the Navy ~ this is subject to verification ~ we were specifically told not to discuss the case. Q You were told not to discuss the case? A ~ to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General. * * * Q Doctor, can you tell me how many photographs were taken of the President's body? A Some of the photographs were taken in my presence in the autopsy room. I can't give you the exact number, but this information is available. Q To who, Doctor? A To you. Q It is? A It is a public document. Q Go ahead. How many? A I can't give you an exact number of photographs taken or X-rays of the body of the President. Q Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken? A Yes, I did. Q Doctor, I direct your attention to a report allegedly signed by you on 26 January, 1967. MR. DYMOND: What part are you talking about? (Conference between Counsel.) BY MR. OSER: Q (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, I direct your attention to a report, which I mark for identification "S-67," and I ask you to take a look at this document. Would you take a look at this particular one that I have marked Doctor, and let me know whether it is the same as the one you have before you. A (Comparing documents) It is. Q Your answer is that it is, Doctor? A Yes. Q And it contains your signature? Am I correct, sir? A Yes. (Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identifi- cation as "Exhibit D-67.") BY MR. OSER: Q Doctor, I direct your attention to the first page, the bottom of the last line of the fifth paragraph, which states, "Dr. Finck first saw the photographs on January 20, 1967," and I ask you if you would explain your answer to me, sir, just made, that you saw the photographs prior to writing your autopsy report in 1963. A I did not say that I had seen the photographs before writing the autopsy report of 1963. MR. OSER: May I have my original question read back to the Doctor, please, and his answer. (Whereupon, the aforegoing passage was read back by the Reporter as follows: "Q Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken? "A Yes, I did.") THE WITNESS: No, I did not, I did not see those photographs before signing my autopsy report. I may have answered "I didn't" and it was transcribed as "I did." BY MR. OSER: Q Doctor, did you hear what the stenographer just read you back? That is my question that I propounded to you. Now the question is: Did you see the photo- graphs of President Kennedy before signing your autopsy report. A That is correct. Q That is correct? A I was there when the photographs were taken, but I did not see the photographs of the wounds before I signed the autopsy report. I did not see those photographs in 1963. Q So what you said before, that you did see the photographs, that was wrong? Is that correct? A I never said that. It was misunderstood. I said "I did not" or "I didn't." I am very firm on this point that I did not see~ Q Is it, doctor that fact that I showed you the report~ THE COURT: I think you have covered the matter now. * * * Q Can you tell me how the final draft of the autopsy report which you signed along with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell came about? How was that put together? A We signed that autopsy report, as I remember, on Sunday the 24th of November, 1963, in the office of Admiral Galloway, who was one of the Admirals in charge of the Navy hospital. I had reviewed with Dr. Humes his draft of the autopsy report prior to that time, and, as I recall, the three of us, that is Humes, Boswell and myself, were present at that time in the office of Admiral Galloway on that Sunday, to the best of my recollection. Q Doctor, I show you from Volume 17, Page 30 through Page 47, and ask you if you would view the contents of those pages. A Yes, sir. This is Volume 17 of the hearings before the President's Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy. I don't recall seeing Pages 30 through 44. What Dr. Humes and I did, we were discussing the wording of the final autopsy report based on a report he had prepared through the night, I should say through Saturday, in the course of Saturday, the 23rd of November, and he worked on this, and he read over to me what he had prepared. Is Page 45 included in your question? Q Yes, sir, 45 through 47. A On Page 45 I recognize the drawing which I see now in the room, and which is labeled in this volume Commission Exhibit 397. I don't recall the timing of seeing this. I have seen this at some time. I don't recall exactly when. Q The exhibit you are talking about right now, Doctor, Exhibit 397, is this the same exhibit you are talking about reproduced here in State 68, as best you can recall, Doctor? A As best as I can tell, Page 45 of this volume is a reproduction of the exhibit shown in the courtroom as 68, except that at the bottom it doesn't say "Commis- sion Exhibition 397." I remember that these drawings had been made, and you realize now I am referring to Page 45. Q Which is the same thing as Exhibit 68, is that right? A Yes, sir, it is. You will realize the drawings are made ahead of time on work sheets to be used at the time of the autopsy, and that wounds are added to these schematic representations of the front and back of a human body. I know this was involved in the discussions, in the testimony, but I can't give you any timing. As I recall, Dr. Boswell did those and discussed them but I can't recall exactly when I saw them. Q In other words, when an autopsy descriptive list or sheet is used at an autopsy, it is either used at the time of an autopsy or shortly thereafter as a work sheet somewhere in the autopsy room, is that right, Doctor? A If State 68 is an autopsy work sheet ~ well, when it was done by Dr. Boswell I don't know. Q In referring to State Exhibit 69 and 70, Doctor, these two exhibits were not done then until sometime in March of 1964, is that correct, Doctor? A I wouldn't know the exact date. The first time as I recall that I saw these exhibits was in March 1964, to the best of my recollection. Q But you do know, Doctor, you can testify that the photographs and X-rays were not available, to the best of your knowledge, to the illustrator of these exhibits as they were not available to you in March, 1964? A To the best of my knowledge the X-rays and photographs were not available to the illustrator. I know for sure that they were not available to me, the X-rays and the photographs. * * * Q When was the first time you saw the Zapruder film, Doctor? A As I recall, it was in March 1964, when I returned from Panama and was told I had to testify before the Warren Commission. Q So at the time you signed and co-authored the autopsy report, which has been marked as S-71 for identification, you had not, as of that time, seen the Zapruder film, is that correct? A I had not. Q Doctor, are you familiar in this particular report, S-71, which you co-authored with Commanders Humes and Boswell, with all the evidence upon which the report was based? A Please repeat your question. Q Are you familiar with all of the evidence upon which this report was based? A In the general sense, yes. Q Doctor, I call your attention to Page 2, under the heading of "Clinical Sum- mary," and ask you to tell me the basis for your statement as part of your clinical summary that three shots were heard. A Where do you see that, that three shots were heard? Q The first sentence in the second paragraph of Page 2, the first four words. A This is the information we had by the time we signed that autopsy report. Q The information from whom, Doctor? A There were a lot of people who were asked, I wouldn't know their names. I couldn't list all the people by name. Q Who told you that three shots were heard? Who told you that? A As I recall, Admiral Galloway heard from somebody who was present at the scene that three shots had been heard, but I cannot give the details of this. Q I ask you, did you have an occasion to interview any of the witnesses that were present in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, you yourself, before you wrote this? A During the autopsy of President Kennedy there were Secret Service Agent Kellerman in that autopsy room. I asked him his name. Admiral Berkley, the personal physician of President Kennedy was present, and there was a third person whose name I don't recall who said to Admiral Galloway, who was there during the autopsy, that three shots had been fired. At the time we wrote this we had this information obtained from people who had been at the scene to the best of my recollection. Q Did you have any information available, Doctor, from people at the scene who heard four shots? A From the assassination on I heard conflicting reports regarding the number of shots. Q I am talking about at the time you all prepared and signed this report, Doctor, before you affixed your signature to this, did you talk to anyone or have any reports available from people who heard four shots at Dealey Plaza on November 22? A I don't remember any. Q Did you have any statements or reports available to you from people who heard two shots in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at the time you made this report? A At the time I made the report I don't recall having a report of two shots. Q Going further, Doctor, in your autopsy report, it states, "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by this same gunfire." From where did you receive this information? A I knew it at the time of the autopsy because of the news media who reported the President had been shot and the Governor of Texas had been wounded, as I recall. Q What did you mean, that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire? What did you mean when you said the same gunfire? A This is the information we had at the time of the autopsy ~ correction, at the time we signed the autopsy report, and because the information in the autopsy report may be obtained after the autopsy, and again I can't pinpoint the source of that information. Q Doctor, I now show you State Exhibit 64, and ask you if you recognize what is depicted in this particular photograph, as being similar to something you have seen before during the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy? A This black-and-white reproduction is similar to a bullet that, as best I can remember, I saw for the first time in March 1964. Q Doctor, speaking of your statement in the autopsy report that Governor Con- nally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire, is it not a fact that when testifying before the Warren Commission you stated that in your opinion it was impossible for Commission Exhibit 399 to do the same damage to President Kennedy as was done to Governor Connally because there were too many fragments in Governor Connally's wrist? Did you not so testify, sir? MR. DYMOND: I object to that question. Nobody has stated the same damage was done to Governor Connally as was done to President Kennedy, and that is what this question asks. THE COURT: I think the question was put to the Doctor, did he not make a prior contradictory statement, which is legitimate cross-examination. Let the question be read back. (Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.) THE COURT: I am permitting the question. I overrule your objection. BY MR. OSER: Q Will you answer yes or no, Doctor, then you can explain. A This is a difficult question to answer because there were two bullets striking President Kennedy. I have examined the wounds of President Kennedy and I would say that the bullet seen here is an entire bullet. Q Is what? A Is an entire bullet. By an entire bullet, I mean a bullet that did not disintegrate into many fragments. Q Let me ask you about that in this way~ THE COURT: Let him finish his answer. MR. OSER: I thought he had finished. THE COURT: Had you finished your answer? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. OSER: Q Colonel, let me ask you this way: Speaking of State Exhibit 64, the bullet, I ask you whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commission that that particular bullet could not have done the damage to Governor Connally as there were too many bullet fragments in Governor Connally's wrist. Did you or did you not answer that in front of the Warren Commission in answer to a question by Mr. Specter? It appears on Page 382 of your testimony of the Warren Report about the middle of the page. A It reads as follows: "Could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388," Mr. Specter's question. "Through President Kennedy's head~" what is 388? MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN: The one on the right. A (Continuing) "and remain intact in the way you see it now?" "Definitely not." "And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?" "No, for the reason there are too many fragments described in that wrist." MR. OSER: Thank you, Doctor, that is the point I am talking about. BY MR. OSER: Q Now, referring back to that same paragraph in the clinical summary, in the next sentence you said, "According to newspaper reports (Washington Post November 23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas 'Times Herald' photographer, said he looked around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a window on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building." Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention? A Are you referring to Page 979 of the Hearing? Q No, sir, I am back on your original autopsy report, Page 2. A I have it. Q The sentence right after you said that Governor Connally was wounded by the same gunfire. A What was that sentence? Q Right after "gunfire." A "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire." This is part of the autopsy report I signed. Q Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention, and why? A As I recall, it was Dr. Humes who mentioned this article to me. Q Colonel, do you customarily take notice of newspaper articles in an autopsy report? A At times it is done. Q Therefore, Doctor, am I correct in stating that particular autopsy report signed by you was based partially on hearsay evidence, is that correct? By that I mean evidence received by someone other than you having actual personal knowledge of the thing? A Having not been at the scene I had to get information from somebody else. Q Did you have occasion to read a newspaper article of November 22 or 23, which reported there were four to six shots fired and they came from the grassy knoll, being stated by Miss Jean Hill? Did you read that before you made your report? A I don't recall reading that before I made the report. I may have been aware at that time of conflicting reports as regards the number and the difference in the direction of the shots, but I cannot pinpoint the time. Q Since you are referring to the Washington Post~ A Would you repeat that? THE COURT: Mr. Oser, speak into the microphone, it may help a little bit. BY MR. OSER: Q Since you are dealing with the Washington Post article of November 23, 1963, in your autopsy report, I wondered if you had an occasion to either read the article or have it brought to your attention, that one Charles Brehm, one of the spectators close to the Presidential limousine, saw material which appeared to be a sizable portion of President Kennedy's skull~ MR. DYMOND: Objection, that is not in evidence. THE COURT: This is not a prior contradictory statement, Mr. Oser, is it? MR. OSER: I am asking if he took this into account when he~ THE COURT: Where are you reading from? MR. OSER: An article taken out of the Washington Post on the same day as the article by Bob Jackson. MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that has no place in this trial at all. THE COURT: Mr. Oser, I think you are enlarging the scope of the prior contradictory statement unless you can allege it was made in the report. MR. OSER: I am trying to ascertain what hearsay they used to arrive at in their report. MR. DYMOND: If you permit that you will have to permit Counsel to go through every conflicting report that was reported by every alleged eyewitness to the assassination and ask this witness whether they were taken into account. It certainly has no place in this trial and is completely irrelevant to the issues and irrelevant to the credibility and qualifications of the Doctor and irrelevant to the material on which he is testifying. THE COURT: I believe that the witness did state a few moments ago that he was not there personally and they did have to accept what Mr. Oser termed as hearsay. I believe the question being put by the District Attorney is to find out what other hearsay evidence they received. MR. OSER: That's right. THE COURT: Can't you ask a specific question instead of reading the article? MR. DYMOND: The thrust of my objection is that we have nothing before The Court to show this was even a bit of hearsay without even asking the Doctor whether he heard it. This is something that is purely out of the files of the District Attorney. MR. OSER: Your Honor, the State is attempting to ascertain from the Colonel whether or not he based his conclusions or his autopsy report on any type of hearsay other than that type of hearsay that backed up what the Warren Commission wanted it to be, or the Federal Government. Strike Warren Commission and make it Federal Government. MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, what I'm trying to impress on The Court is you have nothing before you to even show there is hearsay evidence to the effect of this statement that has been made by the District Attorney. That is completely outside the scope of the evidence in this case. We don't know any such contention was ever made by anybody. THE COURT: If the witness signed part of a three-man report and you referred to the report without using exact words, I would permit it, which you did previously. I think a general question can be asked, did they interview any other person, without saying what those persons said. BY MR. OSER: Q Colonel, besides what you referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, were you furnished with any other alleged statements by any of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza, namely the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy on Novem- ber 22? MR. DYMOND: Is this question restricted to before he signed the autopsy report? MR. OSER: I am asking about at the time he signed the report. THE COURT: It is restricted to that period. BY MR. OSER: Q Were you furnished statements by anyone else? A We based the statement on the people who had been at the scene. THE COURT: Let me interrupt you a second. You say "we," I presume you mean you and the other two doctors? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Oser's question is, did you and the other two persons personally interview these people or get it from another source? THE WITNESS: I personally talked to Secret Service Agent Kellerman. I personally talked to Admiral Berkley, the personal physician to President Kennedy. I personally talked to Admiral Galloway, who was referred to a third witness present at the scene. There may have been others leading us to the statement that to the best of our knowledge at that time there were three shots fired. BY MR. OSER: Q Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President's throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk? A I don't know. Q Do you have an opinion? A There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot. Q Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table? A I did not dissect the track in the neck. Q Why? A This leads us into the disclosure of medical records. MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court so to direct. THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor. THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck. BY MR. OSER: Q Why not, doctor? A For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the~ Q Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track? THE COURT: Let him finish his answer. THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosecutors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection. BY MR. OSER; Q You have said they did not. I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why? A I had the cause of death. Q Why did you not trace the track of the wound? A As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck. Q I didn't hear you. A I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck. Q You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't [you] do this as a pathologist? A From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs. MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. BY MR. OSER: Q I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A As I recall I was told not to but I don't remember by whom. Q You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A Right. Q Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A I don't recall. Q Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Q You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me? A I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path. Q But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony? A From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom. * * * Q In referring once again, Colonel to S-67 for identification, the five-page report signed by you in January 1967, can you tell me why this report was prepared? A Please repeat your question. Q Can you tell me why this report was prepared, the one you signed in January 1967. A The purpose of this, as I recall, was to correlate our autopsy report of November 1963, and the X-rays and photographs of the wounds, because we has seen the X-rays at the time of the autopsy but we hadn't seen the photographs in November 1963 or in March 1964, so in 1967 we were asked to look at those X-rays and photographs. Q By whom were you asked to do this? THE COURT: Are you waiting for an answer? MR. OSER: Yes. THE COURT: I thought you were referring to your notes, Doctor. MR. OSER: I asked the witness~ THE COURT: I heard your question. I was just wanting to know if you were waiting for an answer. THE WITNESS: I think I went first to the ~ I saw these photographs and X-rays to the best of my recollection at the archives of the United States in January 1967, the photographs, for the first time. THE COURT: He didn't ask you that question. He wanted to know who asked you to do this. Was that your question? MR. OSER: Yes, sir. THE WITNESS: As I recall it was Mr. Eardley. There are many names involved in this. I think it was Mr. Eardley at the Department of Justice and I had the authority to go there from the military. BY MR. OSER: Q Can you tell me whether or not you were asked to do this summary in January 1967 in regard to a panel review that was going to be done by Mr. William H. Carns, Russell S. Fisher, Mr. Russell H. Morgan and Mr. Alan R. Moritz. A In January 1967 when I signed S-67, to the best of my recollection, I was not aware of this panel review which took place in 1968, if you are referring to an independent panel review. Q I am. A It was composed of W. H. Carns, Russell H. [sic] Fisher, Russell H. Morgan and Alan R. Moritz. Q That is correct, Colonel. A I don't remember knowing in 1967 that these four names were reviewing the evidence to the best of my recollection. Q Are you familiar with their work? A I have read this. I was made aware of this panel review, I had received this panel review in February 1969. Q Colonel, can you give me the measurements of the wound in the area of the front of the President's neck that I am pointing to here on State Exhibit 69? A As I recall, it was given by the Dallas surgeons as approximately five millime- ters in diameter. Q Can you convert approximately five millimeters in diameter to a part of an inch for me, please? A Approximately three sixteenths of one inch corresponds to five millimeters. Q Referring, Colonel, to your Summary Report, State-67 for purposes of identi- fication, which you signed on 26 January, 1967, can you tell me why you did not list the size of the wound that you say is the exit wound in the throat of the President? A Because I did not, I did not see that wound in the front. I did not, I don't know why it is not there. Q You say you did not see it? A I did not see the wound of exit in the skin. I saw a hole of exit in the shirt of the President. Q But in speaking of the throat area, or skin area of the President, relative to his throat you said it was approximately five millimeters and you later said that Commander Humes received this information from Dallas. A The wound that was in the front of the neck I obtained that information from Dr. Humes. Q Therefore would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you describe it is larger than the wound in the throat area? MR. DYMOND: We object to this. First of all, the Doctor testified that these are approximate measurements on wounds in the skin. Secondly, the doctor testified that he never saw the front bullet wound and consequently an answer on that would have to be based on measurements made by someone else, told to someone else, and then included in the report. MR. OSER: All the results, if The Court please, from two autopsy reports signed by this witness stating that ~ I believe he said everything in here is true and correct when I asked him, then I asked him if he wished to change anything in here at the beginning of his testimony and he said no. I'm trying to ascertain what he told Defense Counsel on direct examination, he stated this was an exit wound and I am trying to find out whether the hole in the back is larger than the front and whether or not it is compatible with a wound from this type of bullet. MR. DYMOND: If The Court please, the Doctor testified what he based his conclusions on and further testified that he never did see the front wound in the neck and conse- quently the question is impossible of answer. THE COURT: He has testified he is familiar with the information received from Dr. Humes from the surgeons in Dallas, Texas and he knows it was in the report and that the information was communicated to him and he was aware of it. I understand that Mr. Oser's question is whether the entrance wound from the rear was larger than the exit wound, which was the information given by the surgeon in Dallas, Texas. MR. DYMOND: Your Honor has consistently ruled throughout the trial that a witness cannot relate what someone else related to him. THE COURT: Ordinarily I agree but it was advised to him and he was made cognizant of it when he signed the original report, when he signed the report he either knew that as a fact which was received it from Commander Humes who received it from Dallas. I will permit the question. You are asking Dr. Finck if from the information he had whether or not the measurements of the alleged entrance wound as you wish to call it, alleged, is not larger than the information received from Dallas of the entrance wound in the front. I will permit you to ask it. MR. DYMOND: To which Counsel respectfully objects and reserves a Bill of Exception on the grounds this is hearsay evidence making the entire line of questioning, particu- larly this question, the answer to the question, the objection and ruling of the Court and the entire record parts of the bill. MR. OSER: Could I have the witness answer my question. Will you answer the question. THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question. THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area?" MR. DYMOND: Your Honor, that is not the question you stated you were ruling on. You said you were ruling on the question whether it was larger than the information indicated. MR. OSER: I will ask that question. THE WITNESS: Whether or not it was larger? BY MR. OSER: Q Than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas. MR. DYMOND: Object now on the ground that he didn't receive the information from the Doctor. THE COURT: I just ruled that he signed his name to the report and under that exception I will permit the question. Do you understand the question? MR. OSER: Let me ask you again, Doctor~ THE COURT: No, because then I will have to be ruling on different things if you change the question each time. MR. OSER: Then I'll ask that the Court Reporter read the question I asked. THE REPORTER: Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area" ~ then he added the second part of the question, Your Honor, which says, "than the infor- mation you received from the doctors in Dallas?" THE WITNESS: I don't know 'cause I measured the wound of entry whereas I had no way of measuring the wound of exit and the wound could have been slightly smaller, the same size, or slightly larger because all I have is somebody saying it was approximately 5 millimeters in diameter. * * * Q Colonel, I direct your attention to Page 4 of your autopsy report of November 1963, and to the fourth paragraph which states, "The complexity of these frac- tures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared." Now, Colonel, can you tell me and tell the Court how you refer in your autopsy report that the fractures and the fragments are better appreciated in the photographs when you did not see the photographs until January 1967? MR. DYMOND: We object to this unless Counsel says better than what. This report indicates a photograph would show them better than they could be described in words. THE COURT: You are coming to the aid of a witness unsolicited. MR. DYMOND: You cannot compare something to nothing, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: Yes. When there are so many fractures in so many directions producing so many lines and fragments in the bone, a photograph will be more accurate than descrip- tions. The photographs were taken but turned over undeveloped to the Secret Service at the time we performed the autopsy, and the photographs were taken, we did not know when these photographs would be processed, this was beyond our control because they had been turned over, exposed, taken in our presence, but the Secret Service took charge of them. BY MR. OSER: Q And you didn't see the photographs until January of 1967. Is that correct, Colonel? A That is correct. Q Also in your autopsy report on the same page, Page 4, I direct your attention to the last paragraph, the last paragraph under "2," where you said in your report, "The second wound presumably of entry," and now you state in Court that you are positive it was of entry. A As I recall, it was Admiral Galloway who told us to put that word "presumably." Q Admiral Galloway? A Yes. Q Told you to put that word "presumably"? A Yes, but this does not change my opinion that this is a wound of entry. Q Is Admiral Galloway a Pathologist, to your knowledge? A Admiral Galloway had some training in Pathology. He was the Commanding Officer of the Naval Hospital, as I recall, and at that time, in my mind, this was a wound of entry, it just was suggested to add "presumably" this was. Q Did he suggest you add anything else to your report, Colonel? A Not that I recall. Q Can you give me the name of the General that you said told Dr. Humes not to talk about the autopsy report? A This was not a General, it was an Admiral. Q All right, excuse me, the Admiral, can you give me the name of the Admiral? A Who stated that we were not to discuss the autopsy findings? Q Yes. A This was in the autopsy room on the 22nd and 23rd of November, 1963. Q What was his name? A Well, there were several people in charge, there were several Admirals, and, as I recall, the Adjutant General of the Navy. Q Do you have a name, Colonel? A It was Admiral Kinney, K-i-n-n-e-y, as I recall. Q Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of the autopsy, as you testified about? A Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before. I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision. Q Which includes your report. Does it not? A Sir? Q Which includes your report. Does it not? A No. Q It does not? A I would not say so, because the report I signed was signed by two other pathologists and at no time did this Army General say that he would have anything to do with signing this autopsy report. Q Can you give me the Army General's name? A I don't remember it. Q How did you know he was an Army General? A Because Dr. Humes said so. Q Was he in uniform? A I don't remember. Q Were any of the Admirals or Generals or any of the Military in uniform in that autopsy room? A Yes. Q Were there any other Generals in uniform? A I remember a Brigadier General of the Air Force, but I don't remember his name. Q Were there any Admirals in uniform in the autopsy room? A From what I remember, Admiral Galloway was in uniform, Admiral Kinney was in uniform, I don' t remember whether or not Admiral Berkley, the President's physician, was in uniform. * * * Q Do you know whether or not all of the X-ray films came out or not, to your knowledge? A To my knowledge, they came out all right. Q Now, if, Colonel, you viewed the X-ray film of the head or had been viewed by a radiologist, can you tell me why there was no mention in your report of a three-quarter by one-half inch rectangular shaped object in the President's brain? A No. Q Can you tell me why there is nothing in your report making mention of metallic substances in the track? A Before you go to that second question, if I may say something, in that panel review of 1968 there was a rectangular structure and they say it is not identifiable to this panel. Q If it was there, Colonel, in the X-rays, would you say it was there in the brain at the time of the autopsy? MR. DYMOND: What page are you referring to, Doctor, what page are you referring to? MR. OSER: The panel of 1968, the pages are not numbered. THE WITNESS: That is "S-72." MR. OSER: Page 8, Mr. Dymond. THE WITNESS: "There can be seen a gray-brown rectangular structure measuring approximately 13 by 20 millimeters, its identity cannot be established by the panel." I don't know what this refers to. BY MR. OSER: Q Did you see such at the time of your autopsy, did you see such a substance in the brain of the President? A I don't remember.

Of course if Len Colby had read the book(s) he would know that the CIA ordered the removal of the word "Hawkeye Works" from the published notes and report that Horne filed, but it is still in the audio taped interview with McMahon, one of the few interviews the ARRB "allowed" Horne to record. Horne, as a 20 year Navy veteran and a miliary records analysist who was investigated, certified and approved to read classified material, dutifully excised the word the CIA wanted to keep classified, and has maintained his status, - if he was in the Mafia, as "a Stand Up Guy." As for the recorded interview with McMahon, they wouldn't let him record most interviews or even let him talk to some of the lab technicians who were then still alive but are now dead. And do indeed consider the intellectual honesty of the writer, and compare that to what we know about Craig Lamson's intellectual honesty, as well as Colby, for writing all that junk without bothering to read the book they are trying to tear apart. And also consider the intellectual honesty of those who claim Doug Horne is a pot head, is writing a book on UFOs and failed to conduct himself himself as a responsible, professional Senior Analysist of Military Records. The best part of Horne's book is that he answers almost every objection that has been raised thus far. Read the book, and then come back and try to argue. And for those who don't want to follow the lead to "Hawkeye Works," at the Kodak plant in Rochester, New York, then just be happy knowing that there is no such place. Bill Kelly bill posted with david's permission.. From: Subject: LIFTON 1999 To: Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 3:48 AM Subject: Re: Lifton embarasses himself (again) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 08:21:19 GMT From: dlifton@earthlink.net <http://ca.mc881.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dlifton@earthlink.net> Organization: Deja..com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk TO ALL: Clint Bradford was disinvited from a gathering of Southern California researchers last year because of the same behavior he repeatedly shows in his posts. As I have said before---and will say here again---there is a very top secret lab connected with Kodak up in Rochester; the Zapruder film went there (according to CIA officials interviewed by Doug Horne at the ARRB); and when the CIA found out that the existence of this lab was revealed in the ARRB interviews, they insisted that the ARRB redact the tape, so as to eliminate this information. When Doug Horne requested that there be followup at Rochester to find out whether the Z film went to the lab in question (which I have called "Eagle Eye" so as not to be in technical violation of any security law), it was made clear to Horne that his job was on the line. BRADford repeatedly lies in his posts by mistating the facts about all this. So, in this area at least, both is website and his posts are nothing but a source of disinformation for the gullible. This is exactly whsy he was disinvited from the group meeting---re the Zapruder film---at Noel Twyman's home last year. I seriously doubt that Bradford is anything more than a lone nutter in drag. But in event, when it comes to the Zapruder film, he's just a plain xxxx. I'm not saying anyone should believe the Zapruder film went to a top secret facility because I say so. I'm saying they should believe it to a high probability because the CIA officials involved said so. Bradford's attempt to obfuscate this situation is pretty pathetic. David Lifton Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. b

mike, paul, bill part of the parkland press conference dr.shaw re governor connally cameras microphones.etc.....b www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY

Prof Fetzer, Could I remind you about the requirement of this Forum not to question others abilities with respect to research. iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297 If you dispute data or conclusions, then by all means dispute such... but please do it in a fashion that remains within our rules. Thank you. The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules. Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here. GEE MIKE DO YOU THINK EVAN IF... MIGHT EVEN ATTEMPT TO REMIND ANOTHER WHOM REGULARLY CALLS OTHERS STUPID AND INSULTS THEM ON THE JFK THREADS IMO IT DOES APPEAR THAT NONE OF THE OTHERS SEEM TO MAKE AN EFFORT OR REALLY CARE ABOUT THE RULES BEING FOLLOWED NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE SPECIFICALLY BUT IT APPEARS SO TO MYSELF AND OTHERS WHOM HAVE MENTIONED SUCH....BUT HE CONTINUALLY INSULTS MANY ON A DAILY BASIS AND THEIR RESEARCH REGULARLY..HE HAS NOT BEEN SO FAR T ENDED TO AND YET CONTINUES TO CARRY ON.....HE REMINDS ME OF A TERMITE...I KNOW ANYONE CANMAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE ADM BY EMAIL...TO ME THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE WAY EITHER POST IT IN AN OPEN THREAD AND SPEAK UP OR SHUT UP...THANKS FOR YOUR POST..AND BRINGING THE SUBJECT UP FOR DISCUSSION..TAKE CARE....;B

Doug Horne's new 5 Volume Book Now Ready for Shipping............ http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/ go to archived shows, see 2009 for dougs show on thursday..b doug horne on black op...http://www.blackopradio.com/ http://www.blackopradio.com/ b...

Weird, GM, but I could have sworn 1) there were cameras (and film - with sound) when Kilduff spoke in exactly the same room a short time before; and 2) that CBS claimed, in 1967, to have film of Perry/Clark conference, only minus the sound (how very convenient). In order for your version to be true, we must persuade ourselves that the cameras present for Kilduff were removed by the time of Perry and Clark; and that CBS was hallucinating. Now, I can just about buy the latter, but the former...nargh, like a cheap soap, it just doesn't wash. Nice try, though.

BILL See also..Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover Up & Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film"..The The Third Decade no.1 ( November 84).9. Melanson makes a strong circumstantial case the NPIC received a copy of the Zapruder Film the day after the assassination"... Also see CIA document 1641-450 for NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film..of JFK's assassination These results were pried loose from the CIA by a FOIA request in 82 by Harold Weisberg ..or see Wiesberg's "Photographic Whitewash --Suppressed Kennedy Assassination Pictures"...1967..available at Hood College..pages: 302-303.) There is a record, NPIC's photo analysis of the Zapruder film, see E.H.Knoche, assistant councel to the CIA Director, to Robert Olsen 5/14/75....CIA document No.1641-450, released May 18/1982...Copy can be found in the Harold Weisberg Archive, Hood College, Maryland. p.374 B

---thanks to jim Ostrowski and geraldven fyi...from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters". THE WARREN COMMISSION QUESTIONING TACTICS THAT MADE ARLEN SPECTER SENATOR FOR LIFE An example of Arlen Specter "leading the witness" during his interview of the Parkland doctors is taken from James W. Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters: When the government took charge with its official story of a lone assassin firing from the rear. the doctors were pressured by the Warren Commission to change their initial observations of Kennedy's body. The Warren Commission's staff counsel, Arlen Specter, a future U.S. senator,confronted the Dallas doctors with a question that contained the answer the Commission was seeking: "Assuming... that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have just given to you"(note 551, Chapter 6) As Charles Crenshaw (who was not asked to testify) pointed out later, Specter had asked the doctors, "If the bullet exited from the front of Kennedy's throat, could the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat have been an exit wound" (note 552, Chapter 6) The doctors went along with Specter's show of logic: Yes, assuming the bullet exited from the the front of Kennedy's throat, that wound could indeed have been an exit wound. Pressed further by Warren Commission member Gerald Ford, who would later become president, Dr. Malcolm Perry repudiated as "inaccurate" the press reports of his clear description of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound.(note 553) That was not enough for Allen Dulles, who wanted the Warren Commission to draw extensively on the doctors' denial of their earliest press statements as a way to counteract the "false rumors" of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound. The Commission, Dulles felt, needed "to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth (note 554) Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony." Moore said that in threatening Perry he acted "on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters." (note 555, Chapter 6) Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck" (note 556) Moore admitted, "I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry." (note 557) However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching order from Washington." He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off." (note 558) In the cover-up the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated. With the power of the government marshaled against what the Parkland doctors had seen, they entered into what Charles Crenshaw called "a conspiracy of silence." (note 559) When Crenshaw finally broke his own silence in 1992, he wrote: "I believe there was a common denominator in our silence-- a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble. Although we never admitted it to one another, we realized that the inertia of the established story was so powerful. so thoroughly presented, so adamantly accepted, that it would bury anyone who stood in its path... I was as afraid of the men in suits as I was of the men who had assassinated the President... I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (note 560, Chapter 6) The above is taken from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters". Excerpted by Gerald Ven, JFK Lancer, bold type emphasis added, Jim Ostrowski b..

ss elmer more badgered malcolm Perry into changing his informtion on the neck wound,,, HISTORIC NEW INFORMATION ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION Michael T. Griffith, 1999 Missing Autopsy Photos, the Large Head Wound, and Other Issues What follows is a brief summary of some of the historic new evidence contained in recently released autopsy witness interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1976-1979 and in interviews of key witnesses conducted over the last three years by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). What do the abovementioned documents reveal? As we'll see in a moment, they contain, among other things, evidence that a bullet struck Kennedy in the right temple, that there was a large wound in the back of the skull (which of course indicates the bullet came from the front and exited the rear of the head), that several important autopsy photos are missing, that there was **not** a straight path from the Oswald window to the back wound to the throat wound (because the back wound was lower than the throat wound and because Kennedy was not leaning off the seat when the back missile struck), that even Secret Service agents believed there had been a conspiracy, and that autopsy photos were altered (obviously in order to give a false impression of the direction of the gunfire that struck the president). Here are some of the important new disclosures: * John Stringer reported that the THROAT WOUND was probed. This is key because it proves the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified that they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry. * White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went DOWNWARD from the throat wound, that is, the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory. * Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) UPWARD to the area of the right orbit. This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not. * Saundra Kay Spencer, whom I have mentioned in previous messages, according to chain of evidence documentation processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and, as I've noted in a previous message, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the extant autopsy photos. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were TWO sets of autopsy photos. * Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull. * O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed what appeared to be an ENTRY WOUND IN THE RIGHT TEMPLE. This is key because there were several reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist). * Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he told the HSCA on this point, namely, that he saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple"). * O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos, one genuine and the other altered. * Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy. * Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital. * Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into THREE wounds. The WC said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than one gunman. * Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled AT LEAST two probes inserted into wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which THREE probes were inserted into wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period. * Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his comment. * Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere. * The Secret Service (SS) agent in charge of the Miami SS office told the HSCA he believed some elements of the SS might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination. * SS Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound was an entrance wound. * Robert Bouck, who was the chief of the Protective Research Division of the SS in 1963, told the HSCA he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. * Special Agent Fox made black and white autopsy photo prints at the SS lab. * Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence. * Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an "orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged period of time, but he also HANDLED it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson "confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear. * Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e., that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda. * X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer is almost certainly correct. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed? The missile fragments described by Custer are another fatal blow to the lone-gunman theory, which in turn means there must have been more than one shooter. * Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays. * Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them. Interested readers can read this information in the released documents themselves, which are available from the National Archives. Or, they can read an excellent summary of those documents in the appendix to the new edition of Harrison Livingstone's best-selling book HIGH TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK AND THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY. Livingstone quotes heavily from the newly released documents, and provides reproductions of some of them in his appendices. Some of the sources for the information above include the following:: - HSCA deposition of Robert Knudsen, August 11, 1978 - ARRB deposition of Gloria Knudsen. October 8, 1996 - ARRB deposition of Robert Karnei, May 21, 1996 - ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996 - ARRB deposition of John Van Hoesen, September 26, 1996 - ARRB deposition of Earl McDonald, May 14, 1996 - ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer, October 28, 1997 Francis O'Neill We read in the recently released ARRB medical evidence interviews that former FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB that the large head wound was "a massive wound" that was located in the back of the head (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 69-70). He told ARRB staffer Jeremy Gunn, O'Neill: . . . you could not miss this wound here in the head. Gunn: Again, you're pointing to the back of your head? O'Neill: Yes. It was--it was a massive wound. (Deposition, pp. 69-70). Agent O'Neill, it should be remembered, got a close-up, prolonged look at the president's wounds during the autopsy. We now have further evidence that President Kennedy's back wound was well below the neck, much lower than where Dr. Humes placed it for the Warren Commission. The low location for the back wound refutes the single-bullet theory, among other things. The recently released ARRB autopsy witness interviews contain numerous important disclosures and confirmations. Let us turn our attention to Francis O'Neill's comments on the back wound and on Dr. Boswell's relocation of the back wound. O'Neill, of course, got a close-up, prolonged look at the body during the autopsy. O'Neill was asked about his 1-10-78 HSCA wound diagram, in which he placed the wound well below the base of the neck (the diagram can be seen on page 349 of Livingstone's KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY). He replied that he stood by the diagram, that the location he marked was accurate to the best of his recollection (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 104-107). Indeed, O'Neill said the wound was absolutely no higher than where he marked it on his diagram! Here is a part of his exchange with ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn--O'Neill's HSCA diagram is referred to as Exhibit 86: Gunn: If you were to make marks today or attempt to indicate where your understanding is of the wounds to the body, would you make them substantially different from the ones that appear on Exhibit 86? O'Neill: No, no. My recollection would be just as good then. In fact--well, just as good then as it is now. To the best of my recollection, these are [correct]--once again--approximate. Gunn: Sure, understood. O'Neill: CERTAINLY, NOTHING UP HIGHER--LIKE THAT, NO. Gunn: And you're referring to the shoulder wound [when you say nothing up higher]--? O'Neill: Yes. Gunn: -- when you say "nothing up higher"? O'Neill: IF ANYTHING, [the wound was] LOWER. BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING HIGHER THAN THAT. (Deposition, pp. 107-108, emphasis added) O'Neill was then asked why he had told the HSCA that he disagreed with Dr. Boswell's depiction of the back wound for the HSCA (in that depiction, Dr. Boswell located the wound markedly higher than he had on the original autopsy face sheet). Here's part of the Gunn-O'Neill exchange on this issue: Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]? O'Neill: Because I had heard--I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111). So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O'Neill "disagreed with that thoroughly." O'Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O'Neill said in reply, ". . . naturally, I would disagree with that," adding the following: O'Neill: But I can't understand why he [boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added) So, we now have another very solid, emphatic witness that the back wound was where Boswell ORIGINALLY marked it on the autopsy face sheet. And, as most of us know, this low location, which rules out the single-bullet theory, is supported by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, by the 1/27/64 WC transcript, by Special Agent (SA) Clint Hill's description of the wound, by SA Glen Bennett's description of the wound, by SA Roy Kellerman's 8-24-77 HSCA wound diagram, by SA James Sibert's 8-25-77 HSCA wound diagram, and by the accounts of medical assistants at the autopsy. James Sibert The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet. * Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT)because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162). * Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound BELOW the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162). * Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119). * Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw **and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.) * Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162). * Sibert said there were a lot of high-ranking military officers at the autopsy, that the autopsy room was crowded, and that it was fairly noisy (Deposition, pp. 76-77, 152). * Sibert said there was no visible damage on the head forward of the right ear (Deposition, pp. 67-68). * Sibert said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (Deposition, pp. 65-72). He said his 8-25-77 wound diagram for the HSCA made the wound somewhat too small and that the wound was "a little" to the right of where he placed it in that diagram (Deposition, pp. 70-71). In the diagram he placed the wound squarely in the middle of the back of the head (see Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY, p. 344). Sibert said it was a little larger than that and a little more to the right of the midline (Deposition, p. 71). * Sibert said the alleged autopsy photo of the back of the head (which shows the back of the head intact) did not "at all" match his recollection of the wound, and he speculated that for this photo scalp had been pulled over the large defect (Deposition, pp. 126-128). * Sibert said he did not remember seeing the metal stirrup that is seen to support Kennedy's head in some of the autopsy photos (Deposition, p. 122). * With regard to Humes's statement at the start of the autopsy that it was apparent there had been surgery to the head, Sibert said that was exactly what Humes said, and that at no point during the autopsy did Humes retract or qualify that statement (Deposition, pp. 95-96). Edward Reed Former Bethesda Naval Hospital x-ray technician Edward Reed told the ARRB that Kennedy's body arrived in a "typical military, aluminum casket" (Deposition of Edward F. Reed to the ARRB, October 21, 1997, pp. 25-26). When counsel asked Reed if he would describe the casket as a ceremonial casket, Reed replied, "No." Asked what kinds of handles the casket had, Reed said, "Just the normal stainless steel handles." (Some have suggested that two caskets were employed in a sort of shell game at Bethesda. Noel Twyman's examines this possibility in his 1997 book BLOODY TREASON.) John Stringer We can add John Stringer, who was a photographer at the autopsy, to the list of witnesses who saw an entrance wound right next to the external occipital protuberance (EOP), near the hairline. We read in the recently released ARRB medical interviews that Stringer told the ARRB (1) that the rear head entrance wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was, i.e., near the hairline, next to the EOP, and (2) that the supposed image of a higher entry wound on the skull was NOT the entrance wound he saw on the night of the autopsy (indeed, Stringer denied this image is that of a bullet wound) (Deposition of John T. Stringer to the ARRB, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196). For any newcomers, this is very important because this is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound could not have been caused by a bullet from the so-called "Oswald sniper's window." In other words, Oswald could not have fired the missile that struck the back of President Kennedy's head. Another point of interest is that Stringer acknowledged to the ARRB that the extant set of autopsy photos is INCOMPLETE (Deposition, pp. 215-216). Surely WC apologists will finally drop their arguments for the completeness of the existing set of autopsy photos. What It All Means Some 30 years later, we are finally getting a glimpse into a key phase of the assassination conspiracy, namely, the cover-up. We are also, finally, getting a pretty clear picture of the true nature of the president's wounds. The new disclosures confirm previous evidence of shots from the front. One wonders what Warren Commission defenders will say to these disclosures. "Human error"? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said Knudsen showed him photos that showed a large wound in the back of the head? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that dozens of other witnesses said they saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a photo that showed an apparent entrance wound in JFK's right temple? Is it just a coincidence, therefore, that initial reports from Parkland Hospital said there was an entrance wound in the right temple? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he said he clearly recalled taking photos showing missile fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he recalled seeing a large fragment from the back? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that there are several other reports of a large fragment or bullet falling from the back or from the body wrappings at some point after the body arrived to the hospital? Was Von Hoesen dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was he part of the alleged mass hallucination in which trained medical personnel looked at a wound that was "really" above the right ear but "mistakenly" thought they saw it in the back of the skull? Was Knudsen dreaming or mistaken when he told his wife there were autopsy photos missing and that another photo had been altered? And on and on we could go. At some point, reason and candor must prevail. The "human error" explanation, if it can even be called such, has long since ceased to be credible. There is now powerful, compelling evidence that there was a large wound at the back of the skull, which means the autopsy photos that show the back of the head undamaged are fakes--either the wound was covered with scalp for the purpose of these photos or the photos were simply doctored after the fact. Furthermore, we now have additional evidence that a bullet struck the president in the right temple, just as the initial reports from Parkland Hospital said was the case. It's now clearer than ever that a bare minimum of one shot was fired from the front, and hence that there was a conspiracy. Back to Michael T. Griffith

Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices. Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go. If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there. The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law. And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters. BK I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters. thNKS...b.. Hi B., They won't call a Congressional Oversight Hearing if Professor Fetzer asks them while promoting his ten year old book, but if the former head of Military Records for the ARRB says there is positive proof of two brains, and there's investigative leads worth pursing that indicate the Z-film was processed in any way at a secret CIA lab, then its possible they may investigate why there are records of two brains and two Z-films. A major breakthrough. I can't regurgitate the debates, and Fetzer already had his press conference in DC, and if he is the one who makes the case for proper oversight of these issues then we don't have a case. And they are RECORDS issues, not Medical or scientific. But Thompson's opinion on the chain of custody is important because he is part of the chain of custody when he worked at LIFE, and is the most significant spokesman for the Z film as valid evidence in the case. I know Rich Delarosa has seen the other film, and that his forum has done work on this topic, but apart from the study of the annomalies, if there has been any new work done at all in the ten years about chain of custody or the Rochester plant I'd like to see it. I'm especially interested in the names of anyone who worked at the Rochester plant who worked on the Z-film, besides what was done for HSCA and ARRB. Thanks, BK BILL I WILL HAVE TO DIG IN THE FILES AND SEE WHAT I HAVE SAVED AND IF PERMSSION TO REPOST IT..WOULD BE GRANTED BY SOME....BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD LIFTON POSTED AND COMMENTED ON INFORMATION RE ROCHESTER BACK AT LEAST IF NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO RE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROCHESTER FILMS ALSO FROM Moe Weitzman BY EMAIL TO RICH IF MEMORY SERVES ME BACK ABOUT 93 OR 4ISH THEY WERE ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM HE COMPLETED FOR TIME LIFE AND THE NIX FOR UPI IF MEMORY SERVES ME,,,I BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE TO DIG THE INFO OUT GOING BY MEMORY HERE...BEAR WITH ME...NONE OF THIS HAD OR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANOTHER VIEWED ZAPRUDER FILM BY THE 9 OR SO WHOM HAVE ATTESTED TO VIEWING SUCH...AND ALSO IN DAVID HEALEY'S STUDIES AND IN DR.GERRY MCKNIGHTS BOOK...RELEASED A FEW YEARS BACK, ALSO THE DOCUMENTS RE ALL THAT WERE AND I THINK ARE STILL POSTED ON THE WEB ABOUT ROCHESTER BY DR.FETZER..THE INFORMATION WHICH BECAME AVAILABLE FROM HORNE THROUGH THE HSCA I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN OUT THERE ON THE WEB FOR SOME YEARS AND NOTHING MOVED THIS APPARENTLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO OPEN ANY NEW HEARINGS NEITHER WAS THE TWO BRAIN STUDIES INFO DONE BY DR.LIVINGSTON I BELIEVE NOR DR.WECHTS INFORMATION RELEASED WITHIN HIS BOOK..NOR HIS BEING IN ATTENDANCE AT THE COMMISSION...BUT LET'S HOPE NOW WITH ALL THAT DOUG HAS MADE AVAILABLE.AND HIS CONTACTS IT SHALL BE WITH HIS INPUT.....NO ONEI BELIEVE WANTS TO REGURGITATE ANY DEBATES LORDY THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ENOUGH OF THOSE THAT GO NO WHERE..WITH NOTHING MUCH EITHER IN THE WAY OF NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT OR SETTLING ANYTHING..OPINIOND REMAIN THE SAME NONE WANT TO STAND IN THE OTHERS SHOES IS VERY OBVIOUS...AND THEIR WORD AS GIVEN AND OR WITNESSES IS NOT TAKEN AS A GIVEN...ALL IS DOUBTED NOW IT APPEARS...AND I DOUBT REARLY EITHER WANT TO GO AROUND THAT THORNY BUSH AGAIN...AND SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES...ONLY THEN TO BE CRITICIZED FOR THEIR BELIEFS... THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF NAMES MENTIONED IN MCKNIGHTS BOOK IN FACT I BELIEVE SO.THOUGH THEY MAY BE THE SAME AS FOR THE HSCA OR ARRB I AM NOT SURE RIGHT NOW.....I KNOW I DO HAVE THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE POSTED ON THE WEB SOME YEARS AGO BY DR.JIM THAT MAY STILL BE UP..BUT IF NOT I CAN POST THOSE EASILY IF YOU HAVE NOT COME ACROSS THEM...THAT IS ALL I CAN TINK OF RIGHT NOW FWIW...THANKS B... HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT DR.JIM HAD POSTED SOME TIME AGO..IN 1998 FOR THOSE INTERESTED....B Important documents posted at request of Fetzer Posted by jack white®(jack white), Nov 27,1998,17:38 Post Reply Forum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: EXCERPTS FROM ARRB DOCUMENT D-133 Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0600 (CST) From: james fetzer The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. You may obtain the complete doc- ument from JFK Lancer Productions by calling Tom Jones, (972) 264-2007. ________________________________________________________________________ Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97 Date: 07/14/97 Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon . . . Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos- es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi- cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak), and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment. After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate) was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x 20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro- cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently, three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat- ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work. . . . Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97 Date: 08/14/97 Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15, 1997) . . . I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall- ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec- ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night). . . . Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester, and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal- ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ- ently recall. . . . Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97 Date: 06/17/97 Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997) . . . -The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun- ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc- ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ- ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or any guidance as to where to look in the film. . . . Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97 Date: 07/14/97 Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon . . . Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur- rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul- timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were 3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said "you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings. . . . END

Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices. Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go. If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there. The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law. And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters. BK I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters. thNKS...b..

Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film... BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION... THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...

ROBIN ?? B

THANKS RAYMOND....GOOD SHOW...

THANKS ANTHONY FOR TAKING THE TIME AND POSTING THIS INFORMATION FOR THE MEMBERSHIP..APPRECIATED;...B

IS THIS IT...ROBIN... B..

Robin, it's a great image. I have exactly this one on my disk already. The same name: 10748.jpg. The date i've downloaded it was august 13, 2009. Don't ask me where i have it from. I forgot it. Is your Geocities portfolio erased recently? Did i have maybe more you are missing? Martin Hi Martin My original was a High Quality Version of this image. Note in the image above, that it doesn't show the cars and people who can be seen in the Corbis Crop in the top right hand corner Martin my Geocities site was erased about a year ago. Thanks to Duncan i now have a new site. robin..is this possibly it...?? b..no it is not i will look further robin for the difference in colour...

If Doug Horne's book doesn't open that door, it will never open. Which reminds me of the nasty attacks that were leveled against Jim Fetzer and Jack White and the other contributors to MIDP and Assassination Science, when the book came out, and how those broadsides should now be expected to be leveled against Doug Horne and IARRB. The Amazon reviewer already attached a UFO to Horne, and it's been asked by a forum member if he smokes pot, so I guess that's just the beginning of the desecration of Doug Horne. BK SORRY TO SAY BILL BUT EXACTLY IT DOES MAKE ONE PAUSE THOUGH THAT THE NEOCONS AS SOME CALL THEM AND OF COURSE THE LNRS APPEAR TO ATTACK SUCH STUDIES WITH SUCH VIGOR..SIMPLE ANSWER IS THEY ARE VERY AFRAID OF WHAT IS WITHIN..IF NOT THEY SIMPLY WOULD NOT BOTHER..AND IGNORE ...IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN AND IT WILL CONTINUE FOR SOME TIME I HOPE DOUG BATTENS DOWN THE HATCHES..AND HAS A THICK SKIN PREPARED I WISH HIM ALL THE BEST WITH HIS COLLECTION AND A HUGE THANKYOU..FOR SUCH A GREAT EFFORT...B CARRY ON...BILL...

three more of doug's books are available now at amazon for any interested...jack on what you say how very true...such as Armstrong Weisberg, JONES, .. Maegher for now.. from the mary ferrell site b Thirteen years in the making, Douglas Horne's five-volume magnum opus is soon to be published, and will be available for sale here at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. Doug Horne served as Chief Analyst for Military Records on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board during the 1990s; the ARRB was responsible for the declassification of a great many of the files on this website. Horne played a major role in the Review Board's work on the medical evidence in the JFK assassination, preparing questions for depositions and helping elicit some stunning testimony from medical witnesses and writing several important internal research memos on the issues raised. much more re doug horne's information and from where and whom...links...www.maryferrell.org/

"Howard Hunt's video confession finally available online" Thu Oct-23-08 04:24 PM http://www.infowars.com/?p=5488 From the Youtube video: "In this segment from Alex Jones' widely anticipated upcoming documentary on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we present never before seen footage of the now deceased former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt, a participant in the conspiracy to kill JFK, explain how the plot was hatched and who controlled it." B...