Joe Bauer

DVP, I just read as best I could the two pages of medical findings you posted.

It's really beyond me.

But, did I miss where this report mentioned the final weight of JFK's brain as recorded in the autopsy?

The average Human adult brain weighs about 3 lbs or between 1,300 and 1,400 grams.

O'Conner mentions that what he saw of JFK's brain amounted to "maybe a handful."

That's a shocking less weight amount than 3 lbs.

Why would you paint O'Conner's testimony as not believable when we know for a fact that so much of JFK's brain was exploded out in Dealey Plaza.

Of course O'Conner saw a huge reduction in brain matter. Are you saying that O'Conner's "maybe a handful" description of what was left of JFK"s brain was an exaggeration?

And is that one of the main reasons why you substantially discount O'Conner's testimony?

We already know that a certain amount of JFK's brain matter ( along with a lot of blood and other fluid ) exploded  upward and outward upon the bullet's initial impact.

Agent Sam Kinney and others also reported seeing actual brain matter in the back seat interior of the limo car as they were trying to clean up at least some of the blood.

That suggests that beyond the part of JFK's brain that was instantly turned into and ejected as a liquefied spray, that even more eviscerated brain matter was falling out of his shattered skull from simple gravity.

The limo following motorcycle officers ( one ? ) said they were hit with matter and describe it's force which indicates it wasn't just a blood spray.

So, the fact that at least some of JFK's brain was already exploded up, out and back when he was hit gives some logical weight to O'Conner's claim that there was only a handful of JFK's brain left when he examined this.

And maybe I am wrong, but didn't at least two of the Parkland doctors who worked on JFK in their ER state that there was a large hole ( hole meaning an empty space ?) in the back of JFK's broken up skull? 

Again I ask, is what happened to JFK"s head and brains upon the bullet's impact typical of similar rifle shots to the brains of other human victims or animals such as deer?

Is this something a bullet from the Manlicher Carcano can do without doubt? The complete destruction of the skull?

JFK's head disintegrated as if hit by an exploding on impact mini-missile. Like being hit with a 50 caliber round.

I absolutely believe Paul O'Conner's testimony regards what he saw of JFK's brain.

Bugliosi was always as shamelessly self-promoting as Spence.

And Bugliosi milked his Manson trial performance to an almost desperate degree knowing full well this was his lucky "once-in-a-lifetime" spring board to fame and personal wealth gain.

Regards the Lee Oswald London trial and the critics reviews of it, he cites the quote " Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence do battle in a fashion that puts Perry Mason and the entire firm of "L.A. Law" to shame." from the San Jose Mercury newspaper.   Ha!

I have watched almost every Perry Mason episode on "Me TV" and let me tell you, I sure disagree with that S.J. Mercury review.

I've also watched every segment of the London Oswald trial on You Tube many, many times.

It's main appeal to me was that the witnesses called to testify were some of the actual participants in the JFK/Oswald/Ruby story.

But I always feel a cringe when I watch how Spence missed SO MANY opportunities to , as Jim Di says, "impale" many of these witnesses and Bugliosi himself.

Which he could have easily done...but he simply didn't.  Why?

You are too often left with the unsettling question - could Spence actually be that unprepared or uninformed or unmotivated or just plain lazy...or even compromised in some way?  His effort in this way was that lacking imo.

All of us in this forum ( and how many of us outside of Doug Caddy are even half way familiar with courtroom and cross examination procedure? ) could still easily see these missed opportunities. They were that obvious.

I agree with every point that Jim Di makes in this regards.

Bethesda Corpsman Paul O'Conner was "right there" working on JFK's body from beginning to the end of the autopsy. His description of there being "no brain to remove" from JFK when asked if he removed this ( as this was one of his main and specific job duties ) was so incredibly provocative it begged (screamed) for a deeper line of questions such as how this could physically be?  What could cause the brain to be almost entirely missing before O'Conner had a chance to remove it himself?

When Spence asked O'Conner how much brain was left in the cranium, O'Conner held out his hand and indicated it was maybe a "handful?'

A handfull?  Maybe even "half" a handful?

So much for the autopsy report that said the brain was removed and put into preservation fluid.

It wasn't O'Conner who removed JFK's brain using the usual involved skull sawing and nerve and connective tissue cutting procedure as he outlined it.

With admitted medical and gun shot injury ignorance, it sounds to me as if JFK's brain was blown into mush to a point that it fell out of his brain cavity from simple gravity.

What could turn JFK"s brain into gelatinous mush like that?

One old Carcano bullet?

Sandy, if Oswald was getting two hundred dollars a month ( which you say was equivalent to $1,600 today and this on top of his earnings when he worked ) from the FBI, why would he allow his baby daughter June to have no better bed than an old suitcase?

The white Russians bought the Oswald's a basic child's bed for June.

There seems to have been many other examples like this of unprovided basic needs from Marina's teeth to clothing.

If Oswald had enough earning monies to provide for these ( and $1,600 a month certainly would ) and instead held back using his monies for them, are we to believe that he did so out of simple tight-fisted selfish frugality?

If so, it borders on sadistic.

And if he could provide these basics including rent for pregnant Marina and baby June, why would he go along with allowing Ruth Paine to take his wife and baby from him and going through the humiliation of having to inform Ruth Paine of his visits to Marina for permission to do so?

Just asking what to me are basic logic questions.

Spence was like other famous defense attorney's who, for whatever reasons, were into theatrics.

Some could pull this off while still maintaining professional respect.

Some were very talented and had much success.

Most court room trials are at times so boring the jurors can even fall asleep, such as when the O.J. attorneys were discussing technical aspects of DNA.

So in that vein I think jurors occasionally enjoy these overly-dramatic performances. And I just happened to like seeing these myself from time to time.

However, with a subject as important as the JFK/Oswald/Ruby truth, I don't want to infer that I took this Bugliosi favoring-Spence shamefully unprepared theatrics mock trial show lightly.

I wish the Judge in the Yale Law School mock trial would have allowed the newsman's cameras.

Jeff Greenfield's summary was okay, but nothing compared to seeing this drama in the flesh.

Come on Judge...this wasn't a real trial.

Oh, Mr. Schnapf, are any of those other Lee Harvey Oswald mock trials on video?

Something we can access?

Yes, Spence did a lousy job.

The "trial" itself was exactly like Mr. Schnapf described... a " mockery of the mock trial."

But, I do like dramatic court room closing arguments as shown in historical videos and even in the movies.

Paul Newman's in "The Verdict" was great.

I think that if the Dealey Plaza plan messed up, and JFK survived and got back to Washington with less than totally disabling injuries, there may have been a general military take over.

Otherwise LBJ's corruption investigation may have not been stopped as it was on 11,22,1963 and he and all those connected to and dependent on him might have seen themselves destroyed.

The film "Seven Days In May" might have become our reality. 

Incredibly frightening stuff.  But not totally unimaginable.

Look at how close a coup became reality with Franklin Roosevelt and that was preemptively exposed by his loyal soldier guardian General Smedley Butler.

So Hemming claims they had a car bomb ready in case the shooting didn't work?

Hemming seemed to exaggerate at times, but if this were true and actually happened, can you imagine?

The confused outrage felt in this country was bad enough with just JFK being slaughtered.

If the jackal plotters and killers went so far as to tear Jackie's body apart ( and Nellie Connelly's too ) at the same time, I think the outrage level would have escalated to unimaginable degrees. 

As it was millions of people across the country instantly hated Dallas and those they perceived owned, controlled and policed that city starting on 11,22,1963.

Even at 12 years old, I was made aware right away through general newspaper stories that Dallas was home to very wealthy, powerful and super extreme right wingers who hated JFK. That JFK mug shot "WANTED FOR TREASON" flyer distribution stunt just highlighted for the rest of the country the extreme level of hate towards JFK  in that city and even state. 

JFK himself reportedly told Jackie that they were now in " nut country" after arriving in Texas. He knew that he was in General Edwin Walker and big oil's back yard.

Sandy I believe almost all of these Marina stories as you relate them.

As she herself has mentioned in some public interviews, she had her own flaws and made many mistakes.

I  do think she treated Lee badly at times with disparaging words and poor provider and even manhood insulting ones?

I feel Marina married Lee for reasons other than love for him as who he was. More selfish reasons.

Their marriage was a bad match and doomed from the start because of so many unmet psychological and emotional need reasons beyond their understanding and control.

On balance, in comparing their behaviors toward each other, most everyone will always condemn Lee more because he physically assaulted Marina and any harmful things she may have done to him were just words. And a growing rejection of him personally. 

For all that this mock trial lacks (which we all acknowledge is an enormous body of evidence, testimony and research information ) , Gerry Spence's closing argument is still compelling.to watch and it does hit on still really important and weighty points of Oswald's innocence versus guilt.

Spence's take on all the coincidences involving Ruth Paine including the draft of a letter Oswald just happened to have left for her to find and her finding ( or steering? ) Oswald to the perfect work place location on the Presidential motorcade route to carry out his supposed deed... still bring strong suspicion toward her possible involvement in some part of this affair.

If Spence had the information that is now available I think he may have won that case. As ridiculous as it was in it's staging and presentation.

The report of Ruth and her estranged husband Micheal Paine calling each other after the assassination with one them saying " we both know who's responsible" is one of the more intriguing gems in their story.

Back in those early 60's times, slapping and more serious physical abuse of spouses ( almost always husbands against wives ) was much more prevalent and even tolerated versus the last 20 to 30 years in our society.

This situation was similar in prevalence to many more people driving drunk and without seat belts  ( causing great injury to hundreds of thousands of innocent victims )  back in those times versus now also.

It wasn't until hugely increased severity penalties of fines and imprisonment were created, mandated and strictly enforced on perpetrators of these two crimes, along with increased societal shunning and condemning of them such as job loss, insurance denying etc, that these behaviors have been curtailed in any significant numbers.

Oswald's possible physical abuse of Marina in that era ( although viewed as despicable by most who saw or heard of it ) would not be given the consideration it would be today in suggesting that this behavior made him and others like him more likely to attack and even kill other people ( especially men ) outside of their regular victim wives or girlfriends,

However, it appears that with increased modern day research and knowledge into the life behavior patterns of wife ( or husband ) and kid abusers, that they are involved in more violent and self destructive behavior ( even suicides ) than those who do not engage in these types of abuses.

I speculate that if was not for the many physical separation and basic needs financial stress relief help efforts provided to both Marina and Lee that his physical abuse of her may have been substantially worse and longer term than it was. Those separations where Marina and the baby's needs were met with help from others provided Lee with some stress relief also. 

And thank God Oswald wasn't a drinker!

Alcohol has always been proven to increase the frequency and severity of spousal abuse.

I know first hand about such things.  My boozing step-father beat our mother several times week and abused my brothers and I for years from the time my mother married him in 1960 until I barely survived this nightmare by basically begging to stay with other families as much as I could starting around 1966 until I graduated high school in 1969.

I actually have a stronger, even extreme bias against wife beaters than most people because of my childhood past.

But that deep bias still hasn't made me consider Oswald's limited spousal abuse behavior as making him more psychologically prone to going to the almost suicidal lengths  ( on his own and without more than say a week's knowledge of the motorcade route )  of planning and then carrying out the blasting of JFK's head into a massive spray of brain and blood and bone matter, 12 inches from his wife's face and in front of hundreds of on-lookers in broad daylight and pumping Tippit's body with an over-kill 4 shots, with a last one in the head.

These are the traits of psychotic Mafia hit men. And Oswald doesn't seem to fit that bill imo.

One last observation, which I have mentioned before;

If Oswald was working for others in any way regarding all the intrigue in especially N.O., why would his handlers allow him and his family to suffer so much in the area of financial stress?  Oswald's life with his family was so desperate at times, you'd think he would have asked anyone he worked for to help him take care of at least the most basic family needs such as food, shelter and medical costs.

Noticed this thread and read the postings.

I then clicked on the You Tube link to hear Vince Palamara and Sam Kinney conversing by phone. With Kinney in Florida and Palamara in Pittsburg.

This conversation is accompanied by still photos of JFK in various motorcades and other subjects.

This is probably nothing but at the 1 minute and 24 seconds point into this Palamara / Kinney interview video there is a still picture of a Dallas policeman and a person not in uniform ( described in the caption as a "Selective Service " person ) lifting the hard cover of the presidential limo back onto the car to preserve evidence.

I assume this photo was taken on 11,22,1963 and while the limo is located at Parkland hospital?

Now, I see in this photo something anomalous on the right back trunk lid.

On the upper "back" side of the trunk top on the very right side is what looks like a small but obvious indentation and two more anomalies just below that one.

Of course my conspiracy inclined mind sees these as something bullets would cause.

Could others take a look and share their take on this anomaly in that photo?

Could this just be a film degeneration or image reflection thing?

Apologies if this is nothing. 

I am sure all of us here have enough life experience to know a stressed marital relationship when we see it.

The Oswalds were so stressed in so many ways and especially financially as they had to rely on others for basic needs assistance time and time again, off and on most of their entire time in Texas and even coming to and leaving NO. 

When the only bedding you can provide your baby is an old suitcase - I mean please, that is poor to a pitifully sad degree. That's depression era poor.

It's exhausting just reading about how many financial struggles and stresses Lee and Marina went through in their time here in the states. Of how many times they had to rely on others just to get by.  

With all that embarrassment, humiliation and frustration, one could imagine how emotionally, physically and even spirit exhausting it all was for Marina and Lee.

Those kinds of long term stresses almost always just devastate young marriages, especially if the marriage partners also have deeper neglected or abused childhood born emotional issues themselves like Lee and perhaps Marina too?

People in marriages like this often break down even worse themselves.

They eventually start blaming each other and losing their love and respect for each other. Sometimes they even abuse each other verbally or even physically.  

One of the couple may turn to other persons for emotional needs  ( including intimacy ) reasons. That often is the final straw that breaks the marriage camel's back.

I only mention this common knowledge stuff to explain why it makes perfect sense to believe that Lee Oswald had descended into such a state personally and that he eventually began verbally and physically abusing Marina.  And it seems almost everyone in this debate acknowledges at least some of these abuses on Oswald's part whether they be occasionally over only a few month period or more over a longer period.

The debate seems to be mainly about "the degree" of this behavior on Oswald's part.

And in this context, I find it hard to stay with it and it's suggested importance regarding the White Russians and Lee's possible motivation for exploding into an almost suicidal mission of violence on 11,22,1963 to perhaps release all of his pain onto as many people as he could.

Obviously I think Jim Garrison was indeed a hero.

The average Amercan however doesn't seem to understand why.

Or, even know much about Jim Garrison at all.

On 10/4/2012 at 9:26 PM, John Dolva said:

192 pages

contents

foreword

prologue

chapter

when cops are the culprits

the minutemen

caught in the act

the weird case of gordon novel

case history of a 'psychotic' millionaire

oswald, ruby and 'oswald'

ruby's last chance - 'the most fantastic story you ever heard'

whodunit

the dealey plaza ambush

how kennedy was lured into the death trap

what garrison has up his sleve

was tippit the man in the window?

the guilt of the secret service

operation 'overkill'

covering up the tracks

appendix

(letter to reagan)

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

edit add

JJ mentions Garrisons interview with Playboy a lot, so:

http://www.maebrussell.com/Garrison/Garrison%20Playboy%20Intvw%201.html

excerpt

''GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude -- in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right -- particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the state and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity. I don't think I've ever tried to formulate this into a coherent political philosophy, but at the root of my concern is the conviction that a human being is not a digit; he's not a digit in regard to the state and he's not a digit in the sense that he can ignore his fellow men and his obligations to society. I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change and there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow man. What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one of the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution. In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.'' my underline

Did Jim Garrison say the above in the interview as printed?

I wonder what percentage of Garrison critics could ever compare to, understand or let alone even imagine anything close to the full measure of Garrison's intellect, his grasp and perceptions of the realities of the real world around us including the precariousness of the individual versus the state, the powerful versus the powerless and the abuse of these rights and tenents and where it is taking us.  And the courage and integrity to risk his life in exposing these abuses as much as the national media would allow him coverage to do so?

I doubt if it's 1%.  

The Oswald dishonorable discharge subject is very interesting and worthy of factoring into speculation regards some of Oswald's possible inner feelings of resentment, anger and frustration.

A dishonorable discharge could ruin someone's career opportunity life for sure, especially if they are just starting out and from the lowest economic ladder rung already and with a young family to support, and would need help finding and securing decent paying and benefited jobs and maybe even going to college. Clearly Oswald knew this and seriously tried to reverse the DD. 

But, in regards to Oswald possibly wanting revenge on Connally, if Oswald was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD building on 11,22,1963 with the intent of exacting this upon John Connally,  what a pitifully incompetent effort as JFK's back and head got in the way with two shots and a third missing everyone ( except James Tague? ) and even the limo itself!

Has anyone ever investigated whether there was some bad blood between Oswald and James Tague? 

In the film "JFK" when Kevin Costner's Jim Garrison is actually in the TSBD 6th floor snipers lair and crouched down looking out the window and directly at the JFK shooting site on Elm, his chief investigator Lou Ivon (Jay. O. Sanders ) who is standing right next to Garrison and also looking out that window, spontaneously makes an observation comment of how much easier and accurate it would have been for Oswald to have shot at JFK ( and/or Connally? ) when he was coming down Houston street straight towards him and at a much closer distance and direct line of fire range.

Whether this "JFK" film scene and dialogue was made up or not, the Ivon question was and still is perfectly valid from a shooter's point of view.

Illogically Oswald waits until JFK's limo and body target is farther away and getting smaller by the second than it was on Houston coming toward him, not to mention the limo is now going down an incline. But, despite those facts of more difficult target alignment decisions, non-marksmen - cheap rifle with misaligned scope firing Oswald then makes two direct hits on JFK with the second one being a perfect  "bulls-eye" into JFK's moving head at 265 feet.

Considering the question of Oswald choosing the more difficult and risky shooting task on Elm versus Houston, it makes more sense in the context of there being a designated triangular shooting zone and that was in the more open area of Elm where the heavy tree, shadows and picket fence could help obscure another hidden shooter.

M. Clark, I didn't read all of the postings in that thread ( have to get on with my day ) but did any of them ask the question, how a man blinded in one eye was accepted into the Air Force as an AP?

Thank you Tom Hume.

Sometimes I feel a need to step back and view the story in it's larger total picture and with simpler basic rational thinking parameters.

While still firmly acknowledging microscopic inspection is extremely necessary, important and reverently appreciated. 

In 1996 Marina Oswald Porter said "Yes" when asked if Lee Oswald beat her.

Seems very straight forward and she balances this claim that she was stubborn and not easy to live with also.

To me it's harder to disbelieve Marina Porter's public statements in this specific physical abuse area than to believe them.

However, In this abuse debate am I missing a larger context?

One that goes deeper into the White Russian community who pounded the Lee Oswald abuse of Marina topic and what they  ( the White Russians ) were all about?

Referrals to past relative postings would be appreciated.

I strongly agree with Lawrence Schnapf's take on the WC investigative MO.

Over-all it was so one-sidedly controlled that compared to a true legal cross examination testimonial process it was a sham.

However, it appears to me that despite that great effort to control the hundreds of testimonies, there were still a good number that breached the intended protocols in ways that clearly caused some nervous anxiety with the questioners.

When these testimonies would veer too far into uncomfortable areas, yes, you would see changes of direction questions, no follow up ones and even "off the record" interruptions.

I think George DM was a bigger than normal problem for the WC in this way.

He was inclined toward outspokeness ( sometimes to an eccentric degree ) as his social circle acquaintances often claimed and probably some embellishment as well. 

In this character vein however,  I don't think the WC staff was able to control him as much as most other witnesses. And I believe that mixed in with his quirky, occasionally impish comedic, former aristocrat pretentious manner testimony was more truth than others believe.

I think DM definitely held back much of what he really knew about Oswald and so many other things of importance in this whole affair, but his basic eccentric flawed personality sometimes seemed to compel him to say things that a more controlled person wouldn't. And his take on Oswald as pitiful but not hateful of JFK  is an example of this imo.

The story about Jack Lawrence is interesting.  Were the details of this story credibly investigated and found to be factually true?

This story of Lawrence is one of "so many" of unusually different and intriguing background characters somehow connected by location, activities, associations and even personal interactions with Oswald, Ruby and others and to the actual 11,22,1963 Dealey Plaza event in ways that are just so suspiciously strange, that in total, they force rational thinking minds to realize that it is highly improbable, illogical and damn near impossible that, in the least, there isn't much more to the JFK assassination story than simply an angry, frustrated, poverty stricken loner who just happened to decide to take out JFK because of 2 week notice luck Kennedy's motorcade was going to pass right under his workplace windows and he just happened to have a cheap scoped rifle on hand to do the job.

Jack Lawrence, Richard Case Nagell, Rose Cheramie, Roscoe White,  the list is just so long.

Then when you add "hundreds" of other witnesses  ( more normal, every day working background folks ) with first hand observations of these same things that almost always contradict the WC findings and conclusion, again, you are literally "forced" by logic and common sense to face and acknowledge the reality of this huge testimonial imbalance. 

Lee Bowers, Aaron Roland, Julia Ann Mercer, Vida Whatley, James Tague, Carolyn Walther, Dr. Eva Gangeles, Dr. Crenshaw, S. M. Holland, Sheriff Roger Craig, Albert Bogard, New Orleans and Clinton Louisiana witnesses ... again, this list of more normal background every day working folks with contradictory observations is just so massive, it can't be dismissed with reasonable logic.

It is this huge number reality that forces reasonable and rational thinking persons to logically doubt the WC official line.

Michael, if you are referring to the White Russian history link, I have read the first half of it. Time restraints and errands prevented me from reading the rest but I will finish it today.

It's a fascinating piece.