Micah Mileto

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.

In my opinion, the chest tube problem is an even more compelling difference between Parkland and Bethesda. https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/druq3a/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_6_chest_tubes/

Slide down the banister, go get your coat Ferry 'cross the Mersey and go for the throat

There is no way to know the truth for sure, between the official story, shooter positions, noise-supressors, sabots, and an actual frecracker used as a diversionary tactic. The possibilities are endles, especially if the witnesses were compromised.

The data in the report from the HSCA's acoustics panel shows that a 6.5 round fired from the Sixth Floor is extremely loud and noticeable. Yet, LNers claim that Oswald shooting from the Sixth Floor could result in so many witnesses dismiss or even not hear the first shot. Recently, there was this guy who claimed to have made a computer model proving how the shots could have echoed around the Plaza. The HSCA actually roped off Dealey Plaza and fired real shots into sandbags. Dealey Plaza is a highly trafficked area of Dallas, so this was a rare time when scientific understanding was prioritized over convenience.

I tried CTR+F "firecracker" and "firework" with the extremely generous list of Plaza witnesses on Pat Speer's website. Here is a list of witnesses who made statements indicating that one or more noises in Dealey Plaza sounded like a firecracker: Mrs. Ruby Henderson, Pierce Allman, Mary Sue Dickerson, Jean Newman, J.W. Foster, Jack Franzen, Mrs. Jack Franzen, Marilyn Sitzman, William Newman, Frances Gayle Newman, Glen Bennett, George Hickey, David Powers, Bobby W. Hargis, Richard Randolph Carr, Harry Holmes, Sam Kelly, R.E. "Buster" Haas, Patsy Paschall, Seymour Weitzman, Lillian Mooneyham, Jay Skaggs, Barbara Rowland, Jay Watson, Jerry Haynes, Robert Hughes, James W. Powell, Lemma Tole, Charles Bronson, Roy Kellerman, William Greer, Bobby W. Hargis, Clint Hill, Kenneth O’Donnell, John Ready, William McIntyre, Paul Landis, Rufus Youngblood, Lady Bird Johnson, Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, Cliff Carter, Warren Taylor, Thomas (Lem) Johns, Mayor Earle Cabell, Merriman Smith, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Dave Wiegman, Thomas Atkins, Clint Grant, Cecil Stoughton, Arthur Rickerby, James Underwood, Tom Dillard, Jimmy Darnell, Malcolm Couch, Robert Jackson, Congressman Graham Purcell, Robert MacNeil, Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, Winston Lawson, Stavis Ellis, S.M. Holland, Austin Miller, George Davis, Clemon Johnson, Richard Dodd, Nolan Potter, James Simmons, J.W. Foster, James Tague, Jack Franzen, Mrs. Jack Franzen, Jeff Franzen, Malcolm Summers, James Altgens, Marilyn Sitzman, Frances Gayle Newman, Toni Foster, Mary Moorman, Charles Brehm, Doris Mumford, Beverly Oliver, Royce Skelton, James Simmons, Jack Franzen, Jeff Franzen, Louie Steven Witt, John Chism, Betty Jean Thornton, Mary Woodward, Ann Donaldson, Maurice Orr, Georgia Ruth Hendrix, Billie Clay, Mary Sue Dickerson, Rosemary Willis, Phil Willis, Linda Willis, Mrs. Dolores Kounas, Marilyn Willis, Hugh Betzner, Pierce Allman, Jim Towner, Tina Towner, Howard Brennan, Ronald Fischer, John Martin Jr., Edgar Smith, Welcome Eugene Barnett, James Crawford, Mary Mitchell, Mrs. Carolyn Walther, Mrs. Ruby Henderson, Mike Brownlow, Hank Stanton, John Chism, Ann Donaldson, Pierce Allman, Mrs. Donald Baker, Judy Johnson, Ochus Campbell, Roy Truly, Irma Jean Vanzan, Mrs. Joseph Eddie Dean aka Ruth Dean, William Lovelady, William Shelley, Otis Williams, Mrs. Yola Hopson, Victoria Adams, Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, Dorothy Ann Garner, Sandra K. Styles, Betty Foster. Might've repeated some names. Holy cow, it's actually more than 80.

Jenkins described this alledged "temple wound" as a small dark-colored splotch in the skull on the edge of the large defect above the right ear. which looked like lead. He did not describe seeing a "whole" hole. I wonder if this memory could have come from the lead identified on the disembodied FRAGMENT of skull delivered later that night. He also didn't describe this interaction in any of his earlier statements, and I suspect he either intentionally or unintentionally borrowed from Paul O'Connor's story about Burkley directing the pathologists away from the THROAT wound (not the temple).

Paul O'Connor said that, about the throat wound. Jenkins said something a little different - that organs were removed which were not reported. On 4/6/1991, Jenkins said the thyroid was removed. Dr. Phillip Williams: Did they take his adrenal glands, do you know? Jenkins: Took the adrenals, the testes, the pituitary, the thyroid. Paul O'Connor: Right. Williams: Alright, then, so if they took the thyroid, then they- they explored this [gesturing towards throat], but at no time did they say that this was a wound? Jenkins: Dr. Boswell- the- the manner that we did the post was that we would do- we would open up the cavity, we would tie off the subclavian serenals and so forth. And then, we would extract, en masse, by severing the trach at the highest point that we could actually reach. And then, we take it all out, separate the organs- you know, examine the organs by- according to the technique that that particular doctor, whether he would saw such a heart or whether he would actually open up the heart through the vessels. ([Video, 5:34]) On 6/16/1991, Jenkins also said the spinal cord was removed. This is relevant to the shooting because a bullet was supposed to have passed near the spine. Jenkin's claim was denied by Dr. Boswell, as well as Dr. Robert Karnei, another autopsy witness. Dr. Humes refused to comment. As summarized in Livingstone's 1992 book High Treason 2: [Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence] [...] Spinal Cord Jenkins describes removing the spinal cord with a Stryker saw, but Dr. Karnei does not remember it having been removed. When I tried to ask Dr. Humes if it had been removed, he hung up on me.15 Dr. Boswell told me that the cord was not removed.16 The question of removal and examination of the spinal cord is important because this would tell us if the tuberculosis Kennedy had been exposed to as a child had been reactivated by the steroids he was being given, and only examination of the tissues of the spinal cord would tell this. Normally during an autopsy the spinal cord is removed and its condition is reported. Livingstone interviewed Dr. Karnei on 8/27/1991, Dr. Humes on 9/5/1991, and Dr. Boswell 8/7/1991. [...] [Chapter 7. Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei] [...] "Nobody got a look at the spine area?" "Not that I remember. I don't remember anybody going into the spinal area to take a look there." [...] "In the end, don't you think they performed a complete and good autopsy?" "I think it was as complete as they were allowed to do. I mean, normally they would have gone into the spinal column and taken the spinal cord and all that sort of thing. And they were not allowed to do that. And there was no way they could have looked at the spinal column there to see if there was any disease in the spinal column." "They didn't remove the spinal column?" "No. No. Not that I can remember. I am almost sure they did not touch the spinal column. [...] [...] "So the spinal cord was not removed, so there was no opportunity to take tissue samples from it or study whether or not he might have actually had TB of the spine?" "No, I don't remember the spinal column ever being touched." [...] [Chapter 11. James Curtis Jenkins] [...] Later the spinal cord was removed-a Stryker saw cut both sides of the vertebral column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord.12 Both Dr. Boswell,13 and Dr. Robert Karnei, who was present in the autopsy room, deny that the spinal cord was removed. Once again it sounds as though we are talking about two different autopsies. Part of the problem of trying to solve a case with so much conflicting evidence is the way people's minds play tricks on them. A lot of the witnesses did not see certain things because they were momentarily out of the room or otherwise occupied, so they will compensate by making certain assumptions in their mind which then become fact. If they think that Robert Kennedy was limiting the autopsy and they did not see the spinal cord removed, for instance, then they may state that the spinal cord was not removed because Robert did not want it done. It is very common under stress for people's minds to imagine that they saw something they did not or to block out the memory of certain events. Jackie K as climbing on the trunk or Nelly Connally going up a flight of stairs. I am not suggesting that that is what happened here, and that the spinal cord was in fact removed. I don't know at this point. The cord is not properly mentioned in the autopsy report, wheras normally it would be. From Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case: [Appendix J, Encyclopedia of Medical Events And Witness Testimony by Harrison E. Livingstone and Katlee Link Fitzgerald] [...] SPINAL CORD [...] Doctor Robert Karnei: The spinal cord was not removed. He was quite strong about this. (Aug. 27, 1991) Jim Jenkins: said that later the spinal cord was removed separately-use of Stryker saw but both sides of the vertical column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord (a: June 6, 1991) Jenkins thinks the brain stem was severed before it arrived at the autopsy because when they removed it from the head, the spinal cord did not come with it. He also said during the same interview that he did not recall removing the spinal cord and that he would have removed it (a: May 29, 1991) However, approximately 90% of the time the spinal cord will separate from the brain when the brain is removed.

I tried looking into this issue for my torso wounds megapost, but didn't include it. I think it's very likely the "verified" notation was made on 11/24-26 after the paper was photocopied for the Secret Service.