Sandy Larsen

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

Good point.

Well, except, the photo in question must have been altered given that the hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the wound shown on the back. I very much doubt that a shirt rises up with a jacket when raising a hand. It doesn't on me.

The hole on the back was 14 cm down from the bottom tip of the mastoid process. The hole on the clothing was measured at 14 cm below the top of the collar. So...could the bottom tip of JFK's mastoid process have come into alignment with the top of his collar, while he was sitting against the back seat of a limousine? I don't see why not. I tried this on myself and came away convinced that it makes sense.

No one has proven otherwise, that's for sure. For all their bluster, those holding that the clothing measurements prove the autopsy photos a fake have never done a series of re-enactments using clothes marked 14 cm below the top of the collar. There's a reason for that, IMO. It's because the clothing measurements are consistent with a wound at T-1.

Now, to my way of thinking, this ought to fill them with delight. This proves the drawings created for the Warren Commission, which moved the wound up to about C-5, even though the simplest of re-enactments involving the clothing would have proved the wound to have been around T-1, to have been a sham. But no, instead of marveling at the hubris of the Warren Commission, and Arlen Specter in particular, those pushing that the bullet entered at T-3 have chosen to act as though my failure to march in lockstep with their theory is the problem.

Pat,

I haven't studied the location of the back wound in great detail. But it's quite obvious to me that the location of the wound on the back photo is significantly higher than the hole location on the shirt.

I call your attention to the autopsy photographs--You will note the existence of a ruler (which doesn't measure anything) and which covers the location where the back wound (as reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill) was located.

On the chance that there is still interest as to the purpose and location of the ruler in the 'back wound' photographs...

Per the HSCA the "centimeter ruler which overlies the midline of the back" is placed thusly to facilitate measurements of the wound:

FWIW

Tom

It's a bit hard for me to swallow that the purpose of the ruler here is to allow measurement of the wound. Why on earth would they place the ruler 2.5 cm from the wound if that were the case?? If the reason was to keep the ruler aligned with the mid-line of the back, then why was it placed at an noticeable angle with respect to it?

I suppose that the angle I see could be an optical illusion. But, even if so, I can't understand the motivation for placing the ruler in alignment with the mid-line.

Why on Earth is my above "Ran out of stock and simply replenished their supply with money orders that obviously would have much higher serial numbers" explanation not even to be considered by conspiracy theorists like John Armstrong?

~big shrug~

What you say here is precisely what occurred to me when I first read about the supposed discrepancy. But I'm willing to listen if someone says there's a reason that wouldn't be the case. (Perhaps, for example, money orders subsequently issued by that post office had the smaller serial numbers... and only Oswald got the high number.)

"[7:00 PM CST, 11/23/63] The IBM computers at the U.S. Postal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, have been humming for nearly seven hours now...searching for the original money order used to purchase the assassination weapon. There's no telling how many man-hours it might take to do a manual search. Suddenly, a match is found, and the money order is located. The center rushes the original money order by special courier to the chief of the Secret Service in Washington. A handwriting analysis by a questioned-documents expert for the Department of the Treasury shows that the handwriting on the money order is that of Lee Harvey Oswald. If there is one thing that is now unquestionably certain, it is that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered and paid for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building shortly after the assassination." -- Vincent Bugliosi

I read the source for this, CE 1799. Just a report written by some anonymous person. Not exactly impressive evidence when compared to a missing Federal Reserve Bank stamp.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1799.pdf

I don't know where Bugs got the 7 hour computers-humming information.

As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it.

Thanks for acknowledging that as a problem. I think you would get a lot more respect from the folks here if you would just admit when the official story has a problem rather than ignoring it and changing the subject.

You conceded when you didn't answer my question, even after I had posted it a second time.

In both your responses you completely ignored the fact that the money order had not been processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. As though that isn't an important point.

So I won the debate by default. That's what happens when one doesn't "show up" for a debate.

As for how LHO's handwriting got "all over" the money order, I would suggest the same way my dad's handwriting got all over the excuse notes I wrote to my home-room teacher explaining why I had been absent from school. Forging someone's handwriting isn't necessarily a difficult feat, and isn't an unheard of thing. Given that the money order is evidence that someone was attempting to frame Oswald, as I have demonstrated, it follows that the source of the handwriting be considered suspect as well.

Naturally. Nothing new or surprising there. Everything is "suspect" to a conspiracy theorist.

o

o

o

No David, not everything is suspect. Only those things that defy logic. Especially in cases where the official story is riddled with falsehoods, half-truth's, and contradictions.

I really don't have the time to debate this issue with you. My only reason for posting that one question was to make the point that there is indeed compelling evidence that Oswald was framed. And that that is an example of the legitimate reasons CT researchers question parts ofthe official story. They don't do so merely because "everything is suspect to a conspiracy theorist," as you put it.

(For the record, I do know that there are plenty of CTers who aren't all that bright or who lack common sense, who do see conspiracy in "everything." But I haven't seen any of those folks here on this forum.)

Okay David, so you concede that LHO did not pay for the Carcano with the money order that was used as evidence against him.

Huh? When did I ever say that? I never said any such thing. Of course LHO paid for the Carcano with the money order in evidence (CE788). It's got his writing all over it.

How did Oswald's handwriting get on this M.O. if LHO never had it in his possession?....

You conceded when you didn't answer my question, even after I had posted it a second time.

In both your responses you completely ignored the fact that the money order had not been processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. As though that isn't an important point.

So I won the debate by default. That's what happens when one doesn't "show up" for a debate.

As for how LHO's handwriting got "all over" the money order, I would suggest the same way my dad's handwriting got all over the excuse notes I wrote to my home-room teacher explaining why I had been absent from school. Forging someone's handwriting isn't necessarily a difficult feat, and isn't an unheard of thing. Given that the money order is evidence that someone was attempting to frame Oswald, as I have demonstrated, it follows that the source of the handwriting be considered suspect as well.

I agree with Cliff, and I do not believe the back wound was created post-mortem.

The photo, as Robert Prudhomme might say, is garbage in. Any conclusions drawn from the photo are garbage out.

I especially agree with the statement that there's no proof whatsoever the photo is a picture of JFK's remains.

I am curious as to why you "do not believe" the back wound was created post-mortem.

I'm sure you are aware that no one at Dallas reported such a wound, in the records created that day (or in the testimony given in March 1964).

But, in addition, we have the statement made by Perry, under oath.

Perry said that when Humes called him (late that night or early the next day, it matters not which date), Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back.

Why would Humes ask such a question, if he did not have a question about the legitimacy of the wound?

Also, why --in the written autopsy report--were modifiers added, so that the typed version reads that the wound was "presumably of entry."

My question: are you taking these factors into account, in stating that you "do not believe" the back wound was made post-mortem?

DSL

10/26/15 - 3:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

You said:

"Humes asked him (i.e., asked Perry) if he had made any wounds in the back."

Humes didn't really use the word "wounds," did he? I would think he'd use a word like "incisions." That's probably what you meant to say.

My guess as to why Humes asked Perry if he had made wounds/incisions in the back is because he couldn't figure the back wound out.

If I'm right, that would support either David's theory, that the wound was man-made, or Robert's theory, that the bullet was frangible and had disintegrated

If James Jenkins is to be believed -- that the pleural membrane was intact -- then David's "man-made" theory gets the thumbs up.

But if Lt. Lipsey is to be believed -- that among other things the organs were cut up looking for the bullet -- then Robert's "frangible bullet" theory gets the thumbs up.

Both Jenkins and Lipsey seem to be reliable witnesses. The only way I can think of to square their respective testimonies is to conclude that Hume's search for the bullet, including cutting up organs, was a charade. On the other hand, if it were an act, surely Jenkins would have wondered why they were looking for a bullet in the chest cavity given that the pleural membrane was intact.

I'm rather stumped by all this. The problem boils down to whose testimony to believe, Jenkins's or Lipsey's. If Lipsey is still alive this would be a good question to ask him... about the search for the back-wound bullet.

Let's make a deal David.

I'll read and study your article if you demonstrate how it was possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed. The proof for this is on the money order itself... or rather, not on it. For the money order has no Federal Reserve Bank markings on its back. Or its front.

If that can't be explained, then what we have here is evidence Oswald was framed.

Sandy,

The C2766 rifle was positively mailed by Klein's to Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas. Waldman No. 7 proves that fact. And the money order was stamped by Klein's. So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle, and Klein's did the processing on their end by depositing it into their bank account. And that money order has Oswald's writing all over it.

You say, "So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle..."

How so? Postal money orders are, and have always been, processed by Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). (Since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913.) Only when a check or money order is cleared by a Federal Reserve Bank is the recipient's account credited. And, when cleared, the back-side of the check or money order is stamped by the FRB.

So Klein's definitely wasn't paid $21.45 for the rifle... at least not from the money order supposedly written by Oswald.

BTW, all national banks are required, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to be members of the Federal Reserve System. And they are required to use the FRB's check clearing system. Klein's bank, First National Bank, was indeed a member of the FRB and so used their check clearing system.

FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders

http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

I'll give you a second chance to answer my question, David. How was it possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle, given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed?

If you (or anybody else) can't answer this question, then the postal money order is evidence of LHO being framed as the buyer of the rifle.

Sandy,

You think Klein's would have shipped a rifle to PO Box 2915 (which they definitely did) WITHOUT being paid for the merchandise?

How silly.

Let me guess -- you think Waldman #7 is a fake document too. Right?

Related Links (re: bank stamps):

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17428&page=4#entry220887

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-947.html

Okay David, so you concede that LHO did not pay for the Carcano with the money order that was used as evidence against him. The mere existence of that money order is strong evidence the LHO was framed as the purchaser of that rifle. Because it is a necessary element of the WC narrative and was presented as evidence, yet we can plainly see that it was never even used to pay for the rifle. It was for show only.... it had no real substance.

And there *is* more evidence that Oswald was framed as the buyer of the Carcano than there is that he actually bought it.

You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the above nonsense, Sandy.

Let's make a deal David.

I'll read and study your article if you demonstrate how it was possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed. The proof for this is on the money order itself... or rather, not on it. For the money order has no Federal Reserve Bank markings on its back. Or its front.

If that can't be explained, then what we have here is evidence Oswald was framed.

Sandy,

The C2766 rifle was positively mailed by Klein's to Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas. Waldman No. 7 proves that fact. And the money order was stamped by Klein's. So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle, and Klein's did the processing on their end by depositing it into their bank account. And that money order has Oswald's writing all over it.

You say, "So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle..."

How so? Postal money orders are, and have always been, processed by Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). (Since the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913.) Only when a check or money order is cleared by a Federal Reserve Bank is the recipient's account credited. And, when cleared, the back-side of the check or money order is stamped by the FRB.

So Klein's definitely wasn't paid $21.45 for the rifle... at least not from the money order supposedly written by Oswald.

BTW, all national banks are required, by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to be members of the Federal Reserve System. And they are required to use the FRB's check clearing system. Klein's bank, First National Bank, was indeed a member of the FRB and so used their check clearing system.

FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders

http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html

I'll give you a second chance to answer my question, David. How was it possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle, given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed?

If you (or anybody else) can't answer this question, then the postal money order is evidence of LHO being framed as the buyer of the rifle.

Something else: if you will look up Robinson's taped testimony before the HSCA (by Andrew Purdy) I am pretty sure you will find a Q and A where Purdy asks him if he saw any wound above the waist and below the head, and Robinson answers in the negative. Purdy --as I recall--then asked the question again; and again, the answer was "no". This testimony, as I recall, suggested that at the time Robinson made this observation (or these observations) there was no back wound on the body.

But Robinson was the embalmer, right? So he should have seen both the lower back wound and the upper back wound. Right?

...the rule doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

David, thanks for the original response, and for the re-do...

The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the right of the mid-line.

Tom

Tom,

You are saying that the ruler (that measures nothing) apparently cannot be covering the low (original) back wound, because it appears to be located LEFT of mid-line (down around where the low back wound is supposed to be). Yet that wound is located to the RIGHT of mid-line, according to the hole in the shirt. This is problematic because it means there really is no wound at that location. (Assuming it hasn't been erased on the photo.)

I want to offer a potential explanation for this.

I've wondered for a couple years, when looking at back of head photos and drawing, why it is that JFK's cowlick is located on the right side of his crown. Because, you see, a natural part in a person's hair is usually on the same side as the cowlick. And JFK's part most certainly is on his left side, not right. (It's hard to fight a part.)

This got me to wondering if certain of the autopsy photos might have been mirror-imaged, as necessary, for the purpose of showing whatever it is the conspirators wanted us to see, and to help hide what they didn't want us to see.

Look at this photo:

The cowlick and natural part are on the right, and the left side of the head, including the left-rear, is cropped. A mirror image could have been done to make it appear that there is no right-rear damage.

Now, I'm not saying that this trick could have been used to solve everything in the photos problematic to the conspirators. But it could have been one tool used.

Now, back to the photo showing JFK's back and the ruler that measures nothing. Maybe it has been mirror-imaged so that no lower wound is shown, when in reality the wound is now left of mid-line and is being covered by the ruler.

Just a thought. I haven't put a lot of thought into this.

Another possibility, alluded to above: The lower wound could have simply been erased from the photo.

I kinda suspected you had mis-written that. But I wasn't sure. Partly because, had I been right, then it would appear that you are challenging David Lifton on his assertion that the ruler is covering the lower wound. Something that I've long believed too.

Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me...

I think we engineers tend to do that to each other.

Let me re-state my position and question:

Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland.

Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice?

I think Humes (or someone else at Behesda) had to have punched another hole. Because the hole we see on the photo is higher than the one on JFK's shirt. So either that hole was punched there, or the hole was drawn in... either on JFK's back or on the photo.

The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities.

Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound.

This is the part where you are challenging David Lifton. (And challenging me too, which is okay and welcome.) That is, if your eye isn't lying to you. And I don't think it is. That is, the ruler does appear to be on the left side of mid-line at the point where the lower wound is supposed to be.

Tom

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

Good point.

Well, except, the photo in question must have been altered given that the hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the wound shown on the back. I very much doubt that a shirt rises up with a jacket when raising a hand. It doesn't on me.

And there *is* more evidence that Oswald was framed as the buyer of the Carcano than there is that he actually bought it.

You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the above nonsense, Sandy.

Let's make a deal David.

I'll read and study your article if you demonstrate how it was possible for LHO to have paid for the rifle given that the money order he supposedly used to pay for it was never processed. The proof for this is on the money order itself... or rather, not on it. For the money order has no Federal Reserve Bank markings on its back. Or its front.

If that can't be explained, then what we have here is evidence Oswald was framed.

From the HSCA testimony of Lt. Lipsey:

"... They traced it through the back of his neck through, you know, when they did the autopsy, through the inside of his body and there was no where the bullet was then where it should have exited, it was not. And at the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?

Because, from their conversations, they tracked this bullet as far as they could in a downward position before they couldn't tell where it went. That's when they started taking organs apart and looking where ever they could look without going ahead and just cutting him apart. And I think their decision finally was, we're just, you know, not going to completely dissect him to find this bullet. So they tracked the bullet down as far as it went. Obviously, by that point it wasn't that important.

... The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out."

BINGO!!

I had a feeling you'd like that.

As long as they can pretend Oswald didn't fire a shot at anyone on 11/22, most Internet CTers are happy.

Well, there *is* more evidence that Oswald didn't fire the rifle that day than there is that he did.

And there *is* more evidence that Oswald was framed as the buyer of the Carcano than there is that he actually bought it.

And for your information, David, it isn't the goal of CTers to clear Oswald's name. It is their goal to find the truth.

But deep down you know that, don't you David.

The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the right of the mid-line.

Okay Tom, now you're confusing me.

Sandy,

That last left should have been a right...

You got me -- but not by much. When I finished correcting my dsylexic response, your response popped up!

As far as confusing you and others, basically that is my primary function in the world.

Tom

I kinda suspected you had mis-written that. But I wasn't sure. Partly because, had I been right, then it would appear that you are challenging David Lifton on his assertion that the ruler is covering the lower wound. Something that I've long believed too.

Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

It really does look like the rule isn't hiding anything. If true, I need to do some rethinking. But I'll wait a while and see if David L. can defend his position.

...the rule doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

David, thanks for the original response, and for the re-do...

The purpose of the ruler in this photo has always eluded me. When a ruler is placed within a photo it either indicates a specific measurement or is used as a scale reference, so its presence here is certainly suspicious. To my eye, the ruler is placed to the left of the mid-line of the back, while the location of the "opening" is described as 1.5" - 2" to the left of the mid-line.

Tom

Okay Tom, now you're confusing me.

I've always understood that both the lower and the upper back wounds are to the right of mid-line. Yet here you're saying that one of them is to the left. You must mean the one hidden by the ruler is to the left, because the one we can see in the photo -- the upper one -- is to the right.

Are you sure of what you're saying here?

In any case I'm glad you posted this because, now that I've looked at the photo again, I see that the ruler does indeed look like it's left of mid-line where the lower wound should be.

Reading Lt. Lipsey's testimony sure leaves me with the impression that a bullet did indeed enter the chest cavity. Both Lipsey and Jerrol Custer reported the slicing of the internal organs. Lipsey goes on and on about Humes being determined to find that bullet. I believe the first autopsy report -- the one burned by Humes -- probably reported the (original, lower) back wound and missing bullet.

Finally, what Lipsey said supports perfectly Robert's pneumothorax thesis.

Yet... why is it they resorted to slicing the organs rather than simply x-raying them? Suppose they did x-ray the organs... upon finding nothing, would they then have resort to slicing? That seems unlikely.

Could what Lipsey and Custer (et.al.) witnessed have all been nothing more than a big charade? It's not so easy to conclude that after reading Lipsey's testimony.

EXCERPTS FROM LT. LIPSEY'S TESTIMONY

The full transcript of Lipsey's HSCA testimony is here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.pdf

Following are only the parts about the wounds, most of which concerns the back wound. (If this is too long and causes problems, let me know and I'll delete it.)

o

o

o

Q: Getting back to the beginning stages of the autopsy, or even before the actual autopsy began, do you recall when the x-rays were taken, the x-rays and photos?

LIPSEY: Yeah, well as far as the exact x-rays were taken, no I don’t recall. I do recall the comments from the doctors, you know, who started examining the body before they did anything, you know, looking at the body, looking at where the bullets had entered the back of the his head. It was obvious that one bullet entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his face and pretty well blew away the right side of his head. And then the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck and the best of my knowledge, or the best of my memory, one had exited. The other bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the bullet went down into the body. And during the autopsy, this is the only part that I can imagine would be of any--really, what I’ve told you right there, of strictly confidential nature that was never written up anywhere. And I presume, am I right, that this tape and this conversation is strictly confidential? You know, it’s not going to be published I guess is what I’m getting at?

Q: It’s not going to be published during the term of this committee. During 1978.

LIPSEY: Okay, Well, is that as far as I can remember, and I’m pretty positive about it, they never found that third bullet. It did not exit the body. When they did the autopsy first they cut the top of his head off and then they cut his chest open, you know, and they got all of his insides out, that was the only gory part, they took them out a piece at a time and laid them up on, I remember, a beautiful clean stainless steel rack with water pouring over it all the time. I imagine to keep it fresh or whatever. They did the whole autopsy then they came back and, you know, sliced up all the organs.

Q: For slides?

LIPSEY: I don’t know what they were using them for. They were taking pictures of them, they, you know, and they were examining them. I don’t know whether they were taking them for records or not. I don't think the doctors, to be perfectly frank, I don’t think it ever entered the doctors' minds that they were taking pictures for a formal investigation. They were doing an autopsy, a complete autopsy, and whatever physical records that you maintain during an autopsy was what they were doing. I know they did a very thorough job because every time one to them would say something the other one would question it. I can remember they looked at this one organ and they passed it around and all three discussed it before they would go on to the most part. You know, it wasn’t one guy doing his operating on the feet, one on the chest, and one on the head. They did everything together and re-examined everything together. I remember that distinctly. They looked like one of the most efficient teams doing anything that I’ve ever seen. But anyhow, like I say. I can remember lifting his chest cavity and then the top of his head off, and you know, all the internal organs out. And I can remember them discussing the third, third bullet. First, second and third bullet. The third bullet, the one they hadn’t found. Their only logical explanation was that it hit him in the back of the head, hit his chest cavity and then, like bullets will do--I am sure you are familiar with that one, you could shoot somebody, no telling where the bullet is going to and up--probably hit his chest cavity and could have gone all the way down into his toe. You know, it could have just hit and gone right down into his leg or wherever. But I don’t think, to the best of my knowledge, they ever found the third bullet.

Q: Did they find any other bullets?

LIPSEY: This is what I'm getting back to. I don't know that they found bullets or whether they found just particles of bullets. I don't think they know. I don't think they found any whole bullets. But that is just strictly speculation on my part. I remember they were bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark. But I don't think they ever found the bullet. The one that hit his chest, the one that exited here -- [corrects himself] entered here; there was no exit hole. So the bullet was somewhere in his body, obviously.

Q: When you say "entered here" referring to?

LIPSEY: The lower back of the neck.

Q: Lower back.

LIPSEY: From the angle they were talking about it had to come from quite a height because they were looking and talking to each other the angle they were pointing that had hit him had to be a down angle. Also all of them, their entire discussion -- I never entered the discussion and neither did Sam Bird. We were sitting there watching and listening. And we weren't asked our opinion, for obvious reasons. We wouldn't have known what we were talking about. We never entered in any conversation with the docs or offered any information except when we were talking.

And I didn't personally think, personal opinion, from listening to the doctors, watching the autopsy, there was no question in their minds that the bullets came from the same direction that all three bullets came from the same place at the same time. They weren't different angles. They all had the same pattern to them.

Q: Okay, getting back to the bullets themselves, not the bullets themselves but the entrances, can you just go over again the entrances as you remember them?

LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.

Q: Okay, so that would be up where the crown, not the top of the head?

LIPSEY: Yeah, the rear crown.

Q: Where that point might be on the skull bone?

LIPSEY: Exactly.

Q: Then one approximately several inches lower?

LIPSEY: Well not several but two or three inches lower.

Q: Still in the head? Or what we would call…

LIPSEY: Closer to the neck.

Q: Closer to the neck? And than one in the neck?

LIPSEY: In the lower neck region.

Q: In the back?

LIPSEY: Yeah, the very -- right as the ....

Q: Let's go back over things. Sometimes visual aids you forget. Okay, and then according to the autopsy doctors they feel the one that entered in the skull, in the rear of the head, exited the right side of the head?

LIPSEY: The right front, you know, the face. Not the right top, the right front. The facial part of your face. In other words...

Q: Did that destroy his face at all? You say Presidents Kennedy, was his face distorted?

LIPSEY: Yeah, the right side. If you looked at him straight. If you looked at him from the left you couldn’t see anything. If you looked at him from the right side it was just physically part of it blown away.

Q: So that would be right here?

LIPSEY: Yeah, behind the eye and everything.

Q: Behind the eye? Was it all hair region or was it part of the actual face?

LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection it was part of the hair region and part of the face region.

Q: Just to follow up this point, after the embalming had been done and the morticians finished preparing the body and you viewed President Kennedy at that time, after he was dressed, could you see any damage?

LIPSEY: They did a beautiful job. He looked great.

Q: So you really couldn’t tell?

LIPSEY: Oh, you could tell, sure, if you got up close you could tell, yes.

Q: But he was presentable in the sense that you....

LIPSEY: He wasn’t presentable in the sense that you would want to open the casket. But they did a super job.

Q: What I guess I’m getting at is half his face so completely blown away? Could you recognize him?

LIPSEY: No, not at all. Oh no, he was 100% recognizable. I mean, particularly after they finished. No, it wasn’t that much damage at all.

Q: Now getting back, we just went over the three entrances and what the doctor's stated were entrances. To refresh your memory, the first doctor was Dr. Humes…is the chief pathologist…

LIPSEY: [Talking over questioner] I met the doctors when it first started except when I read their names -- I don't know them then; I don't know them now -- on a personal basis. Nor I never talked to them before, during or afterwards.

Q: You do recollect Commander Humes?

LIPSEY: Yes. Okay, the only thing I remember there at times was another, it wasn't a doctor. It could have been a doctor. I know there was an assistant or an aide doing things for them during different periods.

Q: Getting back to the entrances you just stated one exit you believed was on the right hand side of the head. Now what about the other entrances, what about the corresponding exits if there were any? Let's clarify that a little more. For starting, one…

LIPSEY: The bullet entered lower part of the head or upper part of the neck. [long pause] To the best of my knowledge, came out the front of the neck. But the one that I remember they spent so much time on, obviously, was the one they found did not come out. There was a bullet -- that's my vivid recollection cause that's all they talked about. For about two hours all they talked about was finding that bullet. To the rest of my recollection they found some particles but they never found the bullet -- pieces of it, trances of it. The best of my knowledge, this is one thing I definitely remember they just never found that whole bullet.

Q: What was it you observed that made you feel that exited -- the bullet that entered the rear portion of his head exited in the throat area?

LIPSEY: The throat area. Right. The lower throat area.

Q: What, were there markings there that indicated that the doctors came to that conclusion?

LIPSEY: I saw where, you know, they were working and also listening to their conclusions.

Q: And it's your recollection at that time was that the doctors definitely felt the bullets came from the one area, same area, same time?

LIPSEY: Yes, they talked about that. It never seemed to be any doubt in their mind the bullets were coming from different directions at all.

Q: It's been a long time but do you recall any reasons they gave?

LIPSEY: Because of the angle. I remember that's how they kept talking bout the angles of the bullets because the angles that they entered the body. That's why, they, I remember, measuring and doing all kinds of things. They turned the body up at one point to determine where that bullet that entered back here that didn't have an exit mark. Where was that bullet? And so when it got to down to where they thought it hit his chest cavity, they opened him up and started looking in here. That's why I remember one thing, they took, after they had taken all his organs out, during the autopsy they had them sitting up there: "Now let's see if we can find the bullet." They cut all his organs apart. I don't know what they did with them, I don't remember but they put them in some kind of containers. I don't remember but they put them in containers.

Q: Okay. One of the tapes stopped. Mr. Lipsey is also taping this interview and his taped stopped. 12:07 starting again.

Q: Getting back again to the beginning of the autopsy I think we can follow through on and answer some questions. Do you recall what time the photographs were taken?

LIPSEY: I remember them, and there again, that's [tape skips] I remember them taking the photographs but I don't remember what time. I have no idea.

Q: Do you know what they did with the photographs?

LIPSEY: I wasn't concerned about them.

o

o

o

Q: Were you in the positions to be able to hear any conversations among the doctors?

LIPSEY: Yeah, I was, but truthfully, I paid attention to what I wanted to pay attention to. it was one of those deals where I was curious how many times he'd been shot, or where he'd been shot. Medical definitions of what type of wounds they were, and whatever, I tuned all that out probably. I didn't know what they were talking about and I just didn't care. I should have cared more-- I wish now I could have taped it, if possible.

No. I really don't know…I heard their conversations. I was interested in the parts I wanted to be interested in. It's been too long to recall the other parts of their conversations.

Q: I'd like to stop the tape in order to change sides. The time is 12:17.

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

Time is 12:18 beginning the tape again.

Q: Getting back to the question that he just asked you. In terms of feet, how close were you to the table where the autopsy was being performed? Were you right behind?

LIPSEY: When you walked in the autopsy room from the back door where they brought the body in, you turned left down a very little short hallway. Had the doors right there. When you walked in there was sort of a like a little spectator's gallery, on the right there were several chairs on the right with a railing in front. The table was in front of that. I would say I was about as far as from that jacket, maybe, from the doctors, approximately about 12-15 feet.

o

o

o

LIPSEY: No. That’s...No. I hope I’m not contradicting myself. But at this point, there again, like I said, it's been a long time. I feel that there was no really entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out..

Q: So you say the damage caused by the entrance and the exit of the bullet to the head caused one large hole?

LIPSEY: To the best of my recollection, yes it did. But one, the other one went in the back of the neck. Like a say, I saw the blood spots and what have you, but they weren't tremendous, not a blow-a-way like this. But, of course, what little I know about it, which isn't a hell of a lot, your bone is right there, so when it hit it, the bullet probably expanded, hit something solid and ripped. But here, it went in to tissue before it hit anything.

Q: Was there any discussion of the nature of the bullet which caused the head wound?

LIPSEY: No. To my recollection, no there wasn't.

Q: Was there any discussion that it would take a certain kind of bullet to cause that kind of damage?

LIPSEY: If it was done, it was probably, I'm thinking, it was probably done in the privacy of the doctors after the autopsy. I don't remember -- and I'm sure it must have been mentioned during the autopsy but I'm not going to say yes or no because I don't have any idea. I don't remember that at all.

Q: During the autopsy, did you discuss with anyone else in the room the nature of head wounds. Or the causes of them?

LIPSEY: No. Not really. Sam and I…We just talked about different things. We talked about Kennedy, talked about how many times he had been shot. I don’t think we ever discussed anything in relation to what the doctors were saying about the wounds.

Q: Could you describe for us the nature of the damage to the front of the neck?

LIPSEY: No. I really couldn't. Because like I say, when we got it out, there was -- blood was all over the body. It was almost caked on. I remember they took a scrub brush and a pail. One of his arms, and if I've not mistaken, it was his left arm. You know, the way, I guess, after he died, finished the autopsy by that time and, rigor mortis had set in and one of his arms was slightly higher. Well, the guy's laying down and one of them was up a little bit. So when they started the autopsy I can remember, one of the doctors, when he was starting to clean the body up, got up on the table and physically got up on the table and put his knee down on his arm to hold it down -- to get it out of his way -- so he could scrub the rest of the body. So to say, to describe the hole to you, no. Because it was so messy and so much blood that I didn't, I never got close enough to get down and look at the wound itself.

Q: Can you give us an rough estimate, compared it for example to the wound in the head and the wound in the back…

LIPSEY: It was much smaller, very much smaller.

Q: …Than the head wound…

LIPSEY: Than the side head wound.

Q: What about the wound on the back?

LIPSEY: There again the wound in the back of the head, all I saw of that wound was when they turned him on his side. And saw the blood when they were cleaning him off, cutting, and doing the thing. I couldn't possibly describe to you the relation to the size. I don’t' remember and I doubt that I saw it close enough to describe it to you.

Q: Do you remember whether the doctors describing the wound in the neck as being caused by anything other than a bullet?

LIPSEY: No.

Q: Do you remember discussions on whether or not there was a tracheotomy incision?

LIPSEY: [Long Pause.] No. I guess anything I do remember something about that -- I remember it would have to come after reading about what went on in Dallas. I just don't remember discussing that.

Q: What have you read about Dallas? About that front neck wound?

LIPSEY: It's been so long. Like I say, I'm glad I hadn't. I'm glad I didn't go back over any articles and read because I don't even remember.

Q: You don't recall whether there was a tracheotomy in the front of the neck?

LIPSEY: Absolutely not.

Q: Well, you say you didn't hear the doctors discuss that. Did you explicitly hear the doctors say that the wound in the front of the neck was caused by a bullet?

LIPSEY: If you want to get down to specifics: no. The only thing I do remember was when they kept talking about the entrance in the back of the neck and looking at the hole in the front of the neck. To the best of my knowledge they were convinced that a bullet came out the front of the neck. And that's how they were determining where to look for the other bullet -- by the angle it went in at the back and came out at the front. Where to look at the other one.

Q: Oh, the angle where it came in the head -- looking out the front of the neck -- using that angle…

LIPSEY: Right. Right. [interrupting] To determine where to look for the other one, I presume from what they were looking at, both entrances looked to be the same.. In other words, both entrances -- the angles were the same were on both entrances, or the sizes of the holes probably was the same -- and in the front. I'm not going to stand here and make up a story, make it sound good, I just don't remember whether they discussed the size of a trach hole or it in relation to where a bullet might have exited.

Q: How much time would you say, relatively speaking, did the doctors spent on the 3 wounds you described? Did they spend more time on one or the other of the wounds?

LIPSEY: They spent more time looking for that other bullet than they did on anything else.

Q: You're describing the bullet that went in…

LIPSEY: …on the lower part of the neck. I remember them saying it must of hit the chest cavity and ricocheted down somewhere into the body.

Q: Do you remember any discussion…

LIPSEY: And they spent a lot of time on that. Because I remember when they cut him open in the front, you know, they -- I remember -- "Let's look for this, let's look for this." They took all the organs out, they went through, they cut the organs up looking for bullets. And finally, to the best of my knowledge, and I remember this, I don't remember how much more they did after this, but I remember them saying: "That bullet could be anywhere." It could have gone right down to his heels or his toes. It could have ricocheted and traveled right down through right on down, you know, through his insides.

Q: Do you remember any discussion among the doctors that the bullet could have entered lower in the neck -- lower back part of the neck exited in the front of the neck?

LIPSEY: Yeah. I remember they were firmly convinced it did not.

Q: Okay. So you're convinced…

LIPSEY: That's why they spent so much time looking for it. They traced it through the back of his neck through, you know, when they did the autopsy, through the inside of his body and there was no where the bullet was then where it should have exited, it was not. And at the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?

Q: When they opened up the body from the front, did -- were they able to discern any part of the track of the bullet?

LIPSEY: I'm convinced they were in the upper part of his body -- yes -- because that's how they started following it. And then I think, that's when they started taking his organs out, you know, one at a time only. They took all of the insides out, I remember that, boy. They had four or five piles of insides sitting on the table. And they thoroughly examined each one of those. They just had a big hollow chest and stomach cavity left -- or particularly chest cavity, when they got through. And, I'm very convinced, in my own mind, that they were very convinced that bullet was somewhere in him.

Because, from their conversations, they tracked this bullet as far as they could in a downward position before they couldn't tell where it went. That's when they started taking organs apart and looking where ever they could look without going ahead and just cutting him apart. And I think their decision finally was, we're just, you know, not going to completely dissect him to find this bullet. So they tracked the bullet down as far as it went. Obviously, by that point it wasn't that important.

Q: When they opened up the chest, when you say they saw part of the track of the bullet, did they take a photograph of that?

LIPSEY: Can't tell. I honestly do not know.

Q: Let me ask you this: Did they take all the photographs at the beginning or did they take some during the course of the autopsy?

LIPSEY: [Long pause] Once again, I don't know. I just don't know.

Q: Do you remember, you expressed, that you said the doctors considered the possibility that the bullet could be virtually anywhere in the body, including, I think the word you mentioned was "as far as the heel" Do you remember whether or not the doctors x-rayed…

LIPSEY: I remember one of the doctors said I've seen a guy shot -- something to the effect, "I've seen bullet wounds hit bone and ricocheted all over the body." And he says, "We may never find this bullet unless we take the whole body apart."

Q: Do you remember whether they x-rayed the lower extremities?

LIPSEY: No, I don't.

Q: Do you recall if they were using x-rays at the same time they were dissecting?

LIPSEY: No.

Q: Do you remember the doctors looking at the x-rays during the autopsy room?

LIPSEY: That I do. I remember looking at them. That must have been… You're jogging my memory now because I do remember them looking at x-rays at the beginning of the autopsy, so they must have taken some at the at very beginning because I remember them relating x-rays to things they were doing.

Q: Do you remember which portion of the X-rays…

LIPSEY: No, no, no, no. I plead dumbness on that, I just don't…But I remember now, them holding [mumbling] things, this long thing in series with lights. They'd examine part of an x-ray and go on from there. So, obviously, they must have taken x-rays right at the beginning. If they took any more during or after, I don't remember.

Q: Do you remember any of the autopsy doctors arriving at the autopsy later than the others?

LIPSEY: No, I don't.

Q: Do you remember any of the autopsy doctors probing any of the wounds?

LIPSEY: Not, no, I really can't say. They were doing everything so I don't... I can say they must have, I'm not going to say they did. I remember, the wounds, looking for the bullet, were their primary concern.

[interruption by intercom]

Q: Do you remember any discussion when they were trying to find out where the bullet went -- of the possibility that the bullet had gone in the back and had fallen out of the body? In other words, a non-exited bullet remained in…

LIPSEY: [interrupts] No. There was no possibility, there were no other holes it could have fallen out.

Q: That's what I mean -- Did they discuss…

LIPSEY: [interrupts] …to the rear. In other words…

Q: [Talking over Lipsey] That's what I mean. Fell out of the entrance.

LIPSEY: The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out.

Q: Was there any discussion because of external cardiac massage from the front when he was face up it could have fallen out?

LIPSEY: No. There was no discussion of that that I recall.

o

o

o

Q: Now you also mentioned they examined these closely and also cut them up to some degree. Did they return some of them organs or all the organs to the body at the termination of the autopsy or do you recollect…?

LIPSEY: To the best of my knowledge, they didn't return any thing to the body. They had these organs in separate containers. After they examined them. What they did -- I left for a while when Gen. Wehle came in to spell me -- and when I went back we started working on -- not we -- a few people started to cleaning him up, cosmetically fixing him up. I don't remember what happened to his organs.

Q: Specifically, do you recall the brain being a part of these organs?

LIPSEY: I remember them cutting the top of his head off. I remember taking, I could see them taking the s out. That was the only point in the autopsy that I got a little queasy. I remember they made a little circular cut and started taking the things out from inside of his head.

Q: Do you remember what they put the brain in?

LIPSEY: No, I don't.

Q: Do you remember them taking any metal fragments out of the president's body?

LIPSEY: Specifically, no, I don't.

Q: Do you recall if they did take out any metal fragments, maybe you don't specifically remember where. Did they take any fragments at all?

LIPSEY: I would hope Sam could remember and put those down on his tape. I feel like they did, but I'm not going to sit here and say what part of the body they took them from or what they were. I feel like they had did have some bullet fragments. I remember them very carefully examining the area, around the part on the side of his head where it was kinda blown away. I remember just very extremely carefully examining that part of his head and looking for things. But I not going to tell you that they took a big piece or little piece out. Sorry, I just don't remember.

Q: I have a sketch here from the autopsy face sheet we'd like you to place, you can do it in pencil first and then in pen or just in pen, any wounds you recall.

LIPSEY: okay

Q: This sketch is a blank drawing of a body, a male body.

LIPSEY: Like I said, to the best of my knowledge somewhere in that area and in that area.

Q: Could you label them as of whether they are of entrance or of exit?

LIPSEY: Alright. [writing and speaking] Part blown away. Entrance and entrance. To the best of my…let's see it would be the right side of his face. That area in there. Once again, that area was kind of blown away.

Q: Is that area the same area?

LIPSEY: Same area. And there was a hole -- you're talking about at tracheotomy. As far as I remember they were talking about it being a bullet hole. [writing and speaking] Exit. Exit.

o

o

o

Q: Is there anything else about the autopsy or the evidence which came from the autopsy or about the people who were present?

LIPSEY: The only thing .and there once again, I'm sorry, this is the best I can tell you.

SECTION 2

LIPSEY: And once again, and I'm sorry, the best I can tell you is my recollection after all these years and obviously some speculation on my part.

The only thing, and it's certainly not going to hold up under any court of law-type thing. But, I can remember when the Warren Commission was formed. Everybody's writing books about it. All the comments on how many times he was shot and the angles. I remember Walter Cronkite doing this big CBS thing on who shot him -- how many directions it came from. I can remember vividly in my mind on literally hundreds of occasions, saying these people are crazy. I watched the autopsy and I know for a fact he was shot three times. And the doctors were firmly convinced they all came out of the same gun because of the type of wounds or the entrances, whatever. I wish I could be more specific. I remember going back to the autopsy. I can remember specifically the next week, the next month. Over the period of the next year or so. Which was when I really remember what went on in the room. These people were crazy.

I can remember in my own mind, they're trying to read something into it that didn't happen. One book came out that he was shot from three different angles, another report came out he was only shot once, another that he was shot seven times. All kinds of…Everybody had their own versions of what happened, how many sounds they heard, and the angles of the fire they came from. I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots.

Q: Did they also feel --did the doctors state that three separate bullets had struck?

LIPSEY: This is one other thing, that to the best of my memory, today, and remembering what I thought about when all these reports came out absolutely, unequivocally yes, they were convinced that he had been shot three times.

Q: It's unclear to me from the sketch that you did where there are three bullets.

LIPSEY: One on the right side of his head, one on the upper point of his neck and one on the lower part of his neck.

Q: Well, on your sketch, you labeled two points as points of entrance.

LIPSEY: One point was just blown away. This point was just blown away. I just can't remember whether there was a point of entrance and then the blown away part or whether it -- he must have been sitting like this and it hit like this and went in just blew that away or if it ripped the whole section away.

Q: Either of those two possibilities means one bullet to the head, I think.

LIPSEY: Right. One bullet to the head.

Q: Right.

LIPSEY: Then one bullet to the lower head.

Q: Oh. Then where did that bullet exit?

LIPSEY: That's the bullet that exited right here.

Q: The throat.

LIPSEY: Throat. Then the lower entrance that did not exit. If that's confusing, ask me again and we'll go over it. Do you understand it? What I'm talking about so far? One bullet, right on his head. The bullet was coming out like this --

Q: The question is, the bullet wound that you're referring to right hand side of his head,

LIPSEY: Right.

Q: Did that, did this wound, which you describe as a large blasting out, did that have a separate corresponding entry wound or did the doctors believe that was all of one wound?

LIPSEY: That was all part of one wound.

Q: Could it have been part of that lower wound on the head that you labeled?

LIPSEY: Oh no. Absolutely not.

Q: Because, earlier when I asked you about the blown away portion, I got the impression that when you were saying you weren't sure whether it entered and then blew away a portion or whether the entrance and exit were part of the same hole.

LIPSEY: You're right. I wasn't. This was distinctly a separate wound beside, in relation to these two.

Q: Did the doctors conclude [laughing] that was there a two separate wounds was there a track between the two of them?

LIPSEY: The doctors concluded, the conclusion of the doctors was there were three separate wounds.

Q: And three separate bullets.

LIPSEY: And three separate bullets. No question in my mind about that. Can I ask you a question at this point?

Q: You can ask us but we may not be able to answer it for you.

o

o

o

Q: On this sketch could you add a further identification where you say "part blown away." That's my confusion.

LIPSEY: Okay. [writing and speaking out loud] Entrance of bullet #2 and entrance of bullet #3.

Q: When you say "wound #1, why don't you say…

Q: [All speaking at once] That, to you, represents entrance of bullet #1.

LIPSEY: That would represent…No. Not in sequence. The bullet #1 may have been this bullet and that may have been #2. I don't remember the sequence.

Q: Of course. But for the purpose of this paper, that could be the sequence.

LIPSEY: [writing and speaking out loud] Entrance and exit --

Q: Entrance and exit.

LIPSEY: Exit of bullet #1. This would be entrance of bullet #2. Entrance of bullet #3. Not in order.

Q: Just write "For identification."

LIPSEY: [writing and speaking out loud] For identification. This same area blown away as…

Q: Wound #1.

LIPSEY: [writing and speaking out loud] Wound #1. [then different notation] Exit point of wound #2.

Q: Now, let me ask you this to clear up, I think we stated this explicitly, but, the point on the sketch labeled as point on entrance wound #2, did you in fact see that hole?

LIPSEY: All I saw was when they turned him over on his side, we took him out of the boxed coffin that they brought him from the hospital, he was laying on his back, they laid him on the table. When I saw him is when they turned him on his side and I saw it from a distance of 20ft, 15ft I saw the big blood area. I did not get any closer look at the hole than that.

Q: But [tape missing a few words] of the doctor.

LIPSEY: [writing and speaking out loud] [writing and speaking out loud] And what I could see relatively from where I was sitting that's about the position of it. Yes.

Q: So essentially, the doctors said there were two bullet wounds to the head. Is that correct?

LIPSEY: Not really, not considering if you want to consider this a head or a neck wound. I consider it more of a neck wound and I believe in their discussions they discussed it more of a neck wound. I consider my wound #1 is the head wound. I consider this wound #2 on a Upper neck/lower part of your head

Q: Was it in the hair, hairline?

LIPSEY: Yes. It was in the hair, but the lower hairline.

Q: It was in the hair?

LIPSEY: Just a minute. Wait. I'm considering where my hairline is today. Like I say, it was just a blood smash area back there. It could have been in the part that you sort of shave right up there. But lower head still, but upper neck. But the third one definitely was the lower neck, upper vertebrae.

At this time we'll have to stop. The time is 1:00 and I'll insert another tape.

o

o

o

LT. LIPSEY’S TESTIMONY

Lt. Lipsey, who was connected with the honor guard that carried JFK’s coffin, was present at the autopsy and gave an interview to the HSCA, much of which was regarding the wounds. A transcript of his testimony is here:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.pdf

I read most of it and found it fascinating. I’ll give a summary here. If you read the transcript, beware that that you need to read the full accounts of the wounds to understand which wounds he’s referring to. You can easily misunderstand something he’s saying if it’s taken out of context.

Here’s a summary of interesting things I learned from reading Lipsey’s testimony:

• Humes firmly rejected the possibility that a bullet transited through the back wound and out the throat wound. (!!!) This is precisely opposite of what his official autopsy report stated. No wonder he had to burn his first report.
• The fact that a bullet entered the back but did not exit was considered by Lipsey to be the “strictly confidential” part of the autopsy. Presumably because that would indicate a third bullet, and thus a conspiracy.
  
• Humes spent a couple of hours looking for the back-wound bullet. They even sliced up organs looking for it. They found nothing, concluding it could be anywhere in the body, down to the feet. Lipsey said he couldn’t remember if they x-rayed the organs in order to find the bullet. He also couldn’t remember whether or not probes were used.
  
• Humes concluded that a bullet transited through the back-of-head at-the-hairline wound and out the throat wound.
  
• Humes concluded that the gaping top-right wound was due to a bullet that both entered and exited the wound.* It entered at the crown area of the head and exited at the top of the face, at the hairline. (At “the hairline” is how I interpreted Lipsey’s description.)

Following are some details of the above summary. But first this note:

NOTE: Lipsey talks as though the back wound was high up. We know that the wound was lower. He makes this mistake, I believe, because after the autopsy the press reported the position of the back wound as being high, and this probably registered with Lipsey. And also because his view of the wounds hadn’t been that good.

Lipsey was sitting on Kennedy’s left side, so he didn’t have a good view of the wounds. But he did remember clearly that there were four wounds, and that Humes and the others determined what they considered to be the paths of the bullets through the wounds. These paths are not the same as those reported by Humes in the official report, and that is one thing that makes Lipsey’s testimony fascinating. It might provide a window into the first autopsy report that Humes burnt.

Here is a list of wounds reported by Humes and the WC:

Gaping Top-of-Head Wound

Back-of-Head at Hairline Wound

Base-of-Neck Back Wound

Throat Wound (i.e. front side of neck)

Humes/WC reported these entrance/exit transits:

Back-of-Head at Hairline Wound -----> Gaping Top-of-Head Wound

Base-of-Neck Back Wound -----> Throat Wound

HOWEVER, Lipsey reported the following as being the transits accepted by Humes at the autopsy:

Gaping Top-of-Head Wound -----> Gaping Top-of-Head Wound (both entrance and exit)*

Back-of-Head at Hairline Wound -----> Throat Wound

Base-of-Neck Back Wound -----> No transit, no fragments found.

Lipsey said that the entrance and exit for the transit at the top of the head were both part of the large gaping wound there.* This so-called wound was created by someone before the autopsy. Horne says Humes created it. Lifton said the same in Best Evidence, but now says it was created by someone else earlier, only to be discovered by Humes. (Humes commented on it as being surgery to the top of the head, and then played along with the charade that changed the gaping back-of-head wound into a much larger top-of-head wound.)

We learn from Lipsey’s testimony that Humes entirely rejected the idea that a bullet could have transited through the Base-of-Neck Back Wound and out the Throat Wound. Yet this COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS what he would later conclude in his final autopsy report! Here’s Lipsey’s testimony:

Q: Do you remember any discussion among the doctors that the [third] bullet could have entered [the back wound] and exited in the front of the neck?

LIPSEY: Yeah. I remember they were firmly convinced it did not. ... That's why they spent so much time looking for [the third bullet].

When Lipsey testified he was concerned about violating the order he’d received not to talk. He indicates in this statement

The other [third] bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the bullet went down into the body. And during the autopsy, this is the only part that I can imagine would be of any--really, what I’ve told you right there, of strictly confidential nature that was never written up anywhere. And I presume, am I right, that this tape and this conversation is strictly confidential? You know, it’s not going to be published I guess is what I’m getting at?

that he considered the lost back-wound bullet the only sensitive information he would be revealing. Why would that be sensitive? Presumably because it would indicate that JFK was hit by not two, but three bullets. And this would prove there had to have been two shooters.

Lipsey said the following about the back wound and the third, missing bullet:

And I can remember them discussing the third, third bullet. First, second and third bullet. The third bullet, the one they hadn’t found.

... I remember they were bound and determined to find that bullet because it didn't have an exit mark. But I don't think they ever found the bullet. The one that hit his chest, the one that ... entered here; there was no exit hole. So the bullet was somewhere in his body, obviously.

... For about two hours [half the autopsy] all they talked about was finding that bullet.

... Where was that bullet? And so when it got ... down to where they thought it hit his chest cavity, they opened him up and started looking in here. That's why I remember one ... after they had taken all his organs out, during the autopsy they had them sitting up there: "Now let's see if we can find the bullet." They cut all his organs apart.

... I remember them saying it must of hit the chest cavity and ricocheted down somewhere into the body.

... And they spent a lot of time on that. Because I remember when they cut him open in the front, you know, they -- I remember -- "Let's look for this, let's look for this." They took all the organs out, they went through, they cut the organs up looking for bullets. And finally, to the best of my knowledge, and I remember this, I don't remember how much more they did after this, but I remember them saying: "That bullet could be anywhere." It could have gone right down to his heels or his toes. It could have ricocheted and traveled right down through right on down, you know, through his insides.

... They traced it through the back of his neck through, you know, when they did the autopsy, through the inside of his body and there was no where the bullet was then where it should have exited, it was not. And at the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?

... I'm convinced they were in the upper part of his body -- yes -- because that's how they started following it. And then I think, that's when they started taking his organs out, you know, one at a time only. They took all of the insides out, I remember that, boy. They had four or five piles of insides sitting on the table. And they thoroughly examined each one of those. They just had a big hollow chest and stomach cavity left -- or particularly chest cavity, when they got through. And, I'm very convinced, in my own mind, that they were very convinced that bullet was somewhere in him.

Because, from their conversations, they tracked this bullet as far as they could in a downward position before they couldn't tell where it went. That's when they started taking organs apart and looking where ever they could look without going ahead and just cutting him apart. And I think their decision finally was, we're just, you know, not going to completely dissect him to find this bullet. So they tracked the bullet down as far as it went. Obviously, by that point it wasn't that important.

... I remember one of the doctors said I've seen a guy shot -- something to the effect, "I've seen bullet wounds hit bone and ricocheted all over the body." And he says, "We may never find this bullet unless we take the whole body apart."

... The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out.

... unequivocally ... they were convinced that he had been shot three times.

*Actually, I couldn't quite figure out from Lipsey's testimony whether the exit for the gaping top-of-head wound was part of that large hole, or if a small exit wound was found in the hairline above the eye. But since exit wounds are generally large, and since I haven't heard of any autopsy witness claiming a small wound above the eye, I decided to interpret Lipsey's testimony in a way that excludes the small exit wound.

BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above).

The WC staff believed the back wound was below the throat wound until March 1964, when Chief Justice Warren demanded his staff bring him better witnesses, and Joe Ball--who was tasked with explaining how a shot fired from above could enter the back and exit the throat--made a sudden trip to Bethesda hospital and had a long talk with Admiral Galloway, Dr. Humes, and Dr. Boswelll. A few days later, Humes and Boswell testified, only now accompanied by some freshly-made drawings now showing---for the first time ever--a back wound above the throat wound. This is all documented and discussed in my presentation The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies, which was delivered at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference last fall. This presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Bruising was reported in the top of JFK's right lung. What if this "bruising" was actually more than just bruising?

I hear ya. Jerrol Custer has stated that the autopsists were chopping up all the organs looking for bullet "fragments" rather than seeking bullet paths or trails of minute fragments. Certainly, x-rays would reveal any fragments - so why chop them up? A possible explanation is to destroy evidence of a 'dust cloud' of fragments...

Are you sure it was Custer who said that, Tom? I ask because Lt. Lipsey said precisely the same thing. He did so in HSCA testimony. If they both said it, I'm sure it's true

Excellent point about x-rays revealing the fragments.

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Now, suppose Lifton is right, that the low back wound was faked. What would have been the purpose of faking the wound? If it was to couple it to the throat wound, then why would they have placed the wound so obviously low?