Micah Mileto

Do you think Lipsey or Karnei were ever there?

Just smoking a cigar, or not there at all?

Huber was quoted in an article which appeared in Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin on 11/24/1963. The article reads: “The President was lying on a rubber-tired table when I came in,” Father Huber said. He was standing at his head. Father Huber said the President was covered by a white sheet which hid his face, but not his feet. “His feet were bare,” said Father Huber... He said he wet his right thumb with holy oil and anointed a Cross over the President’s forehead, noticing as he did, a “terrible wound” over his left eye. However, in a 1964 letter to Salandria, Shirley Martin wrote "Father Huber says he never told this to the press. However, he supposes that someone to whom he spoke may have relayed it to the newsmen" Salandria wrote an early article mentioning Huber, but he himself did not interview Huber, he wanted Mrs. Martin to do it because she was already planning to take her family to a mass in Dallas on the first anniversary. Never seen the Manchester papers, I don't know why anybody hasn't already swooped in to the Wesleyan University library and scanned them (the ones that aren't sealed until 2067). Vince Palamera copied some of them, but I don't know if he did for all of them.

Huber used the word "left" when talking to Shirley Martin (with her family present), Mark Lane, and Lawrence Schiller. The transcripts don't show him being specifically asked, but it wouldn't be too unreasonable to infer that he meant anatomical left. But also, Shirey's daughter Teresa said in a 6/16/2000 email to John Kelin "I remember him touching his forehead in describing Kennedy's wound. He was an animated little guy".

I am working on a megapost listing all of the evidence for small wound(s) in the front of Kennedy's head. Huber was taking about the anatomical left. He said that, at the very least, he saw a "blotch of blood" on the left forehead which he thought looked like a wound. If you want, I can link and quote more details.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/huber.pdf Found it. Thank you.

This is unrelated, but it wouldn't let me send you a PM. This is from your online book: A year and a half later, while interviewing Father Huber for his movie Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane followed up on Martin's questions, and received a similar response. (The transcript to this interview was made available by the Wisconsin Historical Society.) Huber told Lane "Well, his face was covered with blood and there was a blotch of blood on the left forehead, which I, at the time, thought possibly could be a bullet wound, but I learned later that it was not, that I was entirely mistaken, because he had been shot in the back of the head. I did not see really any wounds on him, because I only uncovered his face to the tip of his nose. I learned later that the bullet came out, perhaps at the jaw, I don't know." I'm trying to compile information on alleged wounds in the front of the head. By any chance do you have a copy of this transcript to share?

You might've already known this, but Dr. Finck's 1965 report to General Blumberg contains the out-of-place phrase "black fouling": "...In my opinion, the oval wound in the right posterior superior aspect of the chest of Kennedy was an ENTRY. The edges were fairly regular and there was black fouling of the edges" (ARRB MD 28). According to scientific literature on gunshot wounds, "fouling" refers to the residue of burned gunpowder and soot spread from the discharge of a firearm at very CLOSE RANGE (JCLC, 1948; AJCP, 1953; CSLR, 1964; AJCP, 1969). Officially, Finck's reference to "black fouling of the edges" can only be interpreted as a mistake.

Thank you for these. By the way, are you still coming along with uploading Livingstone's taped interviews with the medical witnesses?

https://web.archive.org/web/20070608162642/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant/2006/03/is_deception_the_best_way_to_s.html#more This is a 2006 article recounting an evening with Connally in 1982. "...When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe..."

What about the thigh wound?

Never heard these arguments before, very interesting! But what are you suggesting when you say Connally's back wound was shallow? Is this meant to sound consistent with an exit wound, or are you suggesting somebody might have mutilated the living Governor?

Skipped around a few scenes. It's just crisis-actor-pizzagate garbage of the lowest tier. If you ever want an ego boost, try looking at the arguments presented by Pizzagaters and see how easily they can be refuted. I once saw this video where this guy was wandering around the parking lot of Comet Ping Pong, saw a little pipe valve sticking out of the ground, and said "I bet that's where they smuggle their kids!". Then, he saw a nearby group of school children being lead on a field trip, and insenuated they were victims of human trafficking.

The statements of Tom Robinson, John Van Hoesen and Floyd Riebe should not be taken as evidence for a pre-autopsy craniotomy. Humes' himself said in his WC testimony that "We had to do VIRTUALLY no work with a saw to open the skull wide enough to remove the brain". Then, in his ARRB deposition, he said "I guess he did have to cut a little bone to remove the brain". So, it's no big deal if an autopsy witness recalled some sawing of the skull.

Yeah, I don't think there's any witness evidence for stitches on the head.

See here for a compilation of statements: https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvdt0/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_19_john_ebersole/

I might be wrong, though. The only way to be sure would be to check out Coincidence or Conspiracy?

I think that is a paraphrase meant to summarize a speech Boggs gave to the U.S. Congress on 4/22/1971. Here is the full transcript, starting on page 693 of the pdf: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-CRECB-1971-pt9/summary

From Gary Cornwell's 1998 book Real Answers, p. 71-74: Due to available x-rays (which, incidentally, the original pathologists never saw) and the presence of observable skull fractures, the Select Committee's panel was able to locate with precision the point of impact of the second bullet that struck the president. This bullet entered the president's head 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance and slightly to the right of the midline, near the upper convexity of the back of the head at the "cowlick" portion of the president's hair part. This entry location was approximately four inches higher than had been reflected in the original autopsy report of the Bethesda doctors! Although the bullet fragmented upon impact, our panel concluded that the main core mass probably exited in the top front area of the skull (right frontoparietal portion) adjacent to the coronal suture. Based upon the work of our panel, I was able to get the main doctor who performed the original autopsy to admit some of his errors during my cross-examination of him in our public hearings-but not without a lot of hair raising resistance from one of the Select Committee's own forensic pathologists. Late in the evening of September 6, 1978, I was working in my office, preparing to cross-exam Captain James J. Humes, M.D., who was scheduled to testify at the committee hearings the following afternoon, live, on national television. After completing his residency in pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in 1956, Captain Humes became the chief of anatomic pathology at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in 1960, and the director of the laboratories at the National Medical Center in 1961. It was because he held that respected position that he was chosen to be in charge of the autopsy of President Kennedy. As I prepared for my cross-examination of Captain Humes, and studied in detail the conclusions of our photographic experts and our panel of forensic pathologists, I realized that Captain Humes’ errors in conducting the autopsy had been the cause of many misplaced conspiracy theories over the years. And I came to the conclusion that when he had been questioned under oath on prior occasions, Captain Humes had not told the truth about the facts in an apparent attempt to cover up his own mistakes, and that I could prove it! Around 9:30 p.m., just as I was finishing the outline of my questioning for the next day, one of the doctors on our forensic pathology panel walked by my office door. Feeling what admittedly may have been excessive trial lawyer enthusiasm, I called for the doctor to come in and told him of my intentions: “Humes has been lying all of these years, and I am going to destroy him!” The Committee’s doctor replied, “You cannot do that, Humes is a very respected man!” My cavalier response was something to the effect, “What difference does that make, he hasn’t been telling the truth, has he?” The conversation ended-without my realizing the note on which it had ended. The next day, at the end of the lunch hour, as the television camera lights were being turned on for the afternoon session and I was going over my outline of questions in final preparation to cross-examine Dr. Humes, my pathologist came up to the podium and anxiously said that he had to talk to me. I asked him what the problem was and he said he had taken Humes to lunch and told Humes exactly what my questions were going to be, and that Humes was ready to confess that his original autopsy report was wrong! I was furious. Within minutes, I would have to start questioning Humes. I had the terrible sinking feeling that all of the drama that I had structured my questioning to achieve-the extraction of the truth, Perry Mason style-had just been destroyed by the well-meaning efforts of a doctor who had decided to take it upon himself to save his fellow colleague from public embarrassment. I went with him and met Humes. What he said was accurate, Humes was ready to admit the errors in his prior testimony. I rushed back to the podium and frantically restructured my outline of questions in light of the development. Dr. Humes’ testimony in some respects was not what I had hoped for, but the most important point was made: he finally admitted after fourteen years that he had made mistakes. He abandoned his prior testimony that the skull entrance wound was four inches lower than the autopsy photos showed. It was finally clear that he had been wrong in his description of the location of President Kennedy’s head wound, and he regretted destroying his original notes, which had only exacerbated the loss of credibility of the Warren Commission’s work over the years. He talked about the pressures he was under in 1963, the lack of sleep over that long weekend of November 23-24 when he prepared the final autopsy report, and the fact that he was handicapped by not being able to look at the autopsy photos and x-rays to prepare his original report (as our pathology panel had been able to do). He hoped that things would be done better next time. In retrospect, I have to admit that the committee's doctor probably had the right attitude. The mistakes of the past were brought to light, which was the real objective. There was no evidence that Humes intentionally mishandled the original autopsy, or that he was part of any conspiracy. His errors needed to be corrected, but Dr. Humes did not need to be destroyed in cross-examination. It did make me angry that for so many years he had refused to admit his mistakes, and was willing to do so only when he faced the prospect of being humiliated on national television. Then again, Dr. Humes in one sense was also right: the real hope is that we can all learn from our mistakes, so things will be done better next time-if there is a next time-that our country has to deal with the assassination of a president. Not only does Cornwell proudly admit to witness tampering, but his version of the story makes Humes seem weaker than he really was. In the transcript of Humes' final testimony to the HSCA, it is clear that he didn't fully buy the idea of a high entry wound. When asked later on, he stood by his original lower placement of the wound.

Yeah, the Devil.

Shills LOVE appeal to emotion.

As David pointed out a million times, the operation could have been bungled by a number of factors, resulting in an undesirable "plan B" of tampering with the body on the starboard side of AF1. David didn't invent the body alteration theory, Dallas medical examiner Earl Rose did, before AF1 even took off. He insisted that the body/casket be attended to at all times to ensure a chain of custody. Why would he say that unless as a safeguard against body tampering, of the suspicion thereof?

Both parties were more than qualified to determine whether the pleura was punctured. Which is why I think a cover-up appears more likely than a mistake.

That disinformation was enabled by Dr. Pierre Finck. As the autopsy assistant who was most qualified to identify gunshot wounds, Finck never mentioned once considering a bullet through the throat until the day after the autopsy. Cranor's quarrel is with him, not David. Paul O'Connor claimed that the trach incision was "teardrop-shaped", and questioned the validity of the photos showing the trach incision. He said that it was large enough for him to be able to see the esophagus. O'Connor said that his first impression of the incision was that it looked like a bullet exit wound. James Curtus Jenkins also once described the incision as "teardrop shaped". It is true that neck incisions can be that long, and it is true that Dr. Perry told the WC that he cut through the strap muscles, which would seem to support the "6.5 centimeter" measurment in the autopsy protocol. But it is also true that on 11/23, Jimmy Breslin met with Perry, and Breslin described the incision as being "below" the throat wound. One could say that "below" means depth rather than vertical distance, but I may as well mention that Dr. Crenshaw also claimed that the incision was small and made laterally below the small hole in the throat. It is also true that Parkland staff member Dr. David Stewart described Perry telling him that "no incision was necissary" because the tube was "inserted into the pre-existing hole". And finally, In 1966, David called Drs. Perry, Carrico, and Baxter to ask them how long the trach incision was. All three said it was 2-4 centimeters, and none of them stopped for a second and said "wait, if you mean the incision on the skin of the neck, it was 6.5 centimeters". There was also Robert Groden's (questionable) story about interviewing Perry - Perry alledgedly questioned the stare-of-death picture and said "I left this wound inviolate". Later on, the Parkland doctors would say that the photos were how they remembered it. It isn't really David's fault that the FBI report said there was "apparent surgey to the head". And, unless there's any information to the contrary, it isn't his fault that there were so many different explinations for that passage, or different descriptions of caskets in the morgue, or the presence of an honor guard, or the presence of a brain in the cranium. And was the plot of Air Force 2 lying when he claimed to have seen a forklift tampering with the casket on the starboard side of Air Force 1? Are we really sure that a body with so much brain damage couldn't make some spasm that resembled a breath of air? Yikes if true.

At least fourteen medical professionals from Parkland made statements indicating that tubes were inserted into the pleural cavity. Bethesda's Humes and Boswell, however, claimed there was no tear in the pleural cavity. So I think H&B may have been lying about the internal injuries they found in Kennedy's body.