Ray Mitcham

Sandra Spence to ARRB

On November 23, 1963, she received three or four duplex film holders (six or eight shots) of color negatives from a federal agent named Fox, which she understood to be autopsy photographs. She developed the negatives, made prints and gave all materials back to Fox.

The president's body was "very clean" unlike other autopsy photographs she had seen.

There was a circular wound at the base of the front of the president's neck, about the size of a person's thumb.

There was a wound in the back of the president's head, at about the center, 3 or 4 inches above the hairline. It was about 2 to 2.5 inches wide, which she described as a "blown out chunk."

She saw no damage to the side of the president's head.

She could not tell whether or not there was damage to the top of the head because the negatives she processed did not show it.

Q. Are you able to - let’s start with a conjecture as to whether the photographs that you developed and the photographs that you observed today, could have been taken at different times/

A I would definitely say they were taken at different times.

Q. Is there any question in your mind whether the photographs that you saw today were photographs of President Kennedy?

1. There is no doubt they are pictures of President Kennedy.

Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that the photographs that you saw in November 1963 also were of President Kennedy

1. No, that was President Kennedy, but between those photographs and the ones we did, there had to be some massive cosmetic things done. to the President;s body.

And DVP believes the HSCA.

​Now who would you rather believe the Parkland witnesses who all saw a hole at the rear of the President's head or the HCSA autopsy doctors who only looked at photos (from whatever source.)

Not so.

Shaw was found not guilty of conspiring with Ferris and Oswald. As neither of Ferrie or Oswald were tried, then neither of them could be found guilty or not guilty. Therefore Oswald was not found "Not guilty"

Logic, Mr Carroll.

If Oswald was not charged, how could he be found not guilty?

The face sheet shows where the bullet wound was (drawn in) but the written detail was added later.

The drawn spot matches the holes in the jacket and the shirt. It also ties in with Burkley's written statement that the wound was at the third thoracic Vertabrae.

The only persons who said the wound was in the neck were the "under orders"" autopsy surgeons.

Believe them if you want.

Why was JFK's body unlawfully spirited away by the Secret Service under threat of armed force?

Why was the autopsy performed by the military?

Why do the autopsy photographs differ markedly from recollections of the Parkland Doctors?

But of course I 'm just another "Garrison sucker". (And proud of it).

Dawn

Garrison formally accused Lee Oswald of plotting the murder of JFK,

and the jury of 12 New Orleans citizens took less than an hour

to find that Lee was innocent of Garrison's silly charge.

If you want to be a sucker, Dawn, go ahead and be my guest.

I have never seen you post a useful comment in the history of the Education Forum

Did I miss Oswald's trial?

I started looking at the pipes about 2005: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=17adbdbc86f57360fd7c9740d7818da5&showtopic=5308&hl=pipes#entry43841 and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF.

It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest".

Two stints here at the EF?? What, are you here on assignment or something?

It means he's been a member here on two different occasions.

Definition of stint

1. A length of time spent in a particular way, especially doing a job or fulfilling a duty: a two-year stint in the military.

Not that I give David's theory much credit, but I will grant that his take makes more sense than that of most single-assassin theorists.

While some LNs mention Oswald's dry-firing the rifle in New Orleans, and possibly taking the rifle to a shooting range, the fact is the FBI was unable to find even one time in the months leading up to the assassination that Oswald fired his rifle on an actual target, let alone a moving target. Thus, there's no evidence Oswald ever sighted the rifle in.

So it's not all that far-fetched to propose he tried the scope on the first shot, and then used the iron sights.

Okay, so, how did he know the scope was not accurate?

Exactly my point in post 145, Bob.

I hated receiving all those memes on Facebook about both Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing (and now, unfortunately, a few about Charleston) with photos of people who vaguely (VERY VAGUELY) look like the victims, wherein the person sending them claims they are still living. Disgusting. Hello, people- sometimes a duck is a duck--mass murders, lone nuts, and non-conspiracies do happen. Not everything is a false flag fake conspiracy.

The book that totally debunks the 9/11 truther crap- it will make you cry if you believe that junk:

http://www.amazon.com/Eleventh-Day-Full-Story-11/dp/0812978099/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Oh, please, Vince - Why do you see 1963 but deny 2001? And on the strength of this book?

As I said the last time I criticized this work and one of its authors growled litigiously - Readers, judge for yourself. But do it at the library.

Vince then tell me how building 7 fell? And how did a tv station in England (not positive of the place) know this would occur and so report before it happened? The evidence for conspiracy on 9-11 is overwhelming.

Here's youtube video of the announcement, Dawn.

Thanks for linking that, David.

Thank you, Ray. So the likes of Harvard and Yale are less reliable sources than "some [who] argue" differently.

Impressive.

Not my comment. Tell Wiki and the American bar Association.

Looking through a scope at the target, If bios first shot missed, how would he know where it hit in order to zero his scope?

(Just asking as a non-hunter.)

Greg: JA is no guru. Unlike you he is a very nice person. I'm done here. We saw your agenda at DPF and got rid of you. So you and your followers make fun of DPF. Go for it dude. Some of us actually care about the assassination of JFK and what was done to frame LHO. I posted as I was walking out the door TO WORK/ Ya the job you seem to find so amusing. "Layer". I have the highest degree you can obtain, a JD. What do YOU do for a living when not stalking Albert Doyle. (Rhetorical question as I don't give a xxxx). Let's leave it at this: I don't think you care a damn about the truth. You can, of course, have the last word as I will not ever reply to you again.

I have the highest degree you can obtain, a JD. So the SJD isn't higher?

The S.J.D. is described as the "highest degree in law" by the University of Virginia, the "terminal degree in law" by Indiana Universityand Harvard Law School and as the "most advanced law degree" by Yale Law School, Georgetown Law, New York University ^]and Stanford University. The National Association of Legal Professionals states that the J.S.D./S.J.D. is "typically the most advanced or terminal law degree that would follow the earning of the LL.M. and J.D. degrees."

However, some argue that the J.D. is the highest "professional doctorate" in law, on the grounds that some universities describe the S.J.D. as a "postdoctoral degree."and the American Bar Association has issued a Council Statement stating that the J.D. be considered as being equivalent to the Ph.D. for educational employment purposes.

How can Norman hear anything with his ears ringing from rifle shots just above his head?

WTF? Why on Earth would anyone think Norman's ears had to be "ringing" from the shots? Is that a new theory by some CT Denialist?

If that were the case, Oswald would have been deaf by the time he reached DPD Headquarters on 11/22.

We agree totally, David. But he wasn't.

You sound like Robert "Z285" Harris now. Harris thinks the entire crowd in Dealey Plaza would have been "jumping out of their skins" (a Harris quote) if Oswald had been firing his Carcano from the sixth floor. Almost SIXTY FEET up, and Harris thinks people would have had no choice but to be jumping out of their skins with fright and "startle reactions", which, of course, we don't see ANY of in the Zapruder Film at all. And because of this lack of "startle reactions", Harris has decided there were no audible shots fired at all prior to Z285 of the Z-Film. (Yes, he really said that---thousands of times at aaj and MacRae's place.)

You probably concur with such junk too, eh David J.?

Putting words in other people's mouth again?

Keep digging David... just keep digging.

And keep denying the obvious, David. Just keep on denying it. After all, it's what CTers do best. (Just ask Kenneth Drew....or the late Harold Weisberg.)

And I've always loved the "Shells all pointing the same way and only an inch apart" claptrap. Better than a barrel full of monkeys. What we have here, then, is the tidiest team of Patsy Framers known to man. They wanted to make SURE to advertise the fact that the shells were definitely planted there, so they took the effort to make sure the shells were in a nice neat row, all pointing the same way. The plotters should have been awarded the Good Housekeepiong Award for 1963 for such neatness and efficiency. (And yet David Josephs believes it.)

David, did Fritz pick up the shells and then replace them or not?

Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down.

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet.

Your "bullet through the shirt" has gone pear shaped.

And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming.

Who said I advanced the theory? So who's the one who is dreaming?

And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory.

The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone.

Not at all. How would he know what size bag the rifle would fit into? He made the bag theory up. Once he and his sister had decided on the size they couldn't retract. His bag was just like the one not photographed in the sniper's nest. None existent.

Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff.

Yeah, sure Ray.

All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right?

And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae).

As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence.

Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman.

You have your position as a total believer in the holy book of Warren.

Keep spouting your rubbish, David. We all enjoy knocking it down.

Ray,

As I've said before, everybody cherry picks. I do it. You do it. All God's children do it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. And the JFK case is no different.

But as I said to Thomas Graves at this very forum just two months ago....

"In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff"." -- DVP; April 17, 2015

Unfortunately for you, the chaff is this case is the wheat and the wheat the chaff.

So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size?

I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray?

Replay.....

"I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP

Right. so you believe he was right about seeing the bag, but wrong about the size. I think the word for that is cherry picking.

And what part of this logic do you not understand, Ray? ---

If the bag was merely an "invention", then Frazier (or the police) would have invented a bag LONG ENOUGH to hold the rifle owned by the person you think Frazier (or the police) was framing.

Believing that Frazier INVENTED a bag AND believing that Frazier would ever say the bag was only "2 feet" long are two beliefs that do not go together at all.

The fact that Frazier always has maintained the bag was too short to hold Oswald's rifle is virtually proof, all by itself, that Frazier really did see Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on 11/22/63.

Unless, as I said before, Mr. Frazier was one really stupid xxxx and patsy framer.

And then Frazier decided to voluntarily tell his alleged "paper bag" lie yet again, in front of millions of potential movie-goers, in David Wolper's 1964 feature film. Spunky little xxxx, that Buell Frazier, wasn't he? ....

So. is it your contention that Frazier was telling the truth about the bag but he was lying about the size?

p.s. You do not have my permission to reprint any of my posts on your site.

The bag was an invention, David.

So, you really DO believe what I suggested in my previous post --- i.e., you think Frazier's bag was an "invention", but then he decided to say the "invention" (which must have been invented to frame Oswald with the Carcano rifle, right?) was too short of an invention to allow Lee Oswald's rifle to fit inside of it.

So, Ray, was Buell Frazier just really xxxxty at math, or was he the dumbest patsy framer ever put on this Earth? Which is it? Because it's got to be one of those options.

What part of "The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag.

" do you not understand?

So you believe he [buell Frazier] was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken down Carcano.

No? You just believe the parts you want to believe?

And you think you AREN'T doing that exact same thing, Ray?

You BELIEVE Frazier was 100% right about the "short bag".

But you DISBELIEVE Frazier (and call him an outright xxxx) when Frazier said that Oswald had "no lunch" with him on 11/22.

I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars.

But you MUST think Frazier WAS a xxxx regarding the "No Lunch Bag" topic. Right?

And yet you don't seem to realize the hycrocritical nature of this remark you just now aimed at me:

"You just believe the parts you want to believe?" -- R. Mitcham

There's also another thing regarding Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony that you and other CTers never seem to have thought of. And that is....

IF Buell Frazier had actually just INVENTED the large paper bag to put into Lee Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, then WHY on Earth would Frazier have made his make-believe bag too short to hold the item that was supposed to be in that bag?

If it's an invented bag (and the police "forced" Frazier to tell that lie, per James DiEugenio's theory), then it stands to reason that any such bag invented from whole cloth would have been big enough to house that Carcano that Lee Oswald owned. Right?

But if we're to believe CTers like Ian Griggs and Jim DiEugenio, Frazier's MAKE-BELIEVE bag and, ergo, MAKE-BELIEVE measurements for that bag do not go together at all. So the alleged xxxx has just destroyed his own lie by making a non-existen bag way too small.

Brilliant, huh?

LOTS MOR "PAPER BAG" TALK AND DEBATES:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html

The bag was an invention, David. Frazier covered his ass. Apart from Frazier and his sister, nobody else saw Oswald with a large paper bag.

If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size.

Which is it "No bag" or "too short bag"

From my "CE903 -- PART 4" post.....

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

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's quite possible that the chalk mark on the back of President Kennedy's stand-in (as seen in the top picture below, which is an opposite-angle view of Warren Commission Exhibit 903) has been placed too low.

When compared with the actual bullet hole in JFK's upper back, it sure looks to me as though the chalk mark has been placed too low on the stand-in's back:

Just because you "think it quite possible" doesn't mean a thing.

This makes me think that it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back.

"Makes me think that it's possible.." Really. Arf!

However, I can't find any specific documentation in the Warren Commission testimony of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt or Robert Frazier to support my theory regarding the chalk marks.

Is anybody surprised?

Bob Frazier did say this in his WC testimony (which would tend to refute my above theory about the chalk mark):

"They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures." -- Robert A. Frazier

The above comment by Frazier, however, is a bit puzzling, since the official autopsy measurements performed by the doctors at Bethesda did not utilize the "FROM THE TOP OF HIS HEAD" method for determining where Kennedy's wounds were located. Dr. Humes, et al, instead used the "mastoid process" as the body landmark for calculating where the upper-back bullet hole was located.

So, I'll confess that Frazier's "from the top of his head" testimony has me scratching my head a little bit.

Don't do that, David. You'll get splinters.

[EDIT -- In May 2013, three years after writing the above words, I discovered that there is something in the official record that might indicate I was at least partially correct after all when I said this in 2010: "...it's possible that the FBI and Warren Commission marked the stand-in's jacket based on the bullet hole in KENNEDY'S COAT, rather than the hole in the actual body (skin) of his upper back." --- CLICK HERE.]

Anyway, if the JFK stand-in's suit jacket were to be "bunched up" a little bit (as Kennedy's jacket was when he was shot in the back), the chalk mark on the stand-in's back would be elevated slightly higher than it is in this photo and this photo, and therefore the chalk mark representing the bullet hole almost certainly would merge with Arlen Specter's pointer in the opposite-angle photographs.

Desperation setting in.

ADDENDUM:

I recently realized something else that is quite important (IMO) regarding Warren Commission Exhibit #903.....

CE903 [seen below] provides very good circumstantial evidence to buttress the conclusion that the entry wound in President Kennedy's upper back was most certainly located HIGHER (anatomically-speaking) than the exit wound in JFK's throat (despite an opposite conclusion being reached on that subject by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s).

Of course, I fully realize that the person standing in for JFK in CE903 is not the real John Kennedy. And I also realize that you cannot extract three-dimensional information from a two-dimensional picture.

But even with those two stipulations in place, I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter's pointer, in CE903, is being placed in a position that definitely mirrors the true and accurate location of the throat wound sustained by JFK in Dallas (i.e., the pointer is located at the location of the JFK stand-in's TIE KNOT, which has been determined to be the precise spot where a bullet exited President Kennedy's throat).

Who determined it and where is the evidence. The Surgeon said it was above the tie. Who said it wasn't?

And it's also fairly obvious (via just a casual evaluation of CE903) that the location representing the ENTRY WOUND on the stand-in's upper back is in a place that is most definitely ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the location representing the throat wound.

And: it's also quite obvious (to my eyes anyway) that the man who is substituting for JFK in CE903 is NOT LEANING FORWARD to any great extent whatsoever. He is pretty much sitting straight and upright and relatively erect in the back seat of the car in Commission Exhibit 903.

Hence, the math isn't too difficult here -- the upper-back bullet wound was ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the bullet hole in the throat.

This kind of garden-variety photo analysis, of course, is far from being "scientific" in nature. But I think it's just basic common sense (coupled with the things that anybody with at least one working eyeball can easily see in Commission Exhibit No. 903).

And as far as the REAL John F. Kennedy's body is concerned, the two side-by-side autopsy pictures below provide further photographic indicators that can only lead to one reasonable conclusion. And that is: JFK's upper-back wound was located HIGHER than the wound in his throat. (The HSCA's conclusion to the contrary notwithstanding.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-843.html

Keep digging, David.

Eventually you will realise the truth.

Yes, Ray. Of course I believe Frazier on that "No Lunch Bag" point.

And you believe the accused double-murderer instead, right?

So you believe he was right when he said the bag was too short to carry a broken down Carcano.

No ? You just believe the parts you want to believe?

Your double murderer claim is just that. A claim. Nothing more.

So you believe Frazier, David?

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing.

[...]

Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

That's just ONE of the things (among many) that make up the SUM TOTAL that we need to evaluate, Mark.

I'm not saying that the "No Lunch" thing, by ITSELF, "proves" Oswald is guilty. And you HAVE to know I'm not suggesting any such silly thing.

But that "No Lunch" item is, IMO, just one additional piece of the puzzle in Oswald's "Out Of The Ordinary" day that I was talking about in my 10-point list. Because, by all accounts, Oswald usually DID take his lunch with him when he went to work at the TSBD.

Plus, the "No Lunch" thing also shows he lied to the police after the shooting too. Because we know from Buell Frazier's testimony that Frazier asked Lee why he didn't have any lunch bag with him that morning (Nov. 22). And Oswald told Frazier that he was going to "buy" his lunch that day from the catering service man.

But here's what Oswald told Captain Fritz:

"He [Oswald] said he had a cheese sandwich and some fruit and this was the only package he had brought with him to work and denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."

-- Via Will Fritz' written report (WR; Page 605)

Now, who is the person most likely to be telling the truth about Oswald's lunch --- Buell Wesley Frazier or Lee Harvey Oswald?

If Frazier was covering his ass with his bag story, then obviously Oswald

Ray,

You think something OTHER than a bullet caused the damage to JFK's shirt?

What would that have been? The Parkland doctors? Why would they have cut his shirt in those locations?

I don't answer hypothetical questions, David. Maybe you think the right hand side of the President's shirt "bunched up"

p.s Note the position of the slit. If it had have been a bullet passing through the shirt, it would have passed directly through the tie, not clipping it.