Micah Mileto

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

So who developed them?  Why weren't they produced according to proper autopsy protocol?

Spencer forgot what she saw, or was she lying?

There is no chain of custody if you can’t identify who developed them.

 

 

I understand now. The person(s) who processed the film would be considered a part of the chain of custody.

One problem I have with the "explosive demolition" WTC thing is that typical explosive devices would have been much louder than the rumble heard on the audio recordings. If the WTC was a demolition, it probably would've required sophisticated devices which may or may not have even existed back then.

On 6/24/2020 at 12:30 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

 She was supposed to have custody of the extant photos for the purpose of developing them — which she denies, this breaking the chain of custody.

If Saundra Kay Spencer didn’t develop the extant autopsy photos — who did?

What’s your proof that’s JFK in those photos?

Who developed them?

So the AARB got it wrong?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=797#relPageId=12

Well dude, right now I'm trying to make a couple of essays on the medical evidence with as many sources as possible. I don't see any contemporaneous documents suggesting the photos' chain of custody was broken before 1965. Yes, Saundra Spencer claimed to remember a different set of photos, but that was over 30 years later. Compared to all of the other pieces of evidence, the autopsy photos have a surprisingly decent chain of custody (although that's not saying much with the JFK case).

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added):

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The  deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back)from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial.  Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy.

 Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxiousto block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. </q>

Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos.

One problem...in her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated:

<quote on>

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

<quote off>

So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them.

The autopsy photos are worthless.

I don't see what that has to do with the chain of custody. From what I understand, the pictures and body samples from the autopsy have an alleged chain of custody until 4/26/1965.

 

Also, are there contemporaneous documents on Saundra Spencer being the one handling the photos?

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not if the autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol and there is no chain of possession.

Can you remind me which source talked about that?

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Perhaps he confused this with the Lt. Cmdr. Bruce Pitzer story.

Livingstone personally knew Pitzer's loved ones, it doesn't look like there's any room for such confusion.

From High Treason 2 by Harrison Livingstone, Chapter 27: A Proposal

 

I am told of a Dr. Raymond who was also found shot to death at Bethesda, and who had been at the autopsy. His widow, who worked in a bank, described many details of the autopsy to an acquaintance. Unfortunately, I am unable to find any record of a Dr. Raymond who is deceased and who might have been in the military or at Bethesda Naval Hospital, or who might have known something about the assassination.

On 6/20/2020 at 11:40 PM, David Lifton said:

((edited and modified, 6/21/2020 - 430 AM PST)).

The numbered list you provided --while attempting to be "comprehensive" --does not provide an accurate picture.  The idea that what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63 represented a coup was first voiced by M.S. Arnoni in a series of articles in his publication "The Minority of One," (TMO).  TMO was available at the UCLA Research Library and I spent hours studying his writings back in 1965/1966.  Another pioneer was Vincent Salandria who (along with Thomas Stamm) went to the National Archives, and viewed the Zapruder film and then came his (Salandria's) articles in Liberation magazine. Still another "first generation" researcher was Josiah Thompson, who --in 1966 (approx) --was hired as a consultant by LIFE, visited Dallas, interviewed witnesses, and had "early access" to the Zapruder film. Furthermore, and speaking only for myself, I learned a lot from speaking with--and meeting with - Raymond Marcus, during that same period.  Another member of the SoCal "group" was Maggie Field, and still another Lillian Castellano.  All of this activity by "first generation" researchers--this complete immersion in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, and the realization that the Warren Commission was not just "wrong" but perhaps deliberately so (i.e., an outright fraud) --- took place between 1964 and late 1966. (Furthermore, all of it was "pre-Internet," by several decades).  District Attorney Garrison entered the scene in February 1967, making his headline-producing announcement that he had "solved" the Kennedy assassination; and then, in March, charging New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy.  It was around May 1967 (or perhaps a bit later)  when I first met with him --- more than once, and for several hours.  

(The chronology of my own involvement is laid out, in detail, in the opening chapters of Best Evidence, which was first published (in hardcover) in Jan 1981, which was a Book of the Month Club selection;  and then (again) by three more publishers: Dell [1982], Carroll and Graf ["Trade paper," 1988], and Signet [paperback, 1993]).  Your point number 8 --that Garrison was "[the] first critic who said JFK's murder was a coup d'etat," is incorrect-- completely incorrect.  I had any number of conversations with Ray Marcus on this very subject (back in 1964/1965).  Also, and on the subject of "coup," a most important book is (i.e., "was") "Coup d'etat," by Edward Luttwak,  first published by Harvard University Press in 1968, and reprinted a number of times since.   That book provided a methodical way to examine the JFK assassination (from the standpoint that it was a coup); and led me to focus on the Secret Service -- specifically, the White House Detail ("WHD") of the Secret Service as the key to understanding the mechanics of any plot. 

Bottom line: there's a very solid published record about how thinking developed --among early JFK researchers --about the JFK assassination; and, should you wish to get an overview, there are two lengthy articles in Esquire Magazine --one in December 1966, and then a follow-up several months later  (Just Googe "Esquire" and "assassination theories").  Garrison was not the progenitor of the ideas on your numbered list,  and to believe that is a gross oversimplification.  The original books on this case -- "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy," by Joachem Joesten (1964 or 1965),  Inquest (by Edward Epstein, July 1966), and Rush to Judgement (by Mark Lane, August 1966); marked the beginning.  Two other "first generation" researchers were Ray Marcus and Maggie Field.  Later (in 1968, I believe) came Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, and my own work (Best Evidence ) was published in 1981.  My final chapter -- Ch. 32 ("The Assassination as a Covert Operation")-- explicitly argues that the assassination was an "inside job" and leaves little doubt that we are talking about a coup.  FWIW-- and this is admittedly subjective --it was always my impression that Garrison's "political theory" (i.e., his very public talk about a "coup") emerged after a Spring 1967 trip to Los Angeles, and the extensive contacts that he had--at that time--with Ray Marcus and Maggie Field (mentioned above).  In particular, your point #9 --that a purpose of JFK's murder was to change the foreign policy of the U.S. (a polite way of saying, "to escalate the Vietnam War", e.g., starting with Tonkin Gulf, august 1964) -- is developed in The Minority of One (TMO), and was a subject of intense discussion among the two Southern California researchers (mentioned above, along with another,  Lillian Castellano) with whom I was in contact back in those days. A good "snapshot" of the situation can be found in a New Yorker article published in June 1967, called "The Buffs," by writer Calvin (Bud) Trillin.  Years later (circa 1992), some of this history blossomed into a Ph.D. thesis of John Newman, which then (in 1992/93) became his published book, "JFK and Vietnam."  If you will study the materials I have mentioned, and arrange everything in "chronological order," you will have a much more accurate understanding of how the JFK controversy emerged, and the role played by District Attorney Garrison. 

I am not taking issue with some of the "particulars" you raise; rather, I'm trying here to focus on "the big picture."

In many ways, Garrison can be viewed as "just another JFK researcher" --the big difference being that, as D.A. of New Orleans, he could charge people with crimes, and actually present evidence to a Grand Jury (which he did). Unfortunately (and this was the serious downside of his investigation) the principal person he charged --businessman Clay Shaw--was, IMHO, completely innocent of any wrong doing. The result was legal proceedings which produced national publicity and historically important testimony (e.g., the Shaw Trial testimony of Col. Finck, one of the Bethesda autopsy doctors) and much other testimony and documentation-- all if which led to a "not guilty" verdict (Spring 1969). The trial also led to the first public showing of the Zapruder film (in a New Orleans courtroom)  which shows that JFK was thrust "back and to the left" by the force of a shot to JFK's head (which received world wide publicity, and was featured in Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, "JFK").  Personally, I don't believe the Clay Shaw had a blessed thing to do with JFK's death, but his prosecution --the prosecution of an innocent man, and a situation that was right out of Kafka -- became the center of Garrison's "quest" for the truth.

Even if the New Orleans suspects didn't plan the actual assassination, would you say they at least point to Oswald being an agent?

1 hour ago, Rick McTague said:

Equally fascinating to this frontal head shot evidence and observations is the total lack of anyone at Parkland describing anything close to the huge orange blob/flap shown in the extant Zapruder film.  So this is doubly convicting - JFK was shot twice from the front and the orange blob/flap was manufactured in the film.

Thanks

Isn't the "red blob" on the Zapruder film supposed to be the bloody inner surface of a piece of skull that was hanging off the edge of the large defect? I that case, the large head wound officially be somewhere just above the red blob. On the film, it is hard to see a large head wound because of the hair, shadows, and artifacts getting in the way.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11/27/1963, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, Chicago Daily News Service:

 

The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course.

 

"If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound.

 

[...]

 

Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital.

 

They said neither bullet was recovered in the hospital emergency room. One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple.

 

([link 2, The Akron Beacon Journal, 11/28/1963, What Was Correct Bullet Sequence? First 2 hit JFK, Film Indicates by Arthur J. Snider, Beacon Journal, Chicago Daily News Wire])

 

From the Boston Globe, 11/27/1963, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black:

 

The Globe has got from an unofficial but authoritative source here what is believed to be an accurate description of the course of events.

 

[…]

 

When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound.

 

This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets.

 

It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hopital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken.

 

This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this.

 

The FBI is investigating all aspects of the shooting and that is believed to be the reason why the official medical reports from the naval hospital have not been released.

 

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/30/1963, UNCERTAINTIES REMAIN DESPITE POLICE VIEW OF KENNEDY DEATH – Did Assailant Have an Accomplice? by Richard Dudman:

 

There have been two other reports of injury to the President’s head. One of the physicians who attended him in Dallas said afterward that he had noticed a small entry wound in the left temple.

 

Another person, who saw the President’s body a ‘few minutes after he died,’ told the Post-Dispatch he thought he had observed a wound in the President’s forehead. He asked that his name not be used. Reports of the temple and forehead wounds could have referred to the same injury.

The link to the press conference transcript is not working. Can anybody send me a file?

 

EDIT: Found it!

 

https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/parkland_press_1327btranscript.pdf

It's been my signature for like a year. I think the quote is good if you acknowledge the many interpretations it could have.

 

14 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Proof of the front head entrance keeps growing it seems 

So far, here's a list of named witnesses who made statements suggesting a small wound in the front of the head:

 

1. Dr. George Burkley (as relayed by Malcolm Kilduff), 2. Tom Robinson, 3. James Curtis Jenkins, 4. Dennis David, 5. Joe O'Donnell, 6. Quentin Schwinn, 7. Dr. Robert McClelland, 8. Dr. Marion Jenkins, 9. Dr. Ronald Jones, 10. Dr. Lito Porto (as relayed by Dr. Jones), 11: Dr. Gene Akin, 12. Dr. W. David Stewart, 13. Father Oscar Huber, 14. Malcolm Kilduff, 15. Hugh Huggins

 

Possible physical evidence: 1. The f8 open-cranium photos showing at least one hole in the right scalp, 2. At least three medical professionals have said the right lateral skull x-ray shows what may be a small hole in the forehead resembling a bullet entry - Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist Dr. Joseph N. Riley, and radiation oncologist Dr. David Mantik, 3.The autopsy diagram showing a "0.4 cm" and a "3 cm" mark on the left side of the head, 4. the v-shape incision, 5. the semi-circular dark shot on the photos of the right forehead next to the v-shape

On 12/22/2013 at 3:10 PM, Vince Palamara said:

Dr Gene Akin:

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---"On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that he was interviewed by the FBI during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the "historic accident" of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the governments obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a "nut." AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL's HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President's forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the Presdient's forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN's comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul's hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI's fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]" (emphasis added in italics)[for important information on SA Specht, see "JFK: Breaking The Silence" by Bill Sloan, pages 40-44: Specht said that he "was assigned to be a kind of custodian of the files pertaining to the Kennedy case", and was the official media spokesman for the Dallas FBI office from 1978 to 1990; in fact, as Sloan writes, he "personally wrote the memorandum that formally closed the Kennedy case from that office's point of view in 1983"!];

 

So Gene Akin claimed to have seen a small wound in the front of the head?

 

Is there any way you have a photocopy of this document?

 

There's also this part from High Treason 1 (1989):

 

[...Part II: The Medical Evidence, Chapter 2p: The President’s Head Wounds And The New Evidence Of Forgery, The Hole In The Back Of The Head]

 

Dr. Gene Akin was an Anesthesiologist at Parkland at the time. He told the Warren Commission that “the back of the right occipital-parietal portion of (Kennedy’s) head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”43 “I assume that the right occipital parietal region (right rear) was the exit”44 Akin reaffirmed this to the Globe team and basically did not accept the official picture. On seeing the sketch, he said, “Well in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it’s more occipital.”45 Akin further said that Dr. Kemp Clark saw the entry wound in the temple.

 

The index cites a tape accessed by the authors.

On 9/7/2018 at 10:07 PM, Stu Wexler said:

I reached Dr. Porto via an intermediary.  He is not keen on speaking about the subject. But he told said person that the damage was extensive, but concentrated on the right rear parietal region of the skull.  Trying to get more, but I am not confident.

-Stu

Aren't Drs. Lito Porto and Richard Jones pretty much the last two living witnesses who saw the body at Parkland?

 

I would have one question for each of them if it weren't impossible to get into contact with them:

 

What was all of this about when Dr. Jones participated in the ground interview with the ARRB?

 

Quote:

MR. GUNN: [...] Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.

In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said that -- on Page 48 he thought that this wound in the head was a wound of exit, although he wasn't sure. He said, quote, "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." He then said that, "I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process."

From Page 51 of his Warren Commission testimony he says, "Because the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit, and the appearance of the wound in the neck, and I also thought it was it a wound of exit."

Finally in his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations he said, There was one segment of bone blown out. It was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum, lower rear brain, was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head.

 

[...]

 

And finally with Dr. Peters -- last but not least, of course. This is from Page MD 4O, testimony to Mr. Specter of the Warren Commission. On Page 71 he says that he noticed there was a large defect in the occiput. Dr. Peters then says, "It seemed to me that in the right occipitoparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area." He goes on to say, "We saw the wound of" -- I'm sorry, that refers just to the throat wound.

In my very lay sense -- and I am not a doctor -- there seems to be a fair degree of coherence among the testimony that you offered about the location of the wound. There, of course, is a difference in the way that you said it, as would be expected in any case.

I'd like to start out -- and that's the last major part that I hope to play in this discussion. I'd like to start out, if we could -- and maybe just start with Dr. Jones and then just go down the room -- of first where you were in trauma room No. 1 and what kind of view you had of President Kennedy in trauma room No 1, Dr. Jones.

DR. JONES: I was on his left side below the arm looking to my right I could easily see the neck wound I could not see in much detail the posterior wound, but did not see any flap of skull or anything laying out to the right side I saw relaxation of the facial tissues & perhaps of the hair, and I remained on the President's right side during the entire resuscitation attempt.

MR. GUNN: Did you ever go around and observe the left side?

DR. JONES: Left side. Excuse, I was on the left side.

MR. GUNN: Okay.

DR. JONES: Was I saying right side?

MR. GUNN: So all of your view was of the left side?

DR. JONES: All my view was from the President's left side.

MR. GUNN: Okay. Did you ever go around and observe the right side of the -

DR. JONES: I did not go around to the right side.

MR. GUNN: Could you observe any posterior wound on -- of the head from the left side where you were?

DR. JONES: At one point after we had completed the insertion of the chest tubes, IV, and tracheotomy, I looked up over the top of the President's head and from that view was all that I saw. But with him flat on the table, I could not appreciate the size of that wound but did not see a lot of skull or brain tissue on the table, some maybe, but not just a tremendous amount and certainly did not see a flap turned on the right side.

MR GUNN: Were you yourself able to identify any cerebellum or cerebrum tissue on the table?

DR. JONES: If there was I thought -- from my vantage point, I thought that it was a very small amount.

MR. GUNN: And were you able to identify one form of brain tissue versus another?

DR. JONES: No -

MR GUNN: Okay.

DR JONES: - but did see the very small wound which I thought was an entrance wound to the head. That was pretty clear.

[...]

 

DR. McCLELLAND: Let me just tell you that Paul brought it up.

 

Dr. Jenkins, when I came in the room, told me as I walked by to come up to the head of the table and he said , Bob, there's a wound in the left temple there. And so I went to the table and I thought, you know, knowing nothing else about any of the circumstances, that's like that (indicating).
 

MR. GUNN: Just for the record, you're pointing in with your -
 

DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah, the left temple -
 

MR. GUNN: -- finger at the left temple and now the back o the head.
 

DR. McCLELLAND: -- came out the back. And there was a lot of blood on the left temple. There was blood everywhere, but there was a lot of blood on the left temple, so I didn't question that. And in fact, in something else -- Pepper testified somewhere else, he denied that he said that to me in the Warren Commission. And I told him -- I said Pepper, don't you remember? No, I never said that, Bob, and I never said the cerebellum fell out. Well, yes, you did, too, but I didn't argue with him.
But the upshot of it is what that led to was Mr. Garrison's case in New Orleans, and he put together a scenario where he thought someone -- because of what I had said about the left temple bullet -- was in the storm sewer on the left side of the car and fired this bullet that killed the President, another gunman. He didn't say that Oswald was not there. He just said there was another gunman. And so he never contact -- Garrison never contacted me until it was essentially time to have the case in court.
 

DR. PETERS: Clay Shaw.
 

DR. McCLELLAND: Right. And so I got a call one morning and it was from his office -- one of the people in Garrison's office, and he wanted to know if I would come to New Orleans and testify. And I said, Well, you know, it's odd that none of you had talked to me before this. I've been hearing something about it on television and whatnot. And they said, Well, we assumed that you still believed that the course of the bullet was as you said in your written testimony right after, and I said no. And his voice went up about three octaves and he said, What? And I said no, and I explained to him that I had learned other things about the circumstances at the time and that Jenkins had told me I didn't see any wound here. I was just stating what I had been told and that I wrote that down in my written statement right after the assassination. And so that was -- kind of took the wind out of the sails in that particular prosecution.
 

DR. JONES: I have two comments relating to this, what's just been said and my comment. The afternoon of the assassination we were up in the OR and Lito Puerto -- I think it's L-i-t-o, Puerto, P-u-e-r-t-o -- was in the OR -
 

DR. PETERS: Neurosurgeon..
 

DR. JONES: -- and he said he was -- that he referred to the President -- because he had been down there and he said, I put my -- he was shot in the leg. I said, he was shot in the left temple. He said, I put my finger in the hole, and I think that was part of --
 

DR. McCLELLAND: I never heard that. That's news to me.
 

DR. JONES: And so -- in fact, I told Mr. Haron the other day -- I gave him Lito Puerto's name and his telephone number. I said you know if you're going to have the group down here, why don't you get Puerto down here to clarify that comment, if indeed that were the case or it's not the case But I think that was part of where some of that came from. The other comment that -- to clarify what I said regarding Arlen Specter, I'm saying [sic] that he pressured me because that was after the testimony that I had given. I think what he was implying was that -
 

DR. PERRY: Discretion.
 

DR. JONES: -- that you - you could get people to testify that the President had been shot from the front.
 

DR. PERRY: He was asking you to be discreet -
 

DR. JONES: I think that's right.
 

DR. PERRY: -- not to -- not to talk too much.
 

DR. JONES: Not to talk about -- he didn't say don't -
 

DR. PERRY: He didn't know you weren't going to talk about it.
 

DR. JONES: -- don't say what you think, but he suggested that I not talk about what he was telling me.
 

MR. GUNN : Okay.
 

DR. PERRY: He didn't know you weren't going to talk about it anyway.
 

DR. JONES: Not for 35 years.
 

MR. GUNN: I think that each of you has now responded to the question about whether you had felt any pressure except for Dr. McClelland unless I missed that.
 

DR. McCLELLAND: I felt no pressure.
 

MR. GUNN: No pressure? Did anytime -- anything ever happen subsequently to the Warren Commission where you felt any pressure from anyone, the Government, to testify one way or the other about this?
 

DR. McCLELLAND: No.
 

DR. JONES: No.
 

MR. GUNN: You're all shaking your heads Dr. Peters, is that --
 

DR. PETERS: No, I've never felt any pressure. The only -- well, fine.
 

DR. McCLELLAND: When did Lito say he did that?
 

DR. JONES: It was that afternoon.
 

DR. McCLELLAND: That afternoon.
 

DR. JONES: It was my -- it was that afternoon, and I believe we were upstairs, but he had mentioned that he had put his finger into the -- and he was sort of known as the guy that went down and put his fingers in missile -or bullet --
 

DR. PETERS: Brains.

DR. JONES: -- wounds, and that was his comment at the time.

 

Transcript: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Parkland_8-27-98.pdf

 

What did Ronald Jones mean when he talks about having direct knowledge of a small bullet wound in the head?

 

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Sigh...  and proof of radio communication in the plaza but Cliff, it is more fun to chase ghosts than facts.

Can you point me back to any info on radio communication in Dealey Plaza?

6 hours ago, Terry Adams said:

Micah, i am afraid that your statement is just wishful thinking,IMO.  The powers that be will never upset the apple cart (ie: warren commission report)

Well, "one day" could also mean "one decade" or "one century".

10 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

I wish his family had let the bullet fragments embedded in him be removed before his burial.

One day the bodies of both will be exhumed.

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

DSL Response (6/6/20):

Dr Dave Stewart’s statement was first published in a Tennessee newspaper.  Somehow I learned of it and ordered the original microfilm record of the relevant article (from a Tennessee library, as I recall).  Flash foward now to 1989 (or 1990): When I set out on my trips to Dallas (and other cities) with a film crew, I planned the itinerary to include a filmed intrerview with Dr. Stewart, in which he stated all this “on the record.” 

FOOTNOTE TO THE ABOVE: It might be helpful  (and provide addtional corroboration) if you would post the “late 1960s” record to which you are referring.

I sent you a copy of the Nashville Banner story on Stewart, and made a thread about it here.

 

The "late 60's mcclelland statement" was a post from you I was quoting. Any way you can show the late 60's statement McClelland indicated there was no trach incision?

On 2/26/2018 at 10:52 PM, David Lifton said:

11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not  necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).

11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).

 

 

Any chance you could share the McClelland statement?

It would be one thing if an audio tape could determine more than 8 shots, but then again, why would one choose to use 22s in a multiple-shooter conspiracy to kill someone? The only answer is the fact that 22s are the easiest to quiet. A noise-suppressor could quiet a 22 shot to a mere echo. 

37 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Sure looks like Pederson to me.

I wonder what the experts in photographic/facial analysis here on the Education Forum think.  Also, I wonder if his height is identical to that of the Umbrella Man in the video.

And I would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling experts in photographic/facial analysis here on the Education Forum

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

That the behavior is intentionally incendiary, yet committed by a white person, is undeniable. All that remains is to confirm who it is.

Most unorthodox! Most unorthodox!

4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Great show. Ties in Nazis and Ft. Detrick

In your opinion, should the average reasonable person listen to what this guy has to say?

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Am I seeing things?

Did they set the police station on fire?

I don't think I want to admit on the internet how inspiring I think that is.