Sandy Larsen

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?

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

Thanks for taking time to answer my question Robert. I think I got the gist of what you were saying, but it was complicated by the mixing of multiple wounds.

What I'd like to do is write a simple step-by-step list of what I think happened regarding the back wound, and then ask you (or anybody else who's willing and able) to show me where I'm messed up.

Okay, here's what appears to have happened:

1. JFK gets shot in the back, 5 inches below the collar.
2. Humes wants to connect the back wound to the throat wound, since that would explain both. He does so by raising the back wound to 3 inches below the collar That takes care of both wounds and no bullets need be accounted for.
3. WC is formed.
4. WC determines that only two bullets could have hit JFK. So Specter invents SBT and Ford raises the back wound from 5 inches below the collar to 3 inches below the collar to make the theory work.

Pre-WC, the autopsy already stated that the bullet entered the (high) back wound and exited the throat wound. The only thing Specter did with his SBT is state the the bullet went on to hit Connally. Right:? Right. (Okay, I can see right now that part of my confusion was that I thought that part of the SBT theory was the back-wound to throat-would path. It isn't.)

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).

"one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place"

Sandy, to my potentially limited recollection, that was Lipsey describing an extensive and unsuccessful search for a missing bullet, and I think that even at that time the point he was making was that considering the time spent by the doctors in this search, and that it proved fruitless, they were completely convinced that there was, and remained, a missing bullet.

and that it was never mentioned in any testimony.

but my memory has proven faulty before. I lost a bar bet last week that the West won the Civil War, so I encourage people to listen carefully to my nuance. I also like to encourage people to remind me what the word nuance means.

Glenn,

By coincidence I happened to have come across Lipsey's testimony before the HSCA the other day. I read nearly the whole thing and found it thoroughly fascinating. I plan on posting a link and maybe relevant portions of it with commentary. One thing fascinating about it is that it possibly reveals some of what Hume's burnt autopsy report might have reported. It's a three-bullet scenario.

Someone earlier in the thread commented that Lipsey might have said that they searched three or four hours for the back wound bullet. What Lipsey actually says is that the autopsy lasted the three or four hours, but that a large portion of that time was spent looking for the bullet.

Anyway, I do know from reading that that it was not Lipsey who reported the extensive probing. I'm pretty sure that it was reported at some point in time by one of the lower level personnel who were present. Because I remember reading the statement.

You are right that Lipsey said they were convinced that there was a missing bullet.

anyway. as i'd stated in an earlier post, I trust Lipsey's words many more times than I do Humes' or the rest of those cluster-wearing inbreds.

LOL, me too!

As it turns out, it looks like Doug Horne misspoke when he said that James Jenkins could see Hume's little finger push on the pleural membrane. Here is what Jenkins said in an early interview (his first, I think) with David Lifton. From Best Evidence:

[Jenkins] remembered very clearly Humes’ probing the back wound with his little finger. “What sticks out in my mind,” Jenkins told me, “is the fact that Commander Humes put his little finger in it, and, you know, said that.... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger, which would mean to me [it was] very shallow. .... I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe.... through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]. .... You could actually see where it [the probe] was making an indentation.... where it was pushing the skin up. .... There was no entry into the chest cavity.... no way that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity.

This resolves (to my satisfaction) a number of problematic things. First, it means that there is no reason to believe that Humes probed deeply with his finger, and so the question of how his finger could possibly fit becomes a non-issue. Second, if the official size of the wound (4 mm by 7 mm) is correct or near that, Humes could not have probed very deeply at all, and yet was able to hit bottom. Which means the wound was very shallow indeed. This could be a important clue as to what exactly made the wound. Third, apparently Humes did indeed probe the pleural membrane with a probe, just as he (and at least one other autopsy physician) had testified. This gives me more confidence in Jenkins as a witness.

Sandy:

This is a very interesting (and important) thread.

As you probably know from reading Best Evidence, I believe the back wound to be false (i.e., man made; but certainly not by shooting a gun at the corpse of JFK).

But in this post (that I am now writing), let me focus on just one point: the question of Humes "probing" the back wound with his finger.

If you look at the Clark Panel Report (1968, released in Jan 1969), you will see that they write that it was obvious (based on their examination of the autopsy photos) that the rear entry (let's call it "the back wound" for the sake of this post) could not permit the "insertion" of a finger.

Yet we know that credible witnesses saw Humes insert (at least part of the way) his finger. They did not imagine that; they witnessed it.

So. . . : How to explain that situation? i.e., that "contradiction"

What I believe to be the answer:

I call your attention to the autopsy photographs--which I obtained in December 1982 and published (for the first time) in the Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). 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. This situation of the placement of that ruler is discussed in Chapter 30 of B.E. --under the breaker "The Puzzle of the Ruler." ( Its my belief that the "back wound" (which the two agents are referring to) is concealed by that ruler.

I also call your attention to the fact that in their FBI report, the two FBI agents refer to that "lower" back wound (my quotes on the word "lower") as an "opening" in the back.

So here's the bottom line: there was (I believe) a "lower" back wound, which was indeed probed by Humes with his finger. That "lower" wound was indeed on the body.

I do not know how deeply Humes finger went in; and that's not the point. My point is that later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound. A ruler was used to conceal the lower wound--i.e., to conceal it from posterity.

The result: there are witnesses (e.g., the two FBI agents) who actually saw Humes probe the "lower" wound; but the wound that is present in the autopsy photographs (which show the ruler) show a "higher" wound, and that higher wound is definitely too small "to permit the insertion of a finger" (just as reported by the Clark Panel).

Humes - - How Complicit?

If true, does this mean that Humes was directly involved in autopsy chicanery? (Yes, unfortunately it does). I write "unfortunately" because when I wrote Best Evidence, back in the mid-to-late 1970's, I had a more innocent view of Humes. But I'll be writing more about that in Final Charade.

But now back to another (and very important) point: Is there anyway to definitively prove this? Yes, but its never going to happen--at least not in my lifetime. But I predict that if an exhumation is ever conducted, there will be discovered a "wound" or "opening" beneath the ruler.

All of this goes to the larger question of whether the Bethesda autopsy was a fraud.

Was it a fraud? (Or a "perfect medical forgery", which fooled the autopsy doctors?).

My answer to that has changed, over time.

So let me repeat the question: was it a fraud?

My answer (today): yes, it was.

Let's restate this somewhat: Was Humes merely confused, or a "useful idiot" in following some higher authorities "orders" in a scheme to re-arrange (or fabricate) certain medical facts? My answer (today): Yes, I believe Humes was complicit ( but I did not believe that when I wrote Best Evidence).

AN IMPORTANT QUALIFIER: Humes did not do the "surgery of the head area"

However--and this is an important qualifier--I do NOT believe that Humes was responsible for the enlargement of the head wound. In other words, I do not believe that Humes was responsible for creating what he himself described as "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." That FBI statement was based on what the FBI agents heard Humes say aloud (See Chapter 12 of B.E., for a detailed discussion of this point). (Nor do I believe that the Boswell diagram showing that huge hole, along with the measurements --10 x 17--is a "con job". This is where I diverge (completely) from Doug Horne's beliefs. He believes that Humes did the surgery and then Boswell acted to conceal Humes complicity by creating a bogus diagram. I don't believe any of that.

Instead. . .

I believe the account of Paul O'Connor --as told to the HSCA--that the body arrived with an empty cranium and a huge hole in the head. (FYI: O'Connor not only told that to the HSCA in August 1977; he told it to the Florida newspapers, at around that time.) So O'Connor is "on the record" with regard to all of this in four locations:

1. 1977: The Florida newspapers

2. Aug 1977, the HSCA (Purdy's report)

3. Aug 1979, my original telephone interview (as set forth verbatim in Chapter 26 of B.E.)

4. October 1980: My original filmed interview (as set forth in the Best Evidence Research Video. Now available on the Internet).

And there are three more instances of Paul O'Connor going through all of this:

5. October 1988 - filmed interview with KRON-TV (Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase, arranged by me)

6.. Spring 1989 - my very lengthy and detailed follow-up filmed interview with O'Connor at his home (not yet released)

7.. 1990 - Still another lengthy interview --conducted by me--with O'Connor when he was flown to California for the show HARDCOPY

STILL ANOTHER IMPORTANT WITNESS: "Wayne". . .

For those interested in this point (re the empty cranium), I have a witness (who you'll be reading about in Final Charade) who was close with FBI Agent O'Neill; a businessman who was a strong supporter of my work, and who lived in his area, and was a financial supporter. Before O'Neill--who was rather thick-headed and totally pro-Hoover--realized the significance of what he was saying, he repeatedly maintained (this is back in 1992) to this businessman, whose first name was Wayne: "Wayne, there was not brain." He said this repeatedly, and with great emphasis on the word "was". I provided Gunn and Horne with this information. It was never properly followed up.

Bottom line: O'Neill (before he modified his story) corroborated O'Connor: the body did indeed arrive with "an empty cranium."

If that is so, of course that makes Humes (and Boswell) complicit in autopsy fraud. And so their shenanigans with a ruler, during the autopsy photography, pale in comparison with their failure to tell the truth about the condition of the body, when it arrived.

As you all may know, I spoke with Humes twice in November 1966; this is all laid out in Best Evidence in Chapter 8 (and repeated in Chapter 18). As Humes burst out at me, when I confronted him with the Sibert and O'Neill report, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where."

This tape was played aloud at the mid-West Convention in 1993. I am going to make it available on the internet, soon.

Humes knew the body was altered. Almost certainly, he was given the "World War III" cover story, and so he ended up participating in this fraud.

What he said about the body in front of the FBI agents (that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skul") is one aspect of this fraud. What he did with the ruler is still another. Humes did not appear before the WC with "clean hands." I thought he did when I wrote B.E.; I no longer believe that. But still, his data --when properly analyzed and interpreted--is invaluable.

DSL

10/23/15 - 5:55 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

Thanks for dropping in and offering us some valuable insight. I was unaware of the 1968 Clark Panel Report. Yes, that certainly sheds light on the topic. It just didn't make sense that Humes would be trying to probe with his finger a 4 mm 7 mm wound, and yet credible witnesses testified that he did.

My mistake was in assuming that Humes was referring to the lower back wound (what I've considered to be the real wound) when he reported the 4 mm by 7 mm size.

I am aware that that the ruler (not measuring anything) likely was used to cover up the lower wound. There are others posting on this topic -- most perhaps? -- who believe the same. In my opinion it's not just a possibility, it's a fact. (Even so I reserve the right to change my mind.) All the evidence points in the direction.

Now, you say:

My point is that later that evening, and by the time of autopsy photography of that area occurred--i.e., by the time a permanent photographic record was being made--there existed (i.e., "was created" --again, my quotes) a higher (and equally false) wound.

Are you saying that the lower wound is false too? (I know that topic was covered in Best Evidence. But I was primarily focusing on the gaping head wound when I read your book. Plus, I didn't realize at the time that I wasn't reading the latest edition... mine being dated 1980 I believe.) It sound like you're saying that the low wound was fabricated in the pre-autopsy surgery, and the upper wound was fabricated by Humes. Is that right?

Today I've been reading the testimony Lt. Lipsey gave before the HSCA regarding the back wound. According to him, a good portion of the autopsy was spent searching for bullet fragments from the back wound. He says they even cut organs up looking for fragments... but they never found any. That, if true, begs the question, what were they searching for if they knew the wound (the lower one) was fake?

Oh, I think I know... I think you're going say that Humes didn't know the wound was fake. Or if he could see it was, he played along with the charade.

Anyway, reading Lipsey's testimony got me to wondering this: What was the problem, on 11/22/63, with the low back wound?? How exactly did it conflict with the LN narrative at that time?

It wasn't till much later that the WC determined LHO had only enough time to get off three shots, one of which missed. That's what created the conflict with the back wound, right? There were only two bullets for three wounds. Arlen Specter fixed that problem with his magic bullet theory, with Gerald Ford's help when he relocated the wound a few inches higher. But this conflict wasn't known on the day of the autopsy.

As a matter of fact, this is very strange... Humes raised the wound at the autopsy, AND Gerald Ford did the very same (on paper) later for the WC. Did Gerald Ford merely make a change on paper that Humes had already made on flesh? Did Specter's magic bullet theory merely reflect the revised autopsy report? If so, why do these men's actions raise so many eyebrows?

What am I missing here? Can somebody please straighten me out?

Also, why was the low back "wound" fabricated? Surely they couldn't have thought that that, coupled with the throat wound, constituted a reasonable trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

David, thanks for updating us on your current take on the pre-autopsy surgery. I'm looking forward to reading Final Charade.

At the moment I [sandy] can only accept three possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

3. A frangible bullet disintegrated and lodged itself within the right lung.

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

I just realized that #3 is covered by #1. Oops.

this is a significant point. bullets do not strike objects and maintain their same trajectory. period. (except for melons placed on ladders by hollywood sleight-of-hand artists).

if the shooter were anywhere on target and the bullet struck the tree branch en route (some say one hit the traffic-signal) then i do not believe for an instant that it would have stayed true enough to hit K. No way.

I agree Glenn, that is significant. And is one reason I've dropped the idea that a bullet hitting JFK's back could have been slowed down enough to make a shallow wound.

There are just too many problems with the idea:

• A sniper probably wouldn't have attempted to make a shot through tree limbs in the first place.
• Hitting a limb would have changed the trajectory. And the bullet would still have more than 25 yards to go, thus multiplying the effect of the new trajectory. Hitting another limb could have corrected the trajectory, but that's a highly unlikely possibility.
• Even if the bullet managed to hit JFK's back, what are the odds that it would make a shallow wound, stop short of the pleura, and THEN disappear?

Okay, on the last point, instead of disappearing the bullet might have fragmented within the flesh, and Humes could have put on an act (part of the "charade" Robert suggested) and made everybody believe there was no bullet to be found. But if that were the case, Humes would have done the same had a frangible bullet lodged itself within the lung. There is no reason to believe the highly unlikely scenario bulleted above when a a much-more likely scenario exists -- the frangible bullet one.

As such, I would revise Tom's list of possible scenarios accordingly. He wrote:

At the moment I [Tom] can only accept two possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

To this I would tentatively add a third possibility, in red here:

At the moment I [sandy] can only accept three possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

3. A frangible bullet disintegrated and lodged itself within the right lung.

My reasons for making #3 tentative are two-fold. First, I want to know how it is that technicians interviewed by researchers made no mention of the collapsed lung. Second, I'd like to know how the frangible bullet just happened to fragment precisely before entering the lung. Or if it's possible for lung tissue to cause the bullet to break up

Robert, can you comment on this?

Tom, have you ruled out #3?

EDIT: I just realized that #3 is covered by #1. Oops.

300 fps is remarkably low velocity. It is in fact the industry standard highest fps allowed in paintball.

Keep in mind, though, that velocity is only one factor. The mass of the projectile is another... the lower the mass, the lower the kinetic energy of the projectile. Also the tip shape... a broad point will distribute the force across are larger surface area of the target, making it less likely to penetrate.

If a paintball has a broad, rounded tip, right? If it also has a significantly smaller mass than a rifle bullet, then the fact that it doesn't penetrate the skin doesn't tell us much about what a bullet could do.

.

As I recall, CE-399 had not a trace of "organic material" adhering to it. Not that I would otherwise accept the SBT, but in addition to flesh, blood and bone, JBC's clothing was made of organic fiber. This bullet allegedly passed through JFK's neck, JBC's Jacket, shirt, chest, shirt, jacket, jacket sleeve, wrist, trousers, thigh and struck bone. Yet no organic material was present on CE-399?

I for one don't believe the Carcano was even fired on 11/22. Which means I believe CE-399 was planted. It may have been planted in the limo first and then moved to the stretcher, or planted directly on the stretcher. Makes no difference to me.

.

At the moment I can only accept two possible scenarios:

1. The pleura and probably the lung were punctured, and Humes et al are lying to protect the LN scenario

2. Some form of an 'exotic bullet' penetrated his back and then broke up to such a degree that it left little or no trace. "Ice bullets", "blood soluble bullets", mercury bullets, etc. have been mentioned. On the one hand I don't see any reason to dismiss them as a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't know if they could inflict the shallow back wound we seem to be dealing with.

Again I agree with you, Tom.

I also agree with Robert's assessment that the back wound probing was likely a charade.

One important question comes to mind: Why is it that none of the Bethesda technicians, etc., who have talked to researchers, haven't mentioned a collapsed lung? Is that something that would have been obvious when the chest was opened up? Even to personnel with limited medical knowledge? Could Humes have opened up the chest cavity, noticed a collapsed lung, kept that information to himself, and gotten away with it?

Robert? Anyone?

Of course we need to keep in mind that personnel were asked to leave and return at certain points during the autopsy, a process which I believe was meant to compartmentalize information. I'm talking about the pre-autopsy activities here.

Does anybody recall if personnel were asked to leave even during parts of the official autopsy, which began around 8:00 PM?

What I do believe regarding the Back Wound:

1. SS Glen Bennett stated on the day of the shooting that he observed a 'hit' about 6" down JFK's back and slightly to the right of the midline

2. RADM Burkley's Death Certificate completed and signed in Dallas in support of the SS stealing the body states a wound at or near T3

3. The holes in JFK's clothing support Bennett's statement, AND Burkley's Death Certificate

4. Humes, Boswell and Finke were ordered to lie, and did so whenever necessary

5. The doctors were not allowed to perform a complete autopsy. See testimony of Finke during Clay Shaw's trial. Thus, evidence necessary to understand the wounds has been hidden. This of course implies that there actually WAS 'something' that was required to be hidden...

6. The body WAS tampered with, possibly including the back wound. Therefore vital evidence regarding the back wound MAY have been destroyed. The condition of the throat wound based upon Humes' description as he began the autopsy convinces me that sometime between Parkland and the moment Humes began the autopsy, someone opened the throat. If the purpose was to create an unquestionable wound of exit, then it was extremely overdone. If however, someone expected to find the wrong type of bullet and/or remove proof that this shot entered from the front, this is the type of damage to be expected. Proof that the throat wound WAS tampered with, is proof that ALL the wounds are suspect.

7. Bullets and/or bullet fragments WERE removed from the throat wound (see size of wound above) and therefore, possibly the back wound as well

8. CE-399 was a plant to link the TSBD rifle to the assassination. It did NOT create any of the damage done to JFK or JBC, and should be completely disregarded in any discussion of the wounds

What I do NOT know about the Back Wound:

1. How a FMJ, or a standard frangible bullet could have made a shallow wound. A FMJ would have penetrated the pleura. A frangible would not break up after traveling only an inch or two. In the previous linked thread, the possibility that an under-powered shot aimed at his head would have impacted his back was discussed. To my satisfaction you could have a short-shot that EITHER hit low, OR impacted at a low enough velocity to cause a shallow wound, but not BOTH with the same shot. Importantly, no one came up with a proven impact velocity that would create a wound ONLY an inch or two deep in soft tissue.

2. Was a bullet or any metallic fragments removed from the back wound? Yes, according to Paul O'Connor. However, that is hearsay (he didn't witness it himself) and apparently is late testimony, circa ARRB.

3. Could ANY type of bullet including an 'exotic' bullet create the shallow back wound without penetrating the pleura?

4. Are we absolutely certain that the pleura was NOT penetrated? Jenkins stated that Humes' probe did not penetrate the pleura. What was the diameter of the probe used? If there were a number of holes smaller in diameter than the probe used, and Humes WAS seeking the track of an intact bullet, then the probe would not have penetrated. If the probe was held at an angle other than the bullets actual trajectory, it would not have penetrated. Toward the end of the autopsy it was decided that the back wound AND the throat must be connected by a bullet path. If a hole in the pleura was discovered lower than the back wound entry this can NOT be admitted as it would require one more rifle shot than a LN could produce in the allotted time frame. Humes, Boswell and Finke were ordered to lie, why not Jenkins?

5. Where is chest x-ray #9? As discussed in testimony by Ebersole there are a multitude of small objects visible, which he dismisses as 'dirt' in the film cartridges. At least one other doctor present appears to disagree. I know nothing about Radiology. Are film cartridges typically that dirty? Prior to use, aren't they shipped in protective bags?

Tom,

I also (along with Chris Newton) concur with everything you say in your list. In fact I want to thank you for creating the list. I have made a copy of it to keep in my notes. I did elaborate a bit on one of your points (see above in red.)

I do have one question. You write:

1. ...To my satisfaction you could have a short-shot that EITHER hit low, OR impacted at a low enough velocity to cause a shallow wound, but not BOTH with the same shot. ...

What is meant by the phrase "short shot?"

Byrd removed the East window frame--the one all the shots supposedly came from--and put it on display at his house.

I wasn't aware that the museum has a conspiracy exhibit, but I haven't been there in 15+ years.

Hi Brian,

How sure are you that Byrd had the "official sniper's nest" window removed, and not another one instead?

The following 2007 Education Forum topic

"Siiper's window" up for bid on eBay

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9321

has on its first page a very long convoluted history of the window, and this quote of Joan Mellen:

“Dry Hole” Byrd just happened to own the Texas School Book Depository, from which someone, not Lee Oswald, but someone, fired at the President on November 22 nd. Six weeks after the assassination of President Kennedy, when Byrd wanted a souvenir of this historical building, he chose the South Westernmost window of the sixth floor, not the window from which Oswald purportedly fired with his creaky rifle with its loose telescopic sight, that was the Southeast. No, Byrd took the window from which a Dealey Plaza witness and his wife told the Warren Commission they saw a man with a gun. It seems D. H. Byrd knew exactly which window was the souvenir, and, by inference, that Oswald was no shooter. [emphasis added]

Ron Ecker posted this quote and said he didn't know what the source of Joan's information was.

(Ron must have forgotten Joan's TSBD-window comment he posted back in 2007. Because In his #71 post above he said, "There are two things new to me here, both amazing. Byrd removed the wrong window? And the museum has a conspiracy exhibit?" It's nice to know I'm not the only one who forgets amazing things! ;-)

EDIT:

I see now that Chris Newton, in post #76, linked to what may have been the source for Joan Mellen's comment. Which, for the record, is a letter signed by O.V. Campbell, co-owner of TSBD from 1928 to 1981, where he states that "there is no question in my mind that D.H. Byrd took out the wrong window." He also states that A.S. Truly informed him of the mistake; that Byrd's workmen "removed the last window from the west side of the building;" and that a later owner of the building, Aubrey Mayhew, had in fact removed the original windows from the so-called Oswald sniper's nest.