Tim Gratz Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 I am sure we have had this discussion previously but there have certainly been new developments. If there should be a new investigation which witnesses should be called? Obviously, IMO, the Paines. They were on our list before. Now that "Angel and Leopoldo" have been identified (at least by Murgado) as Murgado and DeTorres, respectively, both Murgado and DeTorres. Sylvia Odio, particularly in light of the statements made by Murgado to both Mellen and Talbot that Oswald was at her apartment when they arrived. Gene Wheaton. The person in prison who is identified in "All American Mafioso" as having participated in the murder of Johnny Rosselli. Sam Cagnina is my recollection of his name. Others? I await your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Well Tim! My thoughts would be that one should first put together a panel of ABSOLUTE forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical science experts, and first off determine exactly how JFK was killed. That way, one would be considerably less likely to be looking under every rock; behind every tree; in manholes; on the grassy knoll; on top of the Dal Tex bldg; etc; etc; etc; for things which never existed in the first place. Just as they would be less likely to waste a great majority of their "Investigative Funds" in attempting to determine if some dictabelt actually has the impulse created by shots being fired, and exactly how many shots may have been fired if in fact the dictabelt could be proven as valid. However, I have no doubt that you would like to send this in the direction of "Blame Castro", and you would thus want your own "specialized" panel. Perhaps we could name it the "Chase Cuban's Committee"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 File this under "I Knew If I Waited Long Enough ... " Mr. Purvis and I are in lockstep: "My thoughts would be that one should first put together a panel of ABSOLUTE forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical science experts, and first off determine exactly how JFK was killed." Indeed. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 File this under "I Knew If I Waited Long Enough ... "Mr. Purvis and I are in lockstep: "My thoughts would be that one should first put together a panel of ABSOLUTE forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical science experts, and first off determine exactly how JFK was killed." Indeed. Charles And! Here I was under the impression that I was merely getting more senile in my old age! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Miller Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 We can also question any surviving witnesses in DP and ask what they heard and saw and also subpoena media people such as Dan Rather. Also, we can question LN writers such as Posner, Bugliosi, and a few others and ask them on what they knew on the events in DP and why they think so. Any other suggestions to add? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 11, 2007 Author Share Posted August 11, 2007 Presumably if a new investigation could be accomplished it would be possible to get at all of the Joannides documents as well. The points made earlier about resolving the conflicts in the ballistic and medical evidence are all very well-taken. I know a new investigation is a great objective of Bill Kelly. My thought was that if we could put a circular into "USA Today" one thing we could attempt to accomplish would be to start a "groundswell" of support for a new congressional investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Presumably if a new investigation could be accomplished it would be possible to get at all of the Joannides documents as well.The points made earlier about resolving the conflicts in the ballistic and medical evidence are all very well-taken. I know a new investigation is a great objective of Bill Kelly. My thought was that if we could put a circular into "USA Today" one thing we could attempt to accomplish would be to start a "groundswell" of support for a new congressional investigation. The points made earlier about resolving the conflicts in the ballistic and medical evidence are all very well-taken. 1. The issues were resolved in December 1963, as well as February of 1964. 2. They were again resolved at Ft. Stockton, TX in 1990. 3. And since I am neither more qualified, nor have available to me all of the evidence which the US Secret Service and the FBI had available during their resolution, it just took a little longer to figure out what they already knew. There are no "conflicts" in the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts. Merely a large grouping of persons who do not understand these facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 14, 2007 Author Share Posted August 14, 2007 Query whether the exhumation of the body of John Connally (now that his wife is deceased) could help solve some of the medical/balliustic issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 Query whether the exhumation of the body of John Connally (now that his wife is deceased) could help solve some of the medical/balliustic issues? That would depend on several factors. 1. Deteoriation of the tissues of the left lower limb. 2. Evaluation of the 5-inch (+/-) inch scar on the left lower limb. 3. Whether or not the metallic fragment is left embedded in the upper bone. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory1.htm Dr. GREGORY - I think it is possible that a fragment from that particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right arm. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gregory2.htm Dr. GREGORY - The possibility exists, but I would discount it for these reasons--ordinarily, a missile in flight---I'll qualify that---a high velocity missile in flight does not tend to carry organic material into the wound which it creates. I believe if you will inspect the record which was prepared by Dr. Shaw, there is no indication that any clothing or other organic material was found in the chest wound. An irregular missile can carry debris into a wound and such debris was carried into the wound of the wrist. I would have expected that an undistorted high velocity missile striking the wrist would not have carried material into it. Dr. GREGORY - I observed the wound on the dorsal aspect of his wrist, which was about 2 cm. in length, ragged, somewhat irregular, and lay about an inch and a half or 2 inches above the wrist joint. It was a little to the radial side of the wrist area. Dr. GREGORY - Yes; debridement is a surgical term used to designate that procedure in attending a wound which removes by sharp excision all nonvital tissue in the area together with any identifiable foreign objects. In attending this wound, it was evident early that clot had been carried into the wound from the dorsal surface to the bone and into the fracture. This would imply that an irregular missile had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect. Not much more that one will find out about the wrist wound, as it is truly quite self explanatory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now