There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Tom Neal]

Does everyone agree that the 'stain' is a dried blood clot?

Tom: Please. Of course it could be blood. It also could be Hollandaise sauce, or some combination of I know! "It's a dessert topping and a floor wax!" (Apologies to Chevy Chase.)

That's my entire point: The President of the United States was murdered, and nobody bothered to find out what it was.

But it goes further than they just didn't bother to find out: they emphatically didn't find out, and even

"managed" somehow to confuse the issue with the incorrect evidence numbering, which you have pointed outeven

though the stain is directly adjacent to a "nick" in the tie that no one ever explained or tested for "evidence of

bullet metal," which you also have pointed out.

So, no, I will not just assume that it is nothing but blood, and neither would any responsible forensic investigator. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Ashton,

Excellent reply! Thanks for acknowledging facts I had stated earlier.

As I'm sure you have noticed, I asked a question regarding the alleged blood stain, rather than stating an opinion (although I did imply one) as to it's cause. My intent was to:

1. elicit comments on this "stain" - no one had mentioned this when Bob posted the close-up of the "nick" in the tie.

2. determine whether the lack of comments was due to a belief that it couldn't be anything else (an homage to your response re the scalpel v. scissors question)

3. get input as to other likely and/or possible explanations for this "stain"

4. provoke a response to my comment that although they tested the hole in the back of the shirt, and the slit in the front, they ignored the tie altogether.

5. put it out there that in addition to all their OTHER flaws, the incorrect exhibit number was either designed to confuse or an indication of their carelessness

6. Hint that the only stain on the tie happened to occur at the site of the "nick" in the tie

I give your response two thumbs up (alas, I only have two to give...)

Tom

PS You reminded me that Raymond Burr's "Perry Mason" is still my favorite lawyer - "Assumption of facts not in evidence!" - possibly his must-often-used phrase...

Edited January 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tom Neal,

According to Perry Mason, the whole of JFK research is bunk. The whole is assumption of facts not in evidence.

That's not a joke. The greatest failure of the Warren Commission was to not allow Mark Lane to cross-examine Commission witnesses. The failure to allow, the failure to invite, cross-examination of witnesses such as Marina and Ruth meant they could tell the Commission what it wanted to hear. Marina and Ruth surely knew what the Commission wanted to hear.

Mason was correct. The whole of the so-called evidentiary record is inadmissible as evidence; is untrustworthy; is bunk.

[Tom Neal]

According to Perry Mason, the whole of JFK research is bunk. The whole is assumption of facts not in evidence.

Perry Mason first evaluated a statement and only then objected due to an "assumption of facts not in evidence."

John G. Tidd has clearly NOT evaluated "the whole of JFK research" yet he has rendered the verdict that in its entirety, it "is bunk."

IMHO the ghost of Perry Mason stood up and loudly objected that the statement of John G. Tidd is an "assumption of facts not in evidence."

Your statement is an insult to the MANY JFK researchers who deserve credit for producing research that is decidedly NOT "bunk." A number of them regularly post on this site.

Tom

PS

The greatest failure of the Warren Commission was to not allow Mark Lane to cross-examine Commission witnesses. The failure to allow, the failure to invite, cross-examination of witnesses

I agree with this statement in its entirety, and have said so.

Jon, as I'm certain you are aware, Mark Lane is a 'rather' well known "JFK researcher." By your own declaration, he too is a purveyor of "bunk." By

virtue of this fact in evidence as stated by you, your statement re the "greatest failure" of the WC is indeed "an assumption of facts not in evidence."

[Edited to replace PS which was deleted by the software]

Edited January 26, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Robert Prudhomme]

What do you believe caused the nick in the tie?

I don't know.

The visual evidence indicates that it was something sharp enough to slice through a single layer of the tie in a short line.

The visual evidence indicates that the slice in the tie is not inconsistent with whatever sliced through the several layers of shirt underneath the tie.

The visual evidence indicates that the slits in the shirt—allowing for the flexile nature of the fabric in the two sides of the shirt—are not inconsistent with the placement of the wound in the throat.

The visual evidence therefore suggests strongly that the nick in the tie, the shirt slits, and the throat wound all were created by the same item, whatever it was.

The forensic analysis of the shirt slits has eliminated a bullet as the cause, as documented in this thread.

You say it was a bone fragment. I'm not convinced that it was. If it was, it is unfortunate for all of us that it coincidentally created a hole that was mistaken by a host of medical personnel as a bullet wound, then created neat little slits in the shirt.

Ashton

Hi Ashton

I'm not totally convinced it was a bone fragment either. I threw this possibility out there to see how it fared, and if anyone else had input on this possibility.

If the throat wound was caused by something travelling at high speed, either into JFK or out of JFK, a bone fragment would seem to be a strong contender at this point, as well as the blood soluble poison flechettes often brought up in these discussions.

However, can we completely rule out a bullet or bullet fragment? I know that spectrographic analysis has shown there was evidence of bullet jacket metal in the bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt, and no evidence of the same metal in the material of the collar but, is this conclusive?

If a bullet or fragment of a bullet was travelling through the flesh of JFK's neck, it would make sense that it would be coated, at the very least, in blood as it neared the supposed exit wound in the throat. As the skin is quite thin just below the larynx, is there a possibility this bullet or fragment exited JFK's throat with a coating of organic material still on it?

Is it possible this bullet or fragment passed through JFK's collar and deposited only organic material on the way through?

It's times like these I wish there was a forensic investigator posting here, experienced with entrance wounds, exit wounds and what gets deposited by a bullet on its way in and out. We might find out it is perfectly normal for a bullet not to leave traces of metal on clothing if it has a layer of blood on it as it passes through that clothing.

[Cliff Varnell]

From the WC testimony of Linda Willis:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together.
When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of
slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Nellie Connally:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was
a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder
and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood,
no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.


<quote off>


From the WC testimony of Clint Hill:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's automobile as it turned left off of Houston
onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to
9...Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There
were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a
firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw
President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left...

<quote off>

The Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to throat trauma from the first shot:

From the HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial
air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity
of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side
and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a
fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right
lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying
C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy,there are two small metallic densities in the
region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because
of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because
these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I
assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that
this film was exposed.

<quote off>

Several years ago I was curious about the trajectory of the air pocket over-laying the C7 and T1 transverse processes.

I asked James Gordon if he could show what a T1 to C7 trajectory looked like on his anatomical model and he came up with
this:

The air-pocket points directly to the throat entrance.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Neal]

Hello Bob,

I'm not totally convinced it was a bone fragment either. I threw this possibility out there to see how it fared, and if anyone else had input on this possibility.

Just so you don't feel like a "voice in the wilderness", in previous posts on this thread, I have included this as a possibility, also. But IMO, a bullet fragment or a bone fragment seems an unlikely candidate to create a 1/5" round hole in JFK's neck yet in fabric that is actually touching this hole, create a 1/2" slit that just happens to be vertical. Although the order of passage (flesh, then shirt) is the reverse for the back wound, both the shirt hole and the wound were round or elliptical - not vertical slits.

However, can we completely rule out a bullet or bullet fragment? I know that spectrographic analysis has shown there was evidence of bullet jacket metal in the bullet hole in the back of JFK's shirt, and no evidence of the same metal in the material of the collar but, is this conclusive?

If a bullet or fragment of a bullet was traveling through the flesh of JFK's neck, it would make sense that it would be coated, at the very least, in blood as it neared the supposed exit wound in the throat. As the skin is quite thin just below the larynx, is there a possibility this bullet or fragment exited JFK's throat with a coating of organic material still on it?

My credentials to make a judgement regarding your question include only what I have read in several forensics books and documentation. My research has indicated that a bullet that passes through a clothed person leaves 'metal' on the clothing at the entrance and exit site. No mention of blood at the site of the shirt slits in anything I've discovered, despite Perry's description of the wound as 'weeping' blood prior to his incision. A spectrographic analysis would indicate the presence of blood. Whether or not they looked for those results I can't say. If no blood was detected on the shirt slit would they have mentioned it?

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

In consideration of the 'scalpel v. scissors' controversy, I thought it might prove interesting to examine the actual cut through the tie:

Before I take the back of the tie from a different photo and paste it here to see if the ends match and check out the cut itself, can someone tell me if the side I have labelled in RED is actually the FRONT of the tie? I don't see a twist in the tie so I think I have it right...

Note that the tag in this display indicates this is CE-394, which is the shirt. The tie should be labelled CE-395.

Thanks for any assistance,

Tom

I would have thought they'd use scissors to cut the tie off. But from the looks of that ragged cut, I'm more inclined to believe they used a scalpel.

Tom, the part you marked as "Front" is indeed the front.

But the spot you marked as "Nick?" is not the nick we see in the other photo. In the following photos we see 1) rows of six of those little patterns in the wide area of the tie; 2) rows of five in the knot area; and 3) rows of 5 in the nick area, indicating that it is part of the knot area. The spot you marked as "Nick?" is the narrowest part of the tie and would surely have fewer than five patterns in a row... I would say three.

Here's a possible scenario:

The body arrives. One of the nurses pulls the knot of the necktie to one side, loosing it a bit and exposing the button behind it. She then sticks her index finger down into the the collar -- just behind the now-off-center knot -- and pulls it tight, up and away from the skin. She then proceeds to saw through the tie with a scalpel, or some other type of knife. Whatever type of knife it is, it has a sharp point. Because it penetrates the shirt plackets on a few of its strokes, thus creating a 1/2" slit on the outside placket, and a shorter slit on the inside placket.

The doctor then unbuttons the shirt and discovers the wound.

[Tom Neal]

I would have thought they'd use scissors to cut the tie off. But from the looks of that ragged cut, I'm more inclined to believe they used a scalpel.

A few hours ago, while in search of the origin of the 'scalpel v. tie'; as I had mentioned earlier, it did indeed originate with Harald Weisberg. He states quite clearly (and more than once) that during his interview with Carrico, the doctor went so far as to demonstrate the method. The nurse pulled the tie far enough away from JFK's neck to avoid any chance of inflicting a wound, and as close to the knot as possible. This is the ONLY statement I've found anywhere that indicates whether a scalpel or scissors was used to cut the tie. I have several legitimate medical scalpels that I use for hobby-type stuff, and the blades are quite short. IMO she would have held the tie too far away to have cut a slit into the shirt while severing the tie. After all the shirt was touching his body at the time and the blade would have created a wound.

It also appears to me that a scalpel was used to cut the tie. Considering the appearance of the cut ends, IMO it required two or more 'strokes' with the knife to complete the cut.

Tom, the part you marked as "Front" is indeed the front.

Sandy,

Thanks for the input. I had given up on anyone commenting on this photo re front or back. It doesn't really make sense to me that in the first photo of the tie you see the front twice and then back. The next photo has the same issue but in reverse. Like the wrong CE number is this designed to confuse the issue?

But the spot you marked as "Nick?" is not the nick we see in the other photo. In the following photos we see 1) rows of six of those little patterns in the wide area of the tie; 2) rows of five in the knot area; and 3) rows of 5 in the nick area, indicating that it is part of the knot area. The spot you marked as "Nick?" is the narrowest part of the tie and would surely have fewer than five patterns in a row... I would say three.

I honestly can't tell, and I don't know what that 'spot' is. I was unable to fit "WHAT THE HELL IS THIS" into the space available, and the ONLY reported damage with the nick. So I used the word "NICK" and a question mark. They did a horrendous job photographing this tie as far as locating the "nick" on the knot. Or probably with their agenda I should have said they did a GREAT job...

BTW, in an all-nighter that has yet to terminate, I discovered two things about this tie that I had never read.

• in addition to the spectrographic examination of the hole in the back of the shirt and the slit in the front of the shirt as I reported earlier, they actually did test the "nick" in the tie at the same time. Like the slit in the front of the shirt, no "Bullet Metal" was detected.
• in order to conduct the exam a small amount of material was removed from the tie. The remaining questions are: how much material was removed from the tie, and were the extant photos taken before or after this removal of material? IMO the photos were taken AFTER the removal of material to give the impression of a larger nick.

The stain that appears on the tie at the site of the nick has not been commented on by the FBI who had the tests done. The spectrographic analysis that was performed at all three 'sites' would have detected the presence of blood, and unsurprisingly, they do not mention whether or not any blood was revealed on the shirt or tie.

Here's a possible scenario:

The body arrives. One of the nurses pulls the knot of the necktie to one side, loosing it a bit and exposing the button behind it. She then sticks her index finger down into the the collar -- just behind

the now-off-center knot -- and pulls it tight, up and away from the skin. She then proceeds to saw through the tie with a scalpel, or some other type of knife. Whatever type of knife it is, it has a sharp

point. Because it penetrates the shirt plackets on a few of its strokes, thus creating a 1/2" slit on the outside placket, and a shorter slit on the inside placket.

The doctor then unbuttons the shirt and discovers the wound.

As stated above, according to Weisberg/Carrico you nailed it! The one comment I have is that IMO a penetration of the shirt by the scalpel would have penetrated the shirt that was touching his body and left an incision in his throat.

Question re the shirt photo: the slit on the anatomical left side of the shirt appears to begin well into the collar. To me eyes it appears that this is actually two loose threads on top of the collar. Any opinions regarding this possibility?

Thanks again for responding,

Tom

[Robert Prudhomme]

From the WC testimony of Linda Willis:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together.

When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of

slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Nellie Connally:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was

a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder

and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood,

no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Clint Hill:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's automobile as it turned left off of Houston

onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to

9...Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There

were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a

firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw

President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left...

<quote off>

The Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to throat trauma from the first shot:

From the HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right

lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy,there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

Several years ago I was curious about the trajectory of the air pocket over-laying the C7 and T1 transverse processes.

I asked James Gordon if he could show what a T1 to C7 trajectory looked like on his anatomical model and he came up with

this:

The air-pocket points directly to the throat entrance.

Hi Cliff

Thanks for that post. What you and Gil Jesus present is also a very real possibility, dependent, of course, on whether or not there was a trajectory that would line up with a shot through the windshield. It also depends on whether or not someone would deliberately shoot through a sloping windshield.

What I also found interesting in your post starts at about 5:10 in Mr. Jesus' film. I believe we are looking at a photo of the tie; still knotted but with the left neck loop severed. On the lower anatomical left of the knot is a yellow circle around what I presume would be the "nick", although it appears to me this "nick" is not actually at the edge of the tie.

Considering that a shot through the tie knot would likely show up on several parts of the tie, once un-knotted, can this spot circled in the film be the actual nick?

[Sandy Larsen]

Question re the shirt photo:

the slit on the anatomical left side of the shirt appears to begin well into the collar. To me eyes it appears that this is actually two loose threads on top of the collar. Any opinions regarding this possibility?

Thanks again for responding,

Tom

I wish I could help. But I can't really make anything out. I see the line on the anatomical left, and on the right looks like a curl... or two curls.

BTW, in my "possible scenario," I had the nurse pulling not only the tie away but also the collar. That way she could have cut through the shirt without damaging Kennedy's skin. But I can't think of any reason why she'd pull the collar to begin with. Just pull the tie and cut it... makes sense.

[Cliff Varnell]

From the WC testimony of Linda Willis:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together.

When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed his throat, and he kind of

slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Nellie Connally:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was

a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder

and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood,

no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

<quote off>

From the WC testimony of Clint Hill:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's automobile as it turned left off of Houston

onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to

9...Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There

were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a

firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw

President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left...

<quote off>

The Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to throat trauma from the first shot:

From the HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray:

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a

fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right

lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy,there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.

<quote off>

Several years ago I was curious about the trajectory of the air pocket over-laying the C7 and T1 transverse processes.

I asked James Gordon if he could show what a T1 to C7 trajectory looked like on his anatomical model and he came up with

this:

The air-pocket points directly to the throat entrance.

Hi Cliff

Thanks for that post. What you and Gil Jesus present is also a very real possibility, dependent, of course, on whether or not there was a trajectory that would line up with a shot through the windshield. It also depends on whether or not someone would deliberately shoot through a sloping windshield.

I don't buy the windshield part of Gil's analysis, for the reason you cited.

Perhaps a nervous shooter might put one thru the windshield, but as a planned first shot?

Looks like JFK was clawing at his tie with his left forefinger before seizing up paralyzed, which would settle the issue of the throat entrance, right?

What I also found interesting in your post starts at about 5:10 in Mr. Jesus' film. I believe we are looking at a photo of the tie; still knotted but with the left neck loop severed. On the lower anatomical left of the knot is a yellow circle around what I presume would be the "nick", although it appears to me this "nick" is not actually at the edge of the tie.

Considering that a shot through the tie knot would likely show up on several parts of the tie, once un-knotted, can this spot circled in the film be the actual nick?

The first shot struck JFK in the throat circa Z190.

The round didn't exit.

There was no round found at that location at the autopsy.

What happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?

THAT is the question, Nick The Tie aside...

Edited January 26, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tom Neal @ #288:

When Mason objected to the assumption of facts not in evidence, he was making an argument of law to the judge.

What he was arguing was that if the prosecution wanted to get certain facts before the jury, the facts had to be admitted into evidence according to the Rules of Evidence.

Here's an example of what I mean. Jon is on trial for arson (setting fire to a building). It's a fact that Jon was charged criminally with arson on five prior occasions and was convicted of arson on two of those occasions. Can these facts be presented to the jury in the current trial for arson? No. They're inadmissible, meaning they can't be introduced into evidence, and therefore can't be presented to the jury and can't be assumed to be true by the prosecution. This is technical stuff.

What I was getting at, Tom, is that none of the "stuff" in the JFK matter has ever been admitted into evidence by a trial court. Admitting into evidence is done by a trial judge according to a dense body of rules.

In the JFK arena, there may be facts; I mean hard, provable facts, not judgments, interpretations, or opinions; hard facts. There may be such hard facts. There is no evidence in the legal sense. Therefore, as Mason would say, any facts in the JFK case are (assumed) facts not in evidence.

Q.E.D.

[Sandy Larsen]

Here's another scenario. I think this one works.

A bullet strikes JFK and the impact breaks off a piece of bone. The width of the bone fragment is small enough to make the small exit wound found by Parkland doctors. But it is longer than wide, maybe 1/2" long. It has a sharp tip.

The bone fragment creates the wound and exits. It hits the shirt right behind the necktie knot and pulls the shirt a little bit away from the neck. Upon penetrating the inner layer of shirt fabric, it begins to tumble. The tumbling action causes the tip of the bone to cut a slit into the outer layer of fabric. The tip barely reaches the back of the necktie knot and nicks it.

By this time the bone has tumbled far enough that its broad side hits the back of the tie. It isn't sharp enough on its broad side, and it doesn't have enough remaining energy, to cut through the back of the knot. it comes to rest there, between the shirt and the knot, and later it falls out.

Regardless of whether or not this happened, I'm satisfied that the wound was hidden by the knot. And that the slits in the shirt and nick in the tie resulted from the shot. If I am right, the shot had to have come from behind because there is no hole through the tie.

[Tom Neal]

Tom Neal @ #288:

There is no evidence in the legal sense. Therefore, as Mason would say, any facts in the JFK case are (assumed) facts not in evidence.

Well, with this kind of talk no one will accuse you of posing as a lawyer.

Apparently, I missed the actual trial. None of the evidence was struck down nor was it accepted. You are attempting to impose the rules of evidence in an ongoing trial with the evidence presented for consideration.

In your own words, anything that hasn't passed a judges ruling is "bunk"; thus every piece of evidence is bunk.

You can QED all you want, you haven't demonstrated anything, and your stipulation is BS. Ipso Facto.

Tom

[James DiEugenio]

JT: What I was getting at, Tom, is that none of the "stuff" in the JFK matter has ever been admitted into evidence by a trial court. Admitting into evidence is done by a trial judge according to a dense body of rules.

He is wrong anyway Tom. In 1969, Jim Garrison had much of the medical and ballistics evidence admitted at the trial of Clay Shaw. This was over the strenuous objections of the defense.

His cross examination of Finck literally blew up the medical evidence. To the point that the Justice Department and Harry Connick admitted that Finck was "screwing everything up" and they flew Boswell into town to discredit Finck! I kid you not. They actually rented a hotel room for him. And Connick left him a note. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pgs 299-306) They thought better of it though because Finck was actually a more accredited pathologist than Boswell.

Jon, if you read some good books on this case you would not have to assume so much that is wrong.

Edited January 28, 2016 by James DiEugenio