David G. Healy Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questions Question #17 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial: Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom. Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A: Right. Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control. Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on? eof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Tomlinson Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 (edited) Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questionsQuestion #17 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial: Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom. Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A: Right. Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control. Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on? eof If I want to do something but can't be seen as responsible, I put the idea to someone with the ability to make 'it' happen. If it is true that RFK was involved with the Castro assassination attempts and he believed that people from these attempts were involved in JFK's death, he would have great reason to hamper a broad enquiry, starting with an idea of multiple assassins, provable by a strict examination of wounds. If RFK did act, I can now say without lieing that RFK wanted it doing. I, having the idea originally doesn't come into it. I would prefer for this not to be the case, but it only requires a very powerful and well connected man (RFK) to feel cornered. Edited April 30, 2008 by Steven Tomlinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 Defend the Warren Commission Report Findings? The 45 questionsQuestion #17 Back by popular demand - the 45 Questions that terrify those who try to defend the Warren Commission Report. In the past, there have been only two semi-serious attempts to answer them, one by John McAdams, and one by 'Bud' (the xxxxx listed below) - Both responses were basically denials of the facts in most of the 'answers'. *reposted with authors permission -- author: Ben Holmes...* But first, an important note: ********************************************************************** Important Note for Lurkers - there are many trolls on this forum (alt.conspiracy.jfk) who's only purpose is to obstruct debate, deny the evidence, and attempt to change message threads from discussing the evidence, to personal insults and attacks. These trolls include (but are not limited to): **22 trolls who post regularly to alt.conspiracy.jfk** names removed -dgh Please beware when seeing their responses, and note that they will simply deny the facts I mention, demand citations that I've provided before, or simply run with insults. These trolls are only good material for the kill files. source: alt.conspiracy.jfk ********************************************************************** 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial: Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom. Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A: Right. Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control. Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on? eof Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. Any LNT'ers brave enough to confront this evidence (and explain it) head on? eof ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Being frequently "alone" as well as often referred to as also being "nuts", here goes: 1. Dr. Humes was not "forbidden" from dissecting the back/to/ neck wound! 2. The back wound was probed with the little finger. The ending point could be felt, and the bullet passageway terminated at a shallow depth into the back. 3. After opening of the chest and removal of the lungs, a metal probe was inserted into the back wound and the point/tip of this probe could be observed inside the chest cavity, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact position at which there was also bruising of this membrane. 4. The bruised area of the parietal pluera in which the metal probe could be observed pushing, correlated exactly with a bruised area at the apex of the right lung. However, the bullet penetration did not violate the membrane. 5. The determined conclusion then, as well as at termination of the autopsy, was that the bullet hand gone into the back only a short distance, lodged, and thereafter fell out of the back due to the resuscative efforts made on JFK at Parkland Hospital. 6. Since the bullet track, (as found) terminated in the tissue of the back, there was nothing to actually "dissect". 7. However! This did not prevent the autopsy surgeons from taking a sample of the skin at the point of entrance, as well as a sample of tissue from the "bottom" area of the wound which they observed. These tissues were prepared into microscopic slide samples which were not reviewed until that period when the preserved brain was also examined. In conclusion: Since there was no determined bullet "pathway" from the back entry wound to the anterior throat wound, there was no necessity to dissect the neck as, at the time of the autopsy (and it's termination), there was no determined correlation between the posterior back entry wound and the anterior throat (tracheostomy) incision. After the autopsy was completed; JFK's body removed, and everyone pretty well sent home, Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital and found that JFK had a small anterior throat wound. Thereafter, a "meeting of the minds" between the three autopsy surgeons took place, and it was then determined (in absentism of the body) that the bullet which struck in the back had exited the anterior neck. Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; as well as Dr. Finke, were under the impression that they had completely botched the autopsy (which is of course not that far from being correct), and thereafter the original autopsy notes (which would have stated that CE399 merely lodged in JFK's back) were destroyed and the autopsy results changed to make the anterior throat wound a correlative factor associated with the exit of CE399. This is why when the autopsy was ended, those such as the FBI, etc; left with and documented the results which state that CE399 merely lodged into JFK's back. And, since JEH and Company are most assuredly smart enough to recognize not only how CE399 came to exist, as well as what could cause a 2,100/2,200 fps Carcano bullet to penetrate only an inch or two into the human body, we still have JEH & Company telling the truths in regards to CE399 and the first shot. Might I also add that JEH & Company were also smart enough to make the small 0.9 grain, cone-shaped; flat-based (4.5mm width) fragment of lead which exited JFK's throat (which came from the base of CE399) and was once a portion of CE840, as well as the tree limbs, disappear. Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 5, 2008 Author Share Posted May 5, 2008 (edited) note: > = Tom P >Being frequently "alone" as well as often referred to as also being >"nuts", here goes: >1. Dr. Humes was not "forbidden" from dissecting the back/to/ neck >wound! That's what Finck testified to. And it's simply historical fact that the most obvious procedure of all - the dissection of the track of the bullet through the body was *NEVER* performed. This falls under the rubric of "simple denial" >2. The back wound was probed with the little finger. The ending >point could be felt, and the bullet passageway terminated at a shallow >depth into the back. This is a restatement of known history, and not an explanation of why the wound was not dissected, nor the trachea pulled out and examined. >3. After opening of the chest and removal of the lungs, a metal probe >was inserted into the back wound >and the point/tip of this probe could be observed inside the chest >cavity, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact position at >which there was also bruising of this membrane. Ditto... same response as above. It's interesting to note that the very photograph that would corroborate or contradict this is missing. And I consider that a photograph supporting the SBT would have a very slim chance of being "lost"... >4. The bruised area of the parietal pluera in which the metal probe >could be observed pushing, correlated exactly with a bruised area at >the apex of the right lung. However, the bullet penetration did not >violate the membrane. We are *still* discussing historical fact, and not explaining why the dissection never occurred, and why they were ordered *NOT* to dissect the track of the bullet. >5. The determined conclusion then, as well as at termination of the >autopsy, was that the bullet hand gone into the back only a short >distance, lodged, and thereafter fell out of the back due to the >resuscative efforts made on JFK at Parkland Hospital. I should just copy/paste my commentary... none of this explains why they were forbidden from dissecting the track of the wound, as Finck testified under oath. (and quite reluctantly.) >6. Since the bullet track, (as found) terminated in the tissue of the >back, there was nothing to actually "dissect". Again, "simple denial." The answers appear to be coming from a believer in conspiracy, yet he/she ignores the testimony of one of the three prosectors, and ignores the actual facts - the *FACT* that there was no dissection where it seems most obvious. The 'chest incisions' didn't even enter the chest, so they *MUST* have been of a length even *shorter* than the back wound, yet *THEY* were dissected... so this argument that there was "nothing to actually dissect" is a rather dishonest handling of the known facts. >7. However! This did not prevent the autopsy surgeons from taking a >sample of the skin at the point of entrance, as well as a sample of >tissue from the "bottom" area of the wound which they observed. >These tissues were prepared into microscopic slide samples which were >not reviewed until that period when the preserved brain was also >examined. These tissue samples also disappeared. >In conclusion: >Since there was no determined bullet "pathway" from the back entry >wound to the anterior throat wound, And because they had been ordered *NOT* to dissect this track... >there was no necessity to dissect the neck as, This is about as dishonest a statement as I've ever seen. Obviously presuming that the neck wound was not recognized as a legitimate antemortem wound, this STILL doesn't make sense. The chest incisions, which COULD NOT FAIL to have been recognized for what they were - were indeed dissected. But we also know that it's virtually impossible for the prosectors *NOT* to have known that the tracheotomy 'concealed' a bullet wound. So only the explanation given under oath by Finck can explain it - THEY WERE FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO. Trying to claim that there was no legitimate autopsy reason for dissecting EACH AND EVERY WOUND on JFK is a lie so vast as to border on requiring the listener to be quite deficit in IQ. >at the time of the autopsy (and it's termination), there >was no determined correlation between the posterior back entry wound >and the anterior throat (tracheostomy) incision. Again, merely reciting historical fact doesn't excuse or explain the orders given that stopped the prosectors from dissecting the track of the bullet. >After the autopsy was completed; JFK's body removed, and everyone >pretty well sent home, Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry at >Parkland Hospital and found that JFK had a small anterior throat >wound. A fact that he almost certainly knew of during the autopsy. We only hear of this story after Oswald was killed - and indeed, it was the killing of Oswald, and not this phone call, that certainly prompted the revising of the autopsy report. >Thereafter, a "meeting of the minds" between the three autopsy >surgeons took place, and it was then determined (in absentism of the >body) that the bullet which struck in the back had exited the anterior >neck. Yep... speculation absent medical evidence. But once again, this fails to explain why they were ordered not to dissect, and conveniently, the photograph (hmmm, and X-ray, come to think of it) that would have proven or contradicted transit disappeared. >Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; as well as Dr. Finke, were under the >impression that they had completely botched the autopsy (which is of >course not that far from being correct), There's *ZERO* evidence for this attack on the prosectors. Since the entire chain of command at Bethesda was also in attendance, and one of doctors assisting was the one who ROUTINELY did autopsies day in and day out, and the Surgeon General of the Navy was also there - you are, indeed, simply indicting military medicine as incompetent. Sadly, although the prosectors all had long and quite ordinary careers, no-one who has proclaimed their incompetence has been able to document this "incompetence" - despite the fact that documentation on those in the military VASTLY exceeds what a civilian doctor will have in terms of documentation of his ability or lack thereof. >and thereafter the original >autopsy notes (which would have stated that CE399 merely lodged in >JFK's back) were destroyed and the autopsy results changed to make the >anterior throat wound a correlative factor associated with the exit of >CE399. This is indeed the "official" story... and if you can swallow the incompetence of the military, then it seems almost normal and believable. But the *truth* is that the change of the autopsy report almost certainly was caused by Oswald's death. And even *then*, it wasn't good enough - for it was certainly changed again the following year. (See the executive sessions for a reference that couldn't have come from the autopsy report we now have - it's also covered in the 45 Questions, #35) >This is why when the autopsy was ended, those such as the FBI, etc; >left with and documented the results which state that CE399 merely >lodged into JFK's back. This was the most accurate results we have - although even here, we have unanswered questions due to the way the autopsy was controlled. >And, since JEH and Company are most assuredly smart enough to >recognize not only how CE399 came to exist, as well as what could >cause a 2,100/2,200 fps Carcano bullet to penetrate only an inch or >two into the human body, we still have JEH & Company telling the >truths in regards to CE399 and the first shot. >Might I also add that JEH & Company were also smart enough to make the >small 0.9 grain, cone-shaped; flat-based (4.5mm width) fragment of >lead which exited JFK's throat (which came from the base of CE399) and >was once a portion of CE840, as well as the tree limbs, disappear. After you replace what the FBI took out of CE399 - where's a fragment big enough to trace a non-existent path from the brain to the neck, and make a wound that medical opinion held to be an entry wound? >Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! Yet there's still enough evidence to put much of this together. To deny that the military tightly controlled what could, and could not be done during the autopsy is to ignore the evidence, and swallow the mythology of the WCR. I've often come across those who appear to support conspiracy, yet strangely treat the eyewitnesses, and the photographic evidence, (indeed, *all* evidence), ENTIRELY the same way that LNT'ers do. As I have no idea of the posting history of whomever responded, I can't make an accurate judgment - but I have a sneaking suspicion. Edited May 5, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 note: > = Tom P>Being frequently "alone" as well as often referred to as also being >"nuts", here goes: >1. Dr. Humes was not "forbidden" from dissecting the back/to/ neck >wound! That's what Finck testified to. And it's simply historical fact that the most obvious procedure of all - the dissection of the track of the bullet through the body was *NEVER* performed. This falls under the rubric of "simple denial" >2. The back wound was probed with the little finger. The ending >point could be felt, and the bullet passageway terminated at a shallow >depth into the back. This is a restatement of known history, and not an explanation of why the wound was not dissected, nor the trachea pulled out and examined. >3. After opening of the chest and removal of the lungs, a metal probe >was inserted into the back wound >and the point/tip of this probe could be observed inside the chest >cavity, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact position at >which there was also bruising of this membrane. Ditto... same response as above. It's interesting to note that the very photograph that would corroborate or contradict this is missing. And I consider that a photograph supporting the SBT would have a very slim chance of being "lost"... >4. The bruised area of the parietal pluera in which the metal probe >could be observed pushing, correlated exactly with a bruised area at >the apex of the right lung. However, the bullet penetration did not >violate the membrane. We are *still* discussing historical fact, and not explaining why the dissection never occurred, and why they were ordered *NOT* to dissect the track of the bullet. >5. The determined conclusion then, as well as at termination of the >autopsy, was that the bullet hand gone into the back only a short >distance, lodged, and thereafter fell out of the back due to the >resuscative efforts made on JFK at Parkland Hospital. I should just copy/paste my commentary... none of this explains why they were forbidden from dissecting the track of the wound, as Finck testified under oath. (and quite reluctantly.) >6. Since the bullet track, (as found) terminated in the tissue of the >back, there was nothing to actually "dissect". Again, "simple denial." The answers appear to be coming from a believer in conspiracy, yet he/she ignores the testimony of one of the three prosectors, and ignores the actual facts - the *FACT* that there was no dissection where it seems most obvious. The 'chest incisions' didn't even enter the chest, so they *MUST* have been of a length even *shorter* than the back wound, yet *THEY* were dissected... so this argument that there was "nothing to actually dissect" is a rather dishonest handling of the known facts. >7. However! This did not prevent the autopsy surgeons from taking a >sample of the skin at the point of entrance, as well as a sample of >tissue from the "bottom" area of the wound which they observed. >These tissues were prepared into microscopic slide samples which were >not reviewed until that period when the preserved brain was also >examined. These tissue samples also disappeared. >In conclusion: >Since there was no determined bullet "pathway" from the back entry >wound to the anterior throat wound, And because they had been ordered *NOT* to dissect this track... >there was no necessity to dissect the neck as, This is about as dishonest a statement as I've ever seen. Obviously presuming that the neck wound was not recognized as a legitimate antemortem wound, this STILL doesn't make sense. The chest incisions, which COULD NOT FAIL to have been recognized for what they were - were indeed dissected. But we also know that it's virtually impossible for the prosectors *NOT* to have known that the tracheotomy 'concealed' a bullet wound. So only the explanation given under oath by Finck can explain it - THEY WERE FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO. Trying to claim that there was no legitimate autopsy reason for dissecting EACH AND EVERY WOUND on JFK is a lie so vast as to border on requiring the listener to be quite deficit in IQ. >at the time of the autopsy (and it's termination), there >was no determined correlation between the posterior back entry wound >and the anterior throat (tracheostomy) incision. Again, merely reciting historical fact doesn't excuse or explain the orders given that stopped the prosectors from dissecting the track of the bullet. >After the autopsy was completed; JFK's body removed, and everyone >pretty well sent home, Dr. Humes spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry at >Parkland Hospital and found that JFK had a small anterior throat >wound. A fact that he almost certainly knew of during the autopsy. We only hear of this story after Oswald was killed - and indeed, it was the killing of Oswald, and not this phone call, that certainly prompted the revising of the autopsy report. >Thereafter, a "meeting of the minds" between the three autopsy >surgeons took place, and it was then determined (in absentism of the >body) that the bullet which struck in the back had exited the anterior >neck. Yep... speculation absent medical evidence. But once again, this fails to explain why they were ordered not to dissect, and conveniently, the photograph (hmmm, and X-ray, come to think of it) that would have proven or contradicted transit disappeared. >Dr. Humes; Dr. Boswell; as well as Dr. Finke, were under the >impression that they had completely botched the autopsy (which is of >course not that far from being correct), There's *ZERO* evidence for this attack on the prosectors. Since the entire chain of command at Bethesda was also in attendance, and one of doctors assisting was the one who ROUTINELY did autopsies day in and day out, and the Surgeon General of the Navy was also there - you are, indeed, simply indicting military medicine as incompetent. Sadly, although the prosectors all had long and quite ordinary careers, no-one who has proclaimed their incompetence has been able to document this "incompetence" - despite the fact that documentation on those in the military VASTLY exceeds what a civilian doctor will have in terms of documentation of his ability or lack thereof. >and thereafter the original >autopsy notes (which would have stated that CE399 merely lodged in >JFK's back) were destroyed and the autopsy results changed to make the >anterior throat wound a correlative factor associated with the exit of >CE399. This is indeed the "official" story... and if you can swallow the incompetence of the military, then it seems almost normal and believable. But the *truth* is that the change of the autopsy report almost certainly was caused by Oswald's death. And even *then*, it wasn't good enough - for it was certainly changed again the following year. (See the executive sessions for a reference that couldn't have come from the autopsy report we now have - it's also covered in the 45 Questions, #35) >This is why when the autopsy was ended, those such as the FBI, etc; >left with and documented the results which state that CE399 merely >lodged into JFK's back. This was the most accurate results we have - although even here, we have unanswered questions due to the way the autopsy was controlled. >And, since JEH and Company are most assuredly smart enough to >recognize not only how CE399 came to exist, as well as what could >cause a 2,100/2,200 fps Carcano bullet to penetrate only an inch or >two into the human body, we still have JEH & Company telling the >truths in regards to CE399 and the first shot. >Might I also add that JEH & Company were also smart enough to make the >small 0.9 grain, cone-shaped; flat-based (4.5mm width) fragment of >lead which exited JFK's throat (which came from the base of CE399) and >was once a portion of CE840, as well as the tree limbs, disappear. After you replace what the FBI took out of CE399 - where's a fragment big enough to trace a non-existent path from the brain to the neck, and make a wound that medical opinion held to be an entry wound? >Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear! Yet there's still enough evidence to put much of this together. To deny that the military tightly controlled what could, and could not be done during the autopsy is to ignore the evidence, and swallow the mythology of the WCR. I've often come across those who appear to support conspiracy, yet strangely treat the eyewitnesses, and the photographic evidence, (indeed, *all* evidence), ENTIRELY the same way that LNT'ers do. As I have no idea of the posting history of whomever responded, I can't make an accurate judgment - but I have a sneaking suspicion. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0028a.htm Dr. Humes handwritten notes of his conversation with Dr. Malcolm Perry on the morning of 11/23/63, at which time that he found out that JFK had an anterior throat wound. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0029a.htm Dr. Hume's totally re-written (complete with different scenario) notes. These notes, as demonstrated, were not re-written until after which Dr. Humes had conferred with Dr. Perry, and was now aware that the autopsy team had completely overlooked the anterior throat wound. Therefore, http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0033a.htm The missile through the neck scenario, as demonstrated in the handwritten notes, is nothing more than an "after the fact" scenario in which Humes (along with the others), "rewrote" the autopsy findings and not presumed/assumed that the bullet had penetrated through the neck, when in fact they had absolutely no physical evidence of such an event. There was no bullet pathway to dissect. Dr. Humes had not thoroughly pursued examination of the anterior throat wound and tracheotomy, and in fact had completely missed that the trachea was deviated to the left, which Dr. Perry had noted upon entering the throat of JFK for the tracheostomy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm Mr. KELLERMAN. The only thing I can recall discussionwise -- I just forget which one it was, one of the two--this was before we even knew that a shell had been found from the hole in the President's shoulder. We couldn't determine what happened to it. They couldn't find it in the morgue; they couldn't find any leeway as to whatever happened to the shell when it hit the President's shoulder; where did it go. So our contention was that while he was on the stretcher in Dallas, and the neurosurgeon was working over him no doubt with pressure on the heart, this thing worked itself out. Mr. SPECTER. When you say "our contention," what do you mean by that? Mr. KELLERMAN. One of these agents--I forget which one it was; it could have been Sibert or O'Neill, but I am not sure. Mr. SPECTER. Did what? Mr. KELLERMAN. We--our discussion or my discussion. Mr. SPECTER. You had a discussion and when you say "our contention" by that do you mean that was the conclusion you came to? Mr. KELLERMAN. Conclusion--that is right, sir--as to where this bullet went into the shoulder and where did it go. Mr. SPECTER. While you are on that subject, was there any conversation at the time of the autopsy on that matter itself? Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much so. Mr. SPECTER. Would you relate to the Commission the nature of that conversation and the parties to it? Mr. KELLERMAN. There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go? He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." Mr. SPECTER. Did you say anything in response to that? Mr. KELLERMAN. I said, "Colonel, would it have been possible that while he was on the stretcher in Dallas that it works itself out?" And he said, "Yes." Mr. SPECTER. Was there any additional conversation between you and Colonel Finck at that time? Mr. SPECTER. You have now told us all about the conversations between you and Colonel Finck and Commander Humes and anyone else at the autopsy which are important on the positions of the hole and the wounds in the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any other conversation with either Special Agent O'Neill or Special Agent Sibert of the FBI on November 22, 1963, other than your conversations about the wounds on President Kennedy? Mr. KELLERMAN. No. Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, while we are discussing this in relationship to your conversations with Special Agents O'Neill and Sibert, were there any other comments made by anybody else present at the autopsy about the path of the bullet into Mr. Kennedy's back, relating to whether there was any point of exit or anything of that sort? Mr. KELLERMAN. Colonel Finck did all the talking, sir. He was the only one. Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you told us everything Colonel Finck said about that subject? Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much so; yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. So that there is nothing that was said on that subject other than what you have already told us about? Mr. KELLERMAN. No; that is right. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As anyone familiar with the facts of the autopsy is aware, all parties (Including the FBI/aka Sibert & O'Neill, as well as everyone else, left the autopsy with the conclusion that a bullet had merely entered JFK's back an extremely short distance and had then fallen out of the back due to cardiac massage carried on at Parkland. (Which I might add is entirely correct)! There was no "bullet tract"/pathway through the neck to follow. Dr. Humes took a skin sample from the entrance point of the bullet, as well as a sample from the BOTTOM of the penetration hole found in the back. Slide samples were made of both. Therefore, the entire BULLET TRACT/PASSAGE was in fact excised, as one can not get to the bottom of the hole without having cut the skin and muscular tissue from the exterior area first. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm A. Yes, this is my longhand notes from which the previous document was put together. I did this by myself over the weekend after the assassination, and then on Sunday morning, we three met in the office of the commanding officer of the Naval Medical Center, Admiral Galloway, and made certain editorial changes that we mutually agreed were referable. Somebody had to do the writeup, and since I was the senior person responsible, I did it. And we revised it by mutual consent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Herein lies the first CYA attempt! After having found that they had completely missed the anterior throat wound, Dr. Humes and group got together, and through some "concensus" determined now, against their findings of the late night of 11/22/63 autopsy with body in hand, that the bullet which had struck in the back must have come out the front. Not only did this completely contradict their physical findings which were made with "body in hand", but it in fact had no basis in fact to support such a conclulslion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm Q. Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck? A. No. Q. During the course of the autopsy-- A. Let me interrupt there. May I? Q. Sure. A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's-- Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck? A. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way. Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path-- A. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no. And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LTC Pierre Finck was the "purported" wounds ballistic expert for this autopsy, and yet, we now know that he missed many major important factors related to documentation of the wounds. In fact, we do not even have any handwritten notes from his observance which would aid us in fully placing all pieces of the puzzle into place. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The single largest failure lies in the Radiologist! Had the Radiologist taken adequate measures to review those X-Rays generated during the autopsy, then he should have revealed several important items relative to the posterior back/anterior neck wound. That being: 1. Slight fracture and fragmentation of the right transverse process of a vertebral bone, with either/or small metallic residue and small fragments of bone present at the fracture point. 2. A deviated trachea, as well as what appears as slight deviation of the spinal column. (to the left). 3. The appearance of a slight subcatenous emphysema pathway through the neck. Any of which, had they been revealed, would have been sufficient cause to explore the neck in order to determine exactly what was responsible for these conditions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lastly, and again, the "Bullet Tract"/pathway, was excised from it's entry point at the skin to it's termination point within the soft tissue of the back, just above the apex of the right lung. With samples removed from both points. Thusly, as determined by the autopsy surgeons, the bullet tract was "dissected" from beginning to end. Which tract/passage I might add, did not pass through the neck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Frank Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to theprosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control. Finck told the HSCA that "family wishes" precluded him from dissecting Kennedy’s neck. The Committee, however, stated that it was Humes, the head pathologist, “who made the decision not to dissect the back entry wound.” http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=39024 It seems as though the Kennedy family was used as an excuse on a regular basis. Finck told the HSCA that when he appeared before the Warren Commission back in 1964, Arlen Specter told him that Attorney General Robert Kennedy “did not want the X ray films and photographs introduced in the hearings of the Warren Commission,” as if President Kennedy’s own brother, the Attorney General of the United States, did not want the Warren Commission to see the autopsy photographs when it investigated the President’s assassination. In June 1967, Warren Commission member John J. McCloy, “in his first public comment on the investigation,” said that he thinks “the commission should have studied the photographs and X-rays taken of President Kennedy after his assassination.” He claimed that the Warren Commission had “all the facilities we needed” and “made its own choice not to subpoena the photographs.” McCloy claimed that they didn’t subpoena the autopsy photographs because, “We were perhaps a little oversensitive to what we understood were the sensitivities of the Kennedy family,” as though it made sense that in the course of investigating a Presidential assassination, they would refrain from obtaining the photographs and X-rays based on such bizarre logic. A 1966 FBI memorandum states, “The Secret Service specifically claims that Bobby Kennedy had gotten in touch with that agency and had given specific instructions that the autopsy report, as well as photographs, were not to be released.” The memorandum also states, “The FBI was precluded from disclosing in its preliminary report to the Commission, because of the desires of the Kennedy family, any information concerning the actual autopsy report.” (The Kennedy family didn’t want the FBI to tell the Warren Commission anything about the autopsy report?) Humes testified to the Medical Panel of the HSCA that the pathologists were being “urged to expedite” the autopsy and get it done “as quickly as possible.” He stated that they were being rushed because “members of the President’s family were in the building,” and they “refused to leave the premises until the President’s body was ready to be moved.” Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas medical examiner, told the Journal of the American Medical Association that when Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman was attempting to illegally remove President Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital, “He appealed for sympathy to Mrs. Kennedy.” Jack Ruby claimed that he killed Oswald so that Mrs. Kennedy would not have to “return to Dallas” for “a long and lengthy trial.” Given all of the statements that were made, one would think that the Kennedy family was responsible for the entire cover-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to theprosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. LNT'ers have occasionally attempted to assert that the Kennedy family was the cause of these restrictions, as if the Kennedy's cared about JFK's trachea, or were concerned that someone might learn of the actual path of the bullet... yet can offer no evidence other than hearsay for such control. Finck told the HSCA that "family wishes" precluded him from dissecting Kennedy’s neck. The Committee, however, stated that it was Humes, the head pathologist, “who made the decision not to dissect the back entry wound.” http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...absPageId=39024 It seems as though the Kennedy family was used as an excuse on a regular basis. Finck told the HSCA that when he appeared before the Warren Commission back in 1964, Arlen Specter told him that Attorney General Robert Kennedy “did not want the X ray films and photographs introduced in the hearings of the Warren Commission,” as if President Kennedy’s own brother, the Attorney General of the United States, did not want the Warren Commission to see the autopsy photographs when it investigated the President’s assassination. In June 1967, Warren Commission member John J. McCloy, “in his first public comment on the investigation,” said that he thinks “the commission should have studied the photographs and X-rays taken of President Kennedy after his assassination.” He claimed that the Warren Commission had “all the facilities we needed” and “made its own choice not to subpoena the photographs.” McCloy claimed that they didn’t subpoena the autopsy photographs because, “We were perhaps a little oversensitive to what we understood were the sensitivities of the Kennedy family,” as though it made sense that in the course of investigating a Presidential assassination, they would refrain from obtaining the photographs and X-rays based on such bizarre logic. A 1966 FBI memorandum states, “The Secret Service specifically claims that Bobby Kennedy had gotten in touch with that agency and had given specific instructions that the autopsy report, as well as photographs, were not to be released.” The memorandum also states, “The FBI was precluded from disclosing in its preliminary report to the Commission, because of the desires of the Kennedy family, any information concerning the actual autopsy report.” (The Kennedy family didn’t want the FBI to tell the Warren Commission anything about the autopsy report?) Humes testified to the Medical Panel of the HSCA that the pathologists were being “urged to expedite” the autopsy and get it done “as quickly as possible.” He stated that they were being rushed because “members of the President’s family were in the building,” and they “refused to leave the premises until the President’s body was ready to be moved.” Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas medical examiner, told the Journal of the American Medical Association that when Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman was attempting to illegally remove President Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital, “He appealed for sympathy to Mrs. Kennedy.” Jack Ruby claimed that he killed Oswald so that Mrs. Kennedy would not have to “return to Dallas” for “a long and lengthy trial.” Given all of the statements that were made, one would think that the Kennedy family was responsible for the entire cover-up. Although sufficient reason exists to indicate that the Kennedy family (Jackie/RFK) had impact on the autopsy as well as the revelation of other facts, they most assuredly had no impact on the "failure" to explore the bullet tract/passageway through the neck of JFK at the time of the autopsy. Simply because no known bullet pathway was known to exist! CE399 penetrated only a short distance into the back and the autopsy surgeons located the termination point of the bullet with their finger; a metal probel, and thereafter excised the complete (shallow) wound from entry point to termination point. And in so doing taking a sample of the skin at the entry point and a sample of the tissue at the termination point.* Thusly, the ENTIRE pathway/tract of the bullet was examined with the conclusion being (correctly I might add) that CE399 had only entered the pack of JFK a short distance and had then, due to some reason, fallen out. That was the ANSWER at the end of the autopsy! The CE399 mythological passageway through the neck of JFK, (which was not explored surgically during the autopsy), did not come into being until long after the body was gone and Humes learned of the anterior throat wound which had been given only a cursory examination during the autopsy. Then, and only then, did Humes get together with the other autopsy surgeons and "create" the bullet passageway through the neck of JFK, which they had neither seen nor explored during the course of the autopsy. Therefore, were I LTC Finck, then it is quite possible that I too would have lied in regards to failure to surgically trace the bullet pathway through the neck. It is obvious (at least to most) that the anterior throat wound is related to the upper back wound, although most certainly not the exit point of a full sized/full velocity 6.5mm Carcano bullet. Therefore, to highly inexperienced GSW "Experts"/aka the autopsy surgeons, correlation of these known injuries into a single pathway is easy to understand. Nevertheless, LTC Pierre Finck, the most experienced of these persons, completely failed to document and state the abnormal nature of the back entry wound of JFK, as well as the abnormality of the wound having considerable fabric from the clothing of JFK carried down into the wound of entry by the bullet. ONLY Dr. Boswell has ever made reference to the "atypical" nature of the wound of entry into the skin and tissues. Even with this knowledge, LTC Finke no doubt became aware of problems with the "final solution" to the assassination, and his WC Testimony is quite indicative of this. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finck.htm Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of Exhibit 399, can you identify the caliber of that bullet? Colonel FINCK - The caliber of this bullet, if I could measure it, but I cannot touch it. The CHAIRMAN - We can. --------------------------------------------------- Had Dr. Finck been allowed to "touch" CE399, there exists the high probability that he may have made the immediate conncetion between the deformed base of this bullet to 4mm X 7mm in size, and it's direct correlation with the "punch"-type back wound of JFK which measured 4mm X 7mm in size and which wound had relatively clean cut edges. Even if Dr. Finck were not familiar with what a "wadcutter" bullet does upon impact, it does not take anyone aboce 5th grade level to recognized that a 4mm X 7mm "plug", has some relationship with a 4mm X 7mm hole in the back of someone. *It is only Dr. Boswell who has made reference to the large amount of fabric/clothing which was later observed in the cross-section (of the wound) slides, and which fabric was carried down into the wound of entry by the bullet. This happens to be an absolutely EEI (essential element of information) relative to examination of GSW injuries, and one whicyh clearly demonstrates the abnormality of the entry of CE399 into the back of JFK. Even Parkland Dr.'s knew this. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm Mr. SPECTER - What experience, if any, have you had, Dr. Shaw, with bullet wounds? Dr. SHAW - I have had civilian experience, both in the work at Parkland Hospital, where we see a great amount of trauma, and much of this involves bullet wounds from homicidal attempts and accidents. The chief experience I had, however, was during the Second World War when I was serving as chief of the thoracic surgery center in Paris, France. And during this particular experience we admitted over 900 patients with chest wounds of various sort, many of them, of course, being shell fragments rather than bullet wounds. Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate as to the total number of bullet wounds you have had experience with? Dr. SHAW - It would be approximately 1,000, considering the large number of admissions we had in Paris. Mr. SPECTER - What were your duties in a general way on November 22, 1963. (emphasis added)* Herein lies one of the few GSW Experts associated with this case. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0051b.htm One will note that Specter disucssed with Dr. Shaw the fabric which was carried into the wrist wound of JBC in attempt to confuse the issue of the entrance v. exit wound of the wrist. However, Specter somewhat neglected to discuss the back wound of JBC with Dr. Shaw in regards to whether or not this entrance wound had any fabric carried down into it by the passage of the bullet. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0053a.htm Of course, Dr. Gregory clarified all in regards to fabric carried into wounds of entry by "irrelular fragments of limited velocity" when he discussed the wrist wound of JBC. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol4_0064a.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol4_0065b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol4_0066b.htm In fact, Dr. Gregory fully explains the "debridgement" of the wound and removal of the debris (fabric) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol4_0067b.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol4_0068a.htm Now, Dr. Gregory explained experience with possibly as many as 500 missile/bullet wounds. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0053b.htm Dr. Gregory further describes "debridgement": http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0054b.htm AND! Dr. Gregory lets us also know that there was no fabric from the clothing (coat & shirt) of JBC carried down into the wound of entry into JBC's back/chest by the entering bullet which struck. (Even though Specter apparantly forgot/neglected to ask Dr. Shaw this somewhat pertinent question) http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol6_0056b.htm Thefore, based strictly on "fabric", we have the following anomaly: 1. CE399 purportedly carried fabric from the coat and shirt of JFK down into the wound of entry.---Completely abnormal! 2. Upon purportedly striking the back of JBC, CE399 thereafter carried no fabric down into the wound of entry into the backj of JBC.---Quite normal for a high velocity bullet. 3. Upon striking the wrist of JBC, CE399 purportedly tore the coat sleeve of JBC, entered the wrist tearing tissue, and thereafter carried fabric down into the wound of entry.-----Quite abnormal! 4. Upon exiting the wrist of JBC and entering the left thigh, CE399 purportedly carried no fabric down into the wound of entry, even though purportedly reduced in velocity severely.----Quite abnormal. In event one desires to understand the "forensics" of the GSW's of JFK and JBC, then a small course in forensic pathology, or consultation with a truely qualified (by today's standards) Forensic Pathologist, would be of considerable benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Frank Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 One can easily see how Arlen Specter was desperate to explain away the throat wound with the SBT. At the end of March 1964, He tested out the theory on ten doctors from Parkland Hospital: Shires, Perry, McClelland, Jenkins, Gregory, Jones, Baxter, Carrico, Shaw, and Akin. Even though President Kennedy had been shot in the back six inches below the neckline, Specter told each one of the doctors to assume that the bullet emerged at the front of his neck. The questioning clearly shows that Specter did not want the doctors to limit their answers to the physical factors they observed, but instead wanted them to speculate on what could have happened in a “hypothetical” scenario. He asked Dr. McClelland to “assume a few additional facts” and said he would ask for an opinion “based on a hypothetical situation which I will put to you.” He specifically said to Dr. Carrico, “Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.” Specter told Dr. Gregory to “assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances.” He asked Dr. Baxter to give his opinion “if these additional facts were present” and then told him that he wanted his opinion regarding “the situation as I hypothesized it for you.” To Dr. Perry, he said, “Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.” He told Dr. Jenkins that he would give him “a set of facts which I will ask you to assume for purposes of giving me your view or opinion.” And he similarly told Dr. Akin that he would give him “a set of facts which I will ask you to assume for the purpose of giving me an opinion, if you are able to formulate one.” One of the witnesses, Dr. Shires, testified that he “was not in town at the time the shooting occurred,” and that he didn’t return to Dallas until “approximately 3 p.m.,” at which time he treated Governor Connally and never even saw President Kennedy, whose corpse had been taken to the Dallas airport two hours earlier. Regardless of that, Arlen Specter asked him, “Do you think it is possible that, assuming . . . . the same bullet might have passed through President Kennedy, entering his back near the midline and emerging from his neck, and then entering Governor Connally, in the back, and emerging from his chest, into his wrist, through his wrist, and into the thigh?” Shires responded, “I assume that it would be possible,” but he also said, “This was not the case,” and he told Specter that Governor Connally “remembers so distinctly hearing a shot and having turned prior to the time he was hit.” Specter then asked, “Well, is there anything, aside from what he told you, that is, anything in the characteristics of the wounds on President Kennedy and the wounds on Governor Connally which would lead you to conclude that it was not the same bullet?” (Specter apparently couldn’t care less that Dr. Shires never saw “the wounds on President Kennedy.”) Specter told Dr. Shaw, another one of Connally’s doctors who never saw President Kennedy, to “assume if you will certain facts to be true in hypothetical form.” Specter asked Dr. Jones if, in his experience, he had ever “had occasion to observe a bullet wound” that was caused when a bullet “passed through the body of a person and exited from a neck without striking anything but soft tissue from the back through the neck.” He even asked a nurse named Henchliffe, concerning the wound in the throat, “Would you have sufficient knowledge to know whether or not the appearance of that hole would be consistent with an exit wound.” Ironically, Specter wrote a letter to Humes in 1967 in which Specter spoke disparagingly of a “Parkland Hospital press conference” in 1963 because, according to Specter, “The doctors answered hypothetical questions which created much confusion when they commented on what could have happened instead of limiting their answers to the physical factors which they observed.” The “official” autopsy report clearly states that a bullet passed through President Kennedy’s neck. If the Warren Commission had, on December 23, 1963, been given an autopsy report stating such, why wouldn’t Specter simply tell the Parkland doctors what the autopsy report said instead of asking them to “assume” things based on a “hypothetical” scenario? But indications are that the first autopsy report that was given to the Warren Commission was something entirely different. In the Warren Commission’s Executive Session on January 27, 1964, the Commission’s General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, stated, “We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck.” Rankin continued, “With the elevation the shot must have come from, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front.” Rankin again repeated there were “bullet fragments,” one of which “came out in part through the neck.” The public never saw the version of the autopsy report on which Rankin based his statements, and the CIA saw to it the Executive Session where Rankin made his statements would remain classified for more than ten years. A National Archives letter to the CIA in March 1974 concerning “a transcript of an executive session of January 27, 1964,” states, “The Central Intelligence Agency requested us to withhold this transcript from research in a letter of December 22, 1972.” During the Executive Session, Rankin also said a bullet that had “entered in the back” could not have been deflected up to exit through the throat, noting, “The bullet, according to the autopsy, didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.” The official autopsy report that would eventually be made public also states the bullet “struck no bony structures,” just like the version that Rankin saw. But the official version, purportedly written by Dr. Humes and then signed by all three pathologists, had apparently been crafted for public consumption. Contrary to the version that Rankin saw, the official version of the autopsy report alleges that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the back did, indeed, go “through the body” and emerge through the throat. The official autopsy report says nothing about a bullet fragment coming out through the throat. The Executive Session at which Rankin made his statement about a fragment causing the throat wound, was the sixth Executive Session of the Warren Commission. Three of those six Executive Sessions were held in late January, more than four weeks after receiving the autopsy report, the official version of which was only six pages long and could be read in short order. But Rankin also made it clear in the Executive Session that the Warren Commission wasn’t sure how the throat wound was caused. Immediately before stating the autopsy report said a fragment “probably” caused the throat wound, Rankin noted “this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck.” He also stated “the basic problem” is “what kind of a wound it is in the front.” (The Warren Commission’s first version of the autopsy report obviously did not offer a definitive explanation for the throat wound.) On December 24, 1963, one day after the Secret Service gave copies of the autopsy report to the FBI and to the Warren Commission, Assistant FBI Director Alex Rosen wrote that Rankin “expressed considerable interest in the official autopsy reports prepared by doctors at the National Naval Medical Center concerning the death of President Kennedy.” The Warren Commission’s Executive Session on January 27, 1964, is the only time that the Commission acknowledged an official position that either a bullet fragment caused the throat wound or that the throat wound was an entrance wound. That could be why the CIA wanted the National Archives to “withhold this transcript” of the Executive Session “from research” for more than ten years. Why would the CIA concern itself with a Warren Commission Executive Session in the first place unless it had something to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted May 6, 2008 Share Posted May 6, 2008 One can easily see how Arlen Specter was desperate to explain away the throat wound with the SBT. At the end of March 1964, He tested out the theory on ten doctors from Parkland Hospital: Shires, Perry, McClelland, Jenkins, Gregory, Jones, Baxter, Carrico, Shaw, and Akin. Even though President Kennedy had been shot in the back six inches below the neckline, Specter told each one of the doctors to assume that the bullet emerged at the front of his neck. The questioning clearly shows that Specter did not want the doctors to limit their answers to the physical factors they observed, but instead wanted them to speculate on what could have happened in a “hypothetical” scenario.He asked Dr. McClelland to “assume a few additional facts” and said he would ask for an opinion “based on a hypothetical situation which I will put to you.” He specifically said to Dr. Carrico, “Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.” Specter told Dr. Gregory to “assume, if you will, another set of hypothetical circumstances.” He asked Dr. Baxter to give his opinion “if these additional facts were present” and then told him that he wanted his opinion regarding “the situation as I hypothesized it for you.” To Dr. Perry, he said, “Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.” He told Dr. Jenkins that he would give him “a set of facts which I will ask you to assume for purposes of giving me your view or opinion.” And he similarly told Dr. Akin that he would give him “a set of facts which I will ask you to assume for the purpose of giving me an opinion, if you are able to formulate one.” One of the witnesses, Dr. Shires, testified that he “was not in town at the time the shooting occurred,” and that he didn’t return to Dallas until “approximately 3 p.m.,” at which time he treated Governor Connally and never even saw President Kennedy, whose corpse had been taken to the Dallas airport two hours earlier. Regardless of that, Arlen Specter asked him, “Do you think it is possible that, assuming . . . . the same bullet might have passed through President Kennedy, entering his back near the midline and emerging from his neck, and then entering Governor Connally, in the back, and emerging from his chest, into his wrist, through his wrist, and into the thigh?” Shires responded, “I assume that it would be possible,” but he also said, “This was not the case,” and he told Specter that Governor Connally “remembers so distinctly hearing a shot and having turned prior to the time he was hit.” Specter then asked, “Well, is there anything, aside from what he told you, that is, anything in the characteristics of the wounds on President Kennedy and the wounds on Governor Connally which would lead you to conclude that it was not the same bullet?” (Specter apparently couldn’t care less that Dr. Shires never saw “the wounds on President Kennedy.”) Specter told Dr. Shaw, another one of Connally’s doctors who never saw President Kennedy, to “assume if you will certain facts to be true in hypothetical form.” Specter asked Dr. Jones if, in his experience, he had ever “had occasion to observe a bullet wound” that was caused when a bullet “passed through the body of a person and exited from a neck without striking anything but soft tissue from the back through the neck.” He even asked a nurse named Henchliffe, concerning the wound in the throat, “Would you have sufficient knowledge to know whether or not the appearance of that hole would be consistent with an exit wound.” Ironically, Specter wrote a letter to Humes in 1967 in which Specter spoke disparagingly of a “Parkland Hospital press conference” in 1963 because, according to Specter, “The doctors answered hypothetical questions which created much confusion when they commented on what could have happened instead of limiting their answers to the physical factors which they observed.” The “official” autopsy report clearly states that a bullet passed through President Kennedy’s neck. If the Warren Commission had, on December 23, 1963, been given an autopsy report stating such, why wouldn’t Specter simply tell the Parkland doctors what the autopsy report said instead of asking them to “assume” things based on a “hypothetical” scenario? But indications are that the first autopsy report that was given to the Warren Commission was something entirely different. In the Warren Commission’s Executive Session on January 27, 1964, the Commission’s General Counsel, J. Lee Rankin, stated, “We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck.” Rankin continued, “With the elevation the shot must have come from, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front.” Rankin again repeated there were “bullet fragments,” one of which “came out in part through the neck.” The public never saw the version of the autopsy report on which Rankin based his statements, and the CIA saw to it the Executive Session where Rankin made his statements would remain classified for more than ten years. A National Archives letter to the CIA in March 1974 concerning “a transcript of an executive session of January 27, 1964,” states, “The Central Intelligence Agency requested us to withhold this transcript from research in a letter of December 22, 1972.” During the Executive Session, Rankin also said a bullet that had “entered in the back” could not have been deflected up to exit through the throat, noting, “The bullet, according to the autopsy, didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.” The official autopsy report that would eventually be made public also states the bullet “struck no bony structures,” just like the version that Rankin saw. But the official version, purportedly written by Dr. Humes and then signed by all three pathologists, had apparently been crafted for public consumption. Contrary to the version that Rankin saw, the official version of the autopsy report alleges that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the back did, indeed, go “through the body” and emerge through the throat. The official autopsy report says nothing about a bullet fragment coming out through the throat. The Executive Session at which Rankin made his statement about a fragment causing the throat wound, was the sixth Executive Session of the Warren Commission. Three of those six Executive Sessions were held in late January, more than four weeks after receiving the autopsy report, the official version of which was only six pages long and could be read in short order. But Rankin also made it clear in the Executive Session that the Warren Commission wasn’t sure how the throat wound was caused. Immediately before stating the autopsy report said a fragment “probably” caused the throat wound, Rankin noted “this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck.” He also stated “the basic problem” is “what kind of a wound it is in the front.” (The Warren Commission’s first version of the autopsy report obviously did not offer a definitive explanation for the throat wound.) On December 24, 1963, one day after the Secret Service gave copies of the autopsy report to the FBI and to the Warren Commission, Assistant FBI Director Alex Rosen wrote that Rankin “expressed considerable interest in the official autopsy reports prepared by doctors at the National Naval Medical Center concerning the death of President Kennedy.” The Warren Commission’s Executive Session on January 27, 1964, is the only time that the Commission acknowledged an official position that either a bullet fragment caused the throat wound or that the throat wound was an entrance wound. That could be why the CIA wanted the National Archives to “withhold this transcript” of the Executive Session “from research” for more than ten years. Why would the CIA concern itself with a Warren Commission Executive Session in the first place unless it had something to hide? The following should make the listing about complete: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0019a.htm "massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea" In that regards, one just may wish to visit the 0.9grain cone-shaped/ 4.5mm width flat based fragment of lead which was once a part of CE840 and thusly made to disappear from the FBI Ballistics lab through the actions of William Sullivan removing the evidence. 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