Givens down to one lie

[David Von Pein]

2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Do you think Humes contacted Perry on Friday night or the next day?

The next day (Saturday morning, 11/23). Both Perry and Humes confirm this. (Do you think they BOTH would have lied about this?)

 

2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Why are there so many indications they were aware of the throat wound during the body examination?

Like what for instance?

[Micah Mileto]

5 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

The next day (Saturday morning, 11/23). Both Perry and Humes confirm this. (Do you think they BOTH would have lied about this?)

 

Like what for instance?

Dr. Perry told both the Warren Commission AND the HSCA that he thought the phone call came lste night 11/22/1963, where in Maryland it may have technically been the early morning hours of 11/23. You know this.

 

Answer to your second Q:

 

George A. Barnum

Had a handwritten journal dated 11/29/1963.

8/20/1979 interview from BEST EVIDENCE: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David Lifton, 1980

 

[Part VII – SYNTHESIS, Chapter 20. The X-rays and Photographs Reconsidered]

 

[...]

 

[...]Nevertheless, circumstancial evidence supports this theory. My own investigation has turned up two accounts in-

 

[...]

 

[...]dicating that a transiting neck trajectory was being discussed on Friday night. In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."61

 

Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend.*

 

James Jenkins told me that during the autopsy, when the "civilians" were practically arguing with Humes, they put the idea to him that the bullet entered at the rear, exiting through the tracheotomy inision, and that the bullet went on to hit Connally.**62 [...]

 

[...]

 

*Barnum's account also raises this question: why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound.

 

**Unfortunately, Jenkins never made a written record, and so it is easy to discount his recollections by claiming he was influenced by what he later read in books and magazines.

But having spoken with him, I didn't believe that was the case. Jenkins did not follow the case and, in fact, until I spoke with him in September 1979, did not know a bullet wound at the front of the neck had been observed in Dallas. Jenkins kept referring to it as the "tracheotomy incision," and couldn't understand why those "civilians" in the autopsy room kept claiming that a bullet exited there.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

Reminder: The first media reports mentioning the existence of a back wound came out in December 7, 1963, a week after the November 29,1963 date of the Barnum journal.

[David Von Pein]

Micah,

Quoting from Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis is mine]....

DR. HUMES -- "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."

------------------------

I could swear that Humes mentions in his WC testimony (someplace) about how he thought on 11/22 when doing the autopsy that the bullet probably did exit the throat, but (for some reason) he waited until the next day to call Parkland to confirm it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

47 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Micah,

Quoting from Dr. Humes' ARRB testimony in 1996 [emphasis is mine]....

DR. HUMES -- "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."

------------------------

I could swear that Humes mentions in his WC testimony (someplace) about how he thought on 11/22 when doing the autopsy that the bullet probably did exit the throat, but (for some reason) he waited until the next day to call Parkland to confirm it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

 

That's not what the Sibert and O'Neill report says, almost like they departed the autopsy before the body examination was finished. Enough time to make a phone call, maybe?

 

Boswell never could keep his story straight on this throat wound business. When he talked to the HSCA, he actually changed his story mid-interview.

 

11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article "Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report" by Richard H. Levine

https://archive.org/stream/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/Autopsy JFK JTB 08#page/n0/mode/2up

[...]

In an interview yesterday, Dr. Boswell also discussed other aspects of the autopsy and the wounds that have led to a host of theories about the shooting, and speculation about the number of bullets and the number of assassins.

He said there was absolutely no doubt that the controversial neck and throat wound were caused by a bullet that entered the base of President Kennedy's neck, passed completely through the neck and exited from the throat.

Writers claiming a second assassin was involved in Dallas on November 22, 1963, suggest the President was shot in the neck by someone located in front of the presidential limousine.

[...]

In an interview at his home in Bethesda, Dr. Boswell, who is now retired from the Navy and in private practice, recounted details of the entire autopsy.

His remarks, in several instances, dealt with key matters that are central to the theories of those critics who believe that more than one person killed the President.

Amoung the important points he made were these:

1. All of the shots that struck the President came from behind
him.

2. The President was struck by two bullets, one of which hit him in the head and disintegrated,  the other of which passed through his neck.

3. There was no other bullet wound.

[...]

Dr. Boswell said that the President's body was subjected to a thorough examination. All marks and scars, were noted, including old surgical scars and surgical cuts made that day by Dallas doctors trying to save his life.

The pathologists had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas.

[...]

Wound Not Evident

The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy, Dr. Boswell said, because of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas.

He said the wound in the back of the neck was noticed when the body was turned over. It was a
new discovery.

According to the Warren Commission testimony, Dallas physicians did not make a thorough examination of the President at first because of the evident seriousness of the massive head wound and the necessity of immediate emergency procedures.

They believed the throat wound was an entrance wound and never did turn the body over to look for
back wounds, even after the President died.

Dr. Boswell said that the tracheotomy incision was examined and extensive trauma was noted on one side.

When the wound in the back of the neck was discovered and probed, by finger and by metal surgical probe, no bullet could be located.

He said that the probing was to a depth of about 4 or 5 centimeters.

Complete X-Rays

At this point, according to Dr. Boswell, complete x-rays of the entire body were ordered in an effort to locate the bullet.

Dr. Boswell recalled that either he or one of the other pathologists made a remark to the effect that the bullet might have worked its way back out of the entrance wound.

"This was a very transient thought," he said, adding that he had never seen a case in which this had happened and therefore did not give this possibility much weight.

What was more probable, he said, was the possibility of the bullet’s being in some remote
area of the body.

He said that medical literature recounts many examples of wildly erratic paths taken by bullets that
ricochet through the body, glancing from bones and slipping along muscle planes.

As an example, he mentioned a case he examined where a bullet that entered the victim’s chest
was located in a lower leg.

The doctor said that retrieval of bullets, as well as the determination of their paths, is extremely important in all forensic autopsies because of the legal necessity of linking wounds, bullets, weapons and assailants.

Dr. Boswell said the x-rays were immediately examined by all three pathologists as well as
by the radiologist who took them.

He said the presence of bullets in an x-ray is unmistakable because of the capacity of metal lo
block the rays.

He said there was no bullet in the body, although "minute particles" could be discerned the head.

Dr. Boswell said he is “absolutely” convinced that all of these particles came from the bullet that struck the President’s head.

Bullet In Stretcher

Around this time, according to the FBI report, the FBI observers infortned Dr. Humes that a bullet
had been recovered from a stretcher in the Dallas hospital.

Dr. Boswell said that the autopsy was resumed after the examination of the x-rays, the pathologists assuming that, unlikely as it seemed, the bullet had exited from the same hole it entered.

He said that the autopsy proceeded routinely. According to the autopsy report, and confirmed by Dr. Boswell, the internal examination revealed a bruise in the apex, or uppermost tip, of the right lung.

There was also a bruise of the parietal, pleura, the membrane that lines the lung cage.

Dr. Boswell said be and his colleagues decided that the bullet had not made a superficial wound
after all, but had passed above the area of the bruise.

He said that neither the parietal pleura nor the lung cage were disrupted, indicating that the lung
cage had not been pierced.

"We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly," Dr. Boswell said.

He said that a telephone call made to the hospital in Dallas by Dr. Humes the following morning  merely confirmed what was already a certainty to the pathologists - that there was a bullet wound in the President's neck at the point of the tracheotomy incision.

Dr. Boswell said it was impossible to determine during autopsy if the throat wound was one of entry
or exit because of the incision.

Determination Unnecessary

This determination was unnecessary, he said, since the wound in the back of the neck was determined by observation and microscopic examination one of entry, and because the path of the bullet was determined by the bruise marks in marks in the lung area.

[...]

The FBI account of the autopsy is dated November 26, four days after the examination.

It refers to a back wound, but this, according to Dr. Boswell, can be a laymen's observation of an area just below the shoulder line that, to a physician, is still the neck region.

Mote disturbingly, it recounts the incident during which the exit wound was undiscovered and leaves, unchanged, a statement in which Dr. Humes concluded the bullet had worked itself cut of the same hole it had entered.

Story Left Unchanged

Dr. Boswell said that, at the time, he paid no attention to the presence of the FBI agents but that he can only conclude that they either did not understand what later took place, or else left before the lung contusions were discovered.

 

 

8/17/1977 Boswell-Purdy HSCA Interview

 

ARRB MD 26 - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=607#relPageId=3&tab=page , https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md26.pdf

 

[...]

 

DR. BOSWELL indicated that regarding the tracheostomy, the doctors "...thought it was a wound." He meant to convey the impression that the doctors thought it was a bullet wound. (This becomes potentially signifigant in laer stages of the interview.)

[...]

Dr. Boswell said the autopsy doctors assumed that the anterior neck wound was a wound of exit, saying that hole is not that big and that it was "...far bigger that wound of entry." He said the doctors didn't explicitly discuss the possibility of a tracheotomy having been performed but said it was assumed that this was a possibility. He said Parkland did not really do a tracheotomy in the sense that they never inserted a tube. (See notes on interview with Dr. Perry.) Dr. Boswell said that if a full autopsy had been performed they would have removed the trachea. Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck.

[...]

Dr. BOSWELL was asked why the back wound was probed if the autopsy doctors knew the bullet had exited out the anterior neck (as Dr. BOSWELL stated earlier in the interview). Dr. BOSWELL said that Dr. BURKLEY didn't mention the fact that a tracheotomy had been performed. He said that Dr. BURKLEY was very upset and this might have explained his failure to mention this important fact. Dr. BOSWELL said (without indicating that he was being inconsistent with his previous statement), the doctors felt anterior neck damage was caused by a tracheotomy wound and in the later courses of the autopsy thought it may have included the exist wound of a bullet. He said the x-rays were examined during the autopsy in trying to accomplish what they saw as their main purpose, namely to look for a bullet. Dr. BOSWELL is a little vague as to when the doctors felt that a bullet may have fallen out the neck wound, but seemed to indicate it occurred around the time they learned the bullet had been discovered in Parkland and prior to the time when they began to feel there was a very real possibility of an exit wound in the anterior neck.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[David Von Pein]

INTERNET CONSPIRACY BELIEVER GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I'm tired of hearing this lie told by James Humes and commonly repeated by nearly everyone that Humes did not find out about the throat wound until Saturday, Absolutely not true. Here is a statement from Dr. Robert Livingston about a call he made to Bethesda from Parkland on the evening of Nov. 22:

"...the Officer on Duty put me through to speak directly with Dr Humes who was waiting to perform the autopsy. After introductions, we began a pleasant conversation. He told me that he had not heard much about the reporting from Dallas and from the Parkland Hospital. I told him that the reason for my making such a...call was to stress that the Parkland Hospital physicians' examination of President Kennedy revealed what they reported to be a small wound in the neck, closely adjacent to and to the right of the trachea.

I explained that I had knowledge from the literature on high-velocity wound ballistics research, in addition to considerable personal combat experience examining and repairing bullet and shrapnel wounds. I was confident that a small wound of that sort had to be a wound of entrance and that if it were a wound of exit, it would almost certainly be widely blown out, with cruciate or otherwise wide, tearing outward ruptures of the underlying tissues and skin.

I stressed to Dr. Humes how important it was that the autopsy pathologists carefully examine the President's neck to characterize that particular wound and to distinguish it from the neighboring tracheotomy wound."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry,

Do you actually believe that Dr. Humes was told before the autopsy (in some detail) about the bullet hole in JFK's throat, but then Humes just totally ignored that information when it came time to perform the autopsy?

In a word --- Nonsense.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Of course I believe it, and you know very well why the wound was not examined.

Do you actually believe Dr. Humes did not tell any lies concerning the autopsy? In a word, nonsense, David.

I don't think he liked doing it, but a military doctor does what he's told to do.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's see what Dr. Humes told the Warren Commission (emphasis added by DVP).....

Commander HUMES -- "We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher."

Mr. SPECTER -- "And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?"

Commander HUMES -- "Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place."

Mr. SPECTER -- "Now, have you since discounted that possibility, Doctor Humes?"

Commander HUMES -- "Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination."


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

God, David, stop with the WC testimony to "prove" anything. So much of the testimony is false, and you know this. Humes had been telling his lie for so long by the time he faced the WC, it probably seemed like the truth to him.

Sorry, I'll put my money on Dr. Livingston, who had no reason to lie, against Dr. Humes, who had every reason to lie and did just that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's have a look at how reliable good old Dr. Livingston is.....

From Vince Bugliosi's book....

"[Dr. Robert B.] Livingston is the person who claims that just hours after the assassination, when there was mass confusion and no one knew anything for sure about the trajectory or origin of fire, he reached Dr. Humes on the phone at Bethesda Naval Hospital just prior to the autopsy and informed Humes that JFK’s front neck wound was probably an entry wound, and that Humes had to terminate the conversation because FBI agents would not let him continue (Statement of Robert B. Livingston, MD, November 18, 1993, in Fetzer, "Assassination Science", p. 162; David W. Mantik, “The JFK Assassination: Cause for Doubt,” in Fetzer, "Murder in Dealey Plaza", p.113).

Mind you, Livingston claims he told Humes this before Humes learned from Dr. Perry that there was a bullet wound to the front of Kennedy’s neck. But Livingston, calling from San Diego, knew better. My, my.

In a 1993 deposition, Livingston changed the time of the alleged call, claiming that he talked to Humes for fifteen minutes to a half hour between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. (EST) on the afternoon of the assassination, when we know Humes wasn’t even at Bethesda (ARRB MD 24, Deposition of Robert B. Livingston, MD, Case No. 73-93, "Crenshaw and Shaw versus Sutherland", November 19, 1993, pp.101, 105, 199).

Dr. Humes told the ARRB in 1996 that he had never heard of Dr. Livingston and after reading parts of his deposition said, “Well, this is ridiculous. I was at home at this time. He never talked to me, period . . . This is fantasy. Pure fantasy . . . Never happened. That’s all I can tell you” (ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of Dr. James Joseph Humes, February 13, 1996, pp.47, 48, 49).

In his deposition, Livingston admitted that although the information he had was important, he never contacted the Warren Commission, HSCA, Clark Panel, or any other official investigation, but that when he finally did take action (in April–May of 1992), he only wrote letters and met with known conspiracy theorists—Peter Dale Scott, David Lifton, Gary Aguilar, and Harrison Edward Livingstone.

Livingston ultimately expressed his belief in a conspiracy to assassinate and cover up the JFK assassination, going so far as to claim that whoever was involved in the JFK killing and cover-up was also involved in his getting sprayed with gasoline at a service station once (ARRB MD 24, Deposition of Robert B. Livingston, MD, Case No. 73-93, "Crenshaw and Shaw versus Sutherland", November 19, 1993, pp.41, 48–51, 54–56, 78, 87, 179–181)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 286 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Sorry, David, but I don't trust Bugliosi any more than you trust Mark Lane, so don't quote Vince to convince me of anything.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But everything Dr. Humes did during the autopsy on 11/22/63 at Bethesda, while President Kennedy's body was lying on the autopsy table, indicates that Dr. Humes did not positively know that there was a bullet hole in JFK's throat.

And we don't have to take just Dr. Humes' word for this. We also have the Sibert/O'Neill report to guide us, too. In that report written by FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neill on November 22, 1963 (and dictated on November 26, 1963) [ARRB MD 44], it states the following on Page 4:

"Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."

Therefore, via the above excerpt that comes from the report written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, it's quite clear that the autopsy doctors (including James J. Humes) were not fully aware during the course of the autopsy of the existence of the bullet hole in the lower part of President Kennedy's throat.

In addition, the Sibert/O'Neill report also states on Page 3 that President Kennedy's body had undergone "surgery of the head area". And we know from later interviews with James Sibert (such as this one in 2005) that the "surgery of the head area" remark had come straight from the mouth of Dr. James Humes himself.

Now, I ask this: If Dr. Humes had been part of a covert plot to secretly alter John F. Kennedy's head wounds (and according to Douglas P. Horne, Humes DID alter the President's head wounds), then why on Earth would Humes have uttered aloud that there had been apparent "surgery of the head area"? It makes no sense.

David Von Pein
June 17, 2015

Edited May 25, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

deleted

Edited May 25, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

formatting issues rn

Edited May 25, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Guest]

Talk about derailing a thread..................

[Micah Mileto]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

David Von Pein
June 17, 2015

This is getting too hard to copy and paste at once. Let me try to do it shorthand:

1. Robert Livingston's story is inconsequential.

2. John Stringer and John Ebersole both remembered a phone call to Dallas during the autopsy that made the autopsy pathologists aware of the throat wound.

3. As ARRB MD 165 shows, the FBI was aware as of 6/2/1966 that people were beginning the question the timeline of the autopsy. Francis X. O'Neill told the HSCA and everyone afterwards that he witnessed the later stages of the body's reconstruction, which is impossible if he was at the FBI lab by 1:45 AM.

4. The Death of a President and The Day Kennedy Was Shot places the phone call to Dr. Perry at around midnight.

5. Other autopsy witnesses who made statements indicating the autopsy pathologists discussed and probed the throat wound as a bullet hole (Lipsey, Jenkins, Robinson, etc.)

6. Boswell can't keep his story straight

7. Dr. Perry remembered the phone call as happening on Friday night.

[B. A. Copeland]

Thought this was relevant to the discussion:

Quote

There is further evidence that, from the beginning, the autopsy was under control of the executive branch of the federal government, namely the FBI. This evidence is from Dr. Robert Livingston,* who provided me with the following transcript of a report he presented to the ASK Conference in Dallas on November 22, 1993, and at a news conference in New York on November 18,1993. He wrote:

Because of my prior experience as Scientific Director for two of the National Institutes of Health; concurrently for the National Institute for Mental Health and the National Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness; because I had met President Kennedy while serving in the U.S. Public Health Service during the transition from Eisenhower to Kennedy, and throughout the Kennedy administration; because I had met several Cabinet members and other principals, and, most importantly, because my scientific knowledge and professional responsibilities were directly pertinent to the conduct of the president's autopsy and interpretations of damage to his nervous system, I paid careful attention to the unfolding of news on November 22, 1963. Thereby I learned that: (a) there was a small frontal wound in the president' throat, and (b) substantial parts of his cerebellum were extruding from the wound in the back of his head. Because the wound of entry in the front of his neck required that the president had to have been assaulted frontally, this seemed to me to be a matter of utmost importance for the autopsy. I therefore telephoned from my home in Bethesda to the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy was to be performed. This was prior to arrival of the president's casket from Dallas to Andrews Air Force Base. I was put though to the Officer of the Day who quickly provided me telephone access to Commander James Humes who was to head the autopsy team. Dr. Humes said he had not heard much reporting from Dallas and Parkland Hospital because he had been occupied preparing to conduct the autopsy. I told him about reports describing the small wound in the president's neck. I stressed that, in my experience, that would be evidence for a wound of entry. I emphasized the importance of carefully tracing the path of this projectile and of establishing the location of the bullet or any fragments. I said, carefully, that if that wound were confirmed as a wound of entrance, that would prove beyond peradventure of doubt that a bullet had been fired from in front of the president-hence that if there were shots from behind, there had to have been more than one gunman. At just that moment, there was an interruption in our conversation. Dr. Humes returned after a pause to say, "Dr. Livingston, I'm sorry, but I can't talk with you any longer. The FBI won't let me." I wished him good luck, and the conversation ended.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                (Emphasis added)

*Note: (Dr. Livingston has considerable experience in bullet wounds, having cared for hundreds of bullet and shrapnel wounds in his service in the U.S. Naval Medical Corps during the battle of Okinawa in World War II.)

The significance of this is that Dr. Humes was informed by Dr. Livingston, unambiguously, before the autopsy started, that the front neck wound was probably an entry wound. Dr. Humes wrote that he learned about the neck wound the next day when he telephoned Dr. Perry in Dallas, and Dr. Perry had described the wound as a "puncture wound" in the front of the neck, "approximately at the midline."8 Not only that, Dr. Humes did not probe or dissect the neck wound to determine its nature or direction, despite having been forewarned by an eminent medical scientist in a high position in the federal government at that time. Although one may write this off as a slip of the mind under the extraordinary pressure of the moment, it is difficult to believe that Dr. Humes would have completely forgotten what Dr. Livingston, a fellow medical doctor in the United States government, had told him, in no uncertain terms, in the telephone call.

(source: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Bloody_Treason.pdf pp248-249)

Edited May 25, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[Pat Speer]

Two quick points.

1. Livingston is not credible. This forum was the site of a heated discussion between Jim Fetzer, David Lifton and myself, in which Fetzer defended Livingston's story. At the heart of Livingston's story is that HE knew about the throat wound early on the afternoon of the 22nd, because, if I recall, he'd heard a nurse talk about it on the radio. The key problem with this is that NO record exists of this radio report, and no newspaper account or eyewitness account makes reference to such a report. In any event I argued that Livingson's story was bunkum and Lifton agreed with me on this point, claiming he'd searched high and low for such a report but couldn't find one. Lifton had the added perspective, moreover, of having been contacted by Livingston before Livingston contacted Livingstone, and then partnered up with Fetzer. Lifton didn't believe him then and never came to believe him, even after he was embraced by Livingstone, Fetzer et al. Beyond the radio report that no one can find, there is another huge problem with Livingston's story, IMO. In his deposition on the Crenshaw case, which Fetzer came to disavow after people like myself and yes, Bugliosi,, started using it to attack Livingston's credibility, Livingston mentions performing two video-taped interviews to document his claims, one in which he tells his story and one, if I recall, in which he was interviewed by David Mantik and Gary Aguilar. Neither of these videos has ever seen the light of the day. 

2. Bugliosi's section on Livingston is sloppy. He makes out that Livingston called Humes from San Diego, when Livingston was consistent in that he called Humes from his house in Maryland.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

As to the original discussion regarding Givens' testimony and Belin's behavior, I have made a recent addition to the section of chapter 4 in which this is discussed.

From patspeer.com, chapter 4

So...let's get this straight. David Belin, who has been tasked with determining (and presumably demonstrating) Oswald's guilt, has been pushing Rankin and Redlich to allow him to pre-interview and thereby shape the testimony of his witnesses... while at the same time, Joseph Ball, Belin's senior partner, has been lobbying Chief Justice Warren, whom he has known for decades, about the benefits to be derived from pre-interviewing witnesses, in order to receive as "clean" a record as possible.
 

Of the 14 assistant counsel for the commission, Ball and Belin are the only two tasked with demonstrating Oswald's guilt, and they are also the only two itching to pre-interview their witnesses.

 

Well, hell's bells. If this isn't a clear indication Ball and Belin were up to something I don't know what such an indication would look like. Unstated but implicit in Redlich's memo is that pre-interviewing witnesses in the manner subsequently proposed by Warren leads to a deceptively "clean" record through two processes. The first is that the witness learns what the lawyer wants him to say, and is more likely to say it. And the second is that the lawyer learns what questions shouldn't be asked, because the answers might lead to more questions, or even a direction opposite the preferred direction. That Ball and Belin were so gung-ho about pre-interviewing their witnesses, then, is a red flag. It cries "Future historians, look at our behavior--look at the questions we didn't ask (at least on the record), and the witnesses we never called."
 

And yes, should you be wondering, Ball and his junior counsel Belin did indeed pre-interview their witnesses. In his 2011 book, The Girl on the Stairs, Barry Ernest details a conversation he had with witness Vickie Adams, in which she described the technique employed by David Belin. She said Belin told her he wanted her to answer his questions without elaboration, answering only the questions asked. He then began questioning her. She said that after going through these questions, Belin announced that this was all off the record. He then began questioning her again, on the record.

Well, it seems clear from this that Belin was actively trying to weed out problematic comments and details. 

 

And we needn't rely upon Adams on this, either. The 4-22-64 testimony of Dallas Crime Scene investigator J.C. Day has many amazing passages, but one of the most amazing passages reflects badly on Belin, not Day. Consider:

 

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other testimony you have with regard to the chain of possession of this shell from the time it was first found until the time it got back to your office?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I told you in our conversation in Dallas that I marked those at the scene. After reviewing my records, I didn't think I was on all three of those hulls that you have, indicating I did not mark them at the scene, then I remembered putting them in the envelope, and Sims taking them. It was further confirmed today when I noticed that the third hull, which I did not give you, or come to me through you, does not have my mark on it.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I did interview you approximately 2 weeks ago in Dallas, more or less?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. At that time what is the fact as to whether or not I went into extended questions and answers as contrasted with just asking you to tell me about certain areas as to what happened? I mean, I questioned you, of course, but was it more along the lines of just asking you to tell me what happened, or more along the lines of interrogation, the interrogation we are doing now?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Which one?
Mr. DAY. Wait a minute now. Say that again. I am at a loss.
Mr. BELIN. Maybe it would be easier if I just struck the question and started all over again.
Mr. DAY. I remember you asking me if I marked them.
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. DAY. I remember I told you I did.
Mr. BELIN. All right.

 

And that was it. Day mentioned that Belin had questioned him off the record, which led Belin to try to get Day to add that it was really no big deal, which confused the heck out of Day, which led Belin to let it drop. Berlin knew people would question his behavior, and he sought to cover his rump. 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Pat Speer

[Karl Hilliard]

Bump this thread..I think it is remarkable how  someone would think that an employee would show up for work [thinking also that this employee had also smuggled in a rifle] and then first thing--immediately sits down to read a newspaper😄 That's great.

David Von Pein shrugs off the Givens lies by proposing that Charles just must have simply forgot to mention seeing the sixth floor Oswald in his Nov 22 statement 🤣 Hysterical

I gather that regarding realization that this suggestion was totally absurd...Von Pein resorted to changing the topic to other [Oswald must have done it] arguments.

 

[James DiEugenio]

IMO, to see just how bad the WC was, compare what they did with Adams to Givens.

That is how desperate they were to get Oswald on the sixth floor.