Jump to content
The Education Forum

Aftermath of the Assassination


Recommended Posts

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Many thanks, Allan. Question: doesn't the strange nature of the back wound raise suspicions? I don't think you touched on this in the book. Regards, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Many thanks, Allan. Question: doesn't the strange nature of the back wound raise suspicions? I don't think you touched on this in the book. Regards, Daniel

Daniel:

Thank you. There is a discussion of the back wound, but possibly not with the emphasis you have in mind.

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Many thanks, Allan. Question: doesn't the strange nature of the back wound raise suspicions? I don't think you touched on this in the book. Regards, Daniel

Daniel:

Thank you. There is a discussion of the back wound, but possibly not with the emphasis you have in mind.

Allan

Of course there is a discussion of the back wouund, and it is much appreciated. But since wound alteration is a major theme of your work, I expected some discussion of it with regards to the strange nature of the back wound, even the way it is described by Humes. Too hot to handle? Respectfully, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Many thanks, Allan. Question: doesn't the strange nature of the back wound raise suspicions? I don't think you touched on this in the book. Regards, Daniel

Daniel:

Thank you. There is a discussion of the back wound, but possibly not with the emphasis you have in mind.

Allan

Of course there is a discussion of the back wound, and it is much appreciated. But since wound alteration is a major theme of your work, I expected some discussion of it with regards to the strange nature of the back wound, even the way it is described by Humes. Too hot to handle? Respectfully, Daniel

Daniel:

I forwarded your query to Jim --

This wound is presumed to correspond to the 7x4 wound annotated by Dr. Boswell on his autopsy face sheet. What caused it would be speculation.

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen...

That their report was a CYA for the 1+ hour they were at the grounds yet not in the presence of the body, brilliant.

I will be re-reading Stringer's testimonies as well...

yet without a coherent theory on getting JFK from table to casket to ambulance before the MDW pull up after roaming around a while...

So our FBI men also did not witness the removal of said casket back out of the morgue...

A theory:

Those that wheeled/carried a casket back to the ambulance had to have been a very select group,

they could not be the 6:35 marines who carried the casket (yet those that carried it were only a small portion of the entire detail) or those who helped the SS/FBI men unless they were told it was empty and broken, and was to be taken away...

and according to the vagueness of our FBI's memory, are we sure that anyone wheeled the empty casket into the anteroom other than these four men?

Boyijean's marines stayed posted around the morgue for the remainder of the night... so unless he omitted it, they did not move a casket from the morgue to the ambulance...

If that is the case, the ONLY men who could have moved the casket back and NOT be asked about it are the men in the autopsy room prior to 8pm.

Wheeling the broken casket away, or whatever was going on might have been witnessed by one of Boyijean's men... unless relieved for a chow break as he says, and they did the move very close to 8pm. while there was a swap in "security" personnel.

In fact just prior to the chow swap... the casket is removed as broken to be dumped... and is witnessed by one set of guards as a non issue

A different set of guards who may have been posted earlier in a diff part of the hospital is brought over and witnesses the 8pm delivery of said casket and would be none the wiser while their buddies are chowing down

Humes, Kellerman, Greer and Boswell move the casket with JFK from the morgue to the ambulance

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David:

Your suggestion is certain plausible, but I don’t think that it is likely.

Humes and Boswell were well recognized figures and it would have attracted unwanted attention if they were seen maneuvering a casket. Such grunt work would always be done by navy corpsmen. Carriage of caskets into and out of the morgue would have been a common occurrence and part of the duty of enlisted men. In my opinion, a likely scenario is that a detail of corpsmen did the job. They may have been told that the casket had to be removed because it had been damaged. They may have been given no information at all, but simply told to take it from the morgue and to place it in the ambulance, at which point they would have been quickly dismissed so that they did not witness the arrival of the honor guard.

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen...

That is only assuming that there is anyone around to see them...

They buried the MDW report so that there was nothing to contradict Humes here AND at the HSCA, yes?

Since this is impossible given the official documents.

Commander HUMES - The president's body was received at 25 minutes before 8, and the autopsy began at approximately 8 p.m. on that evening. You must include the fact that certain X-rays and other examinations were made before the actual beginning of the routine type autopsy examination

HSCA:

Mr. CORNWELL. Approximately what time of the day or night did the autopsy begin?

Dr. HUMES. well, the President's body, as I recall, arrived about 7:30 or 7:35 the evening and after some preliminary examinations, about 8 or 8:15.

Mr. CORNWELL. Just very briefly, in what order or sequence did you conduct the autopsy?

Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax.

Dr. HUMES. I was in the morgue from 7:30 in the evening until 5:30 in the morning. I never left the room.

Okay, fair enough... the doctors did not physically wheel the casket out... then again...

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?

A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately.

{I have to run but will pick this up again}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the back wound, not seen at Parkland, is not a bullet wound at all, but was inflicted with a type of metal punch to simulate a bullet wound?

Is this possible? Might David Lifton or Dr. Mantik weigh in?

My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when.

Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel,

Doesn't the shirt and jacket come into play here? His clothes were taken from him.. SS agents testify to seeing the bullet hit him in the back (yes, I know, but...) :blink:

The difference in the location of the hole in jacket and shirt is the 1/8" as expected...

When are you supposing they created all these holes to line up so well?

Furthermore... my understanding of the 45-60 degrees is NOT the angle of the shot but the angles of the wound...

If the bullet was traveling as slow as it would be to only penetrate shallow... it could have easily tumbled downward as it entered creating this perceived angle...

Add Osbournes statement about the bullet and clothes coupled with the statment by the Gov't that he must have been "MISTAKEN" (as is with any bit of contraty evidence to the Oswald did it alone conclusion) and we have every reason to believe what happened was as Humes and Osbourne state... Shallow wound, bullet out due to external cardio, into his clothes....

THIS may have been ce399... yet due to what we know from Frazier:

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way. Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

:blink:

To me this is one of the most inexcusable declarations of stupidity in the testimony and proves that the bullet from Parkland was not the bullet Johnson gave to Rowley...

but IS the one Rowley gave to Todd.... where did Rowley get CE399?

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

What if the back wound, not seen at Parkland, is not a bullet wound at all, but was inflicted with a type of metal punch to simulate a bullet wound?

Is this possible? Might David Lifton or Dr. Mantik weigh in?

My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when.

Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the back wound, not seen at Parkland, is not a bullet wound at all, but was inflicted with a type of metal punch to simulate a bullet wound?

Is this possible? Might David Lifton or Dr. Mantik weigh in?

My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when.

Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel

Daniel,

Thanks for summing up—quite nicely—the evidence spelled out, in detail, in BEST EVIDENCE. (Mostly in Chapter 14).

For all the reasons you set forth, I firmly believe Kennedy’s back wound is a false wound—a “false fact” (and not the only “false fact” in this case).

If the back wound was man made, then the clothing holes also had to be fabricated. Of course, I do not have a witness to someone making those holes, but BEST EVIDENCE thoroughly explores the whole issue of why the clothing holes in Kennedy’s jack and shirt are “low” whereas the (supposed) bullet hole in the body (according to the finalized autopsy data) is significantly higher. I’ve always believed—and still do—that this is very telling evidence. And, of course, for years, that "low" clothing hole (joined with the original observations re the back wound) can be cited as a quick and easy way --as Salandria did back in1965, and Cliff Varnell likes to remind us today) --that the official version is just plain false.

But back to the underlying issue. . :

The importance of a false back wound transcends the “geometry” of the shooting. Ultimately, a false back wound implies that it was planned in advance to alter the body.

That’s what Chapter 14, in BEST EVIDENCE (“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”) is all about.

First, addressing a small detail: Nurse Diana Bowron was asked by Arlen Specter—more than once—whether she saw any wound on the body, other than the wound at the front of the throat, and the wound at the back of the head. Her answer was clear: no other wound.

Excactly how Harrison Livinsgtone got her to say something different (some 30 years later) I have no idea. But I have heard him questioning other witnesses on tape, and it was always in a bullying, know-it-all tone. In short, his questioning was a complete joke. I do not have the tape of his first Bowron questioning, so I don’t know what he did, to set up the Q and A he claims to have had and which marked the change in her story, thirty years later. But legally, both because of the passage of time, her prior inconsistent statement, and the general way he operated, it is –imho--useless.

Again, the important thing about a false back wound—and the closely related notion that a bullet was placed on a stretcher to “match” that wound (and to me, that was the "give-away")—is that it was planned in advance to alter the body; i.e, that such planning was an integral part of the crime. Moreover, any sophisticated observer can see that the FBI Summary Report of Dec 9 expresses the “solution to the assassination” in terms of what I just wrote: that a bullet matching Oswald’s rifle supposedly fell out of the wound, and was found on a stretcher at Parkland, etc.

Of course, Connally was unexpectedly wounded, and so we then have a series of stories about how a bullet "supposedly" fell off his stretcher, too.

As one Parkland nurse said to veteran JFK researcher Wallace Milam circa 1993--and this is from memory, but she was recalling what Doris Nelson said on that day--"I wish people would quit puttin' bullets on stretchers at this hospital."

Not to realize what was going on at Parkland Hospital, in this crucial area, is to be played for a sucker.

In other words, in the Kennedy case, the body of the President was not only viewed as a person to be killed, but a target to be altered—all as part of the “official explanation” of the assassination, in which Lee Oswald was “the assassin.”

There are people who have a lot of trouble with that idea, and for a variety of reasons:

First of all, they equate conspiracy with crossfire. And that’s just not the case. Yes, of course cross-fire indicates “a” conspiracy, but what went on in Dallas was much more than “cross fire”. It was a overt operation planned in advance, not just to murder the President, but to make it appear to be a quirk of fate, and thus to operate the U.S. line of succession through deception.

Oswald was set up in advance as part of an elaborate operation to manufacture a false story about the event---and that’s why a false back wound is so important. I’ll have more to say about this in a future writing, and that includes addressing the issue of the Tague shot, the chrome indentation in the car, the full story re the wounding of Connally etc.

Of course, all the psychological resistance to the notion that Kennedy’s body was viewed in advance as a target to be altered—after his murder—will dissipate (somewhat) once it is definitively proven that his body was removed from Air Force One during the relatively brief period it was on the ground, after the body was placed aboard at 2:18 CST, and prior to the swearing in at 2:47 CST.

All these “body related” questions –I have found, over the years—lead to a radical way of looking at the Kennedy assassination, and many folks simply cannot “go there.”

They are comfortable with the notion of “crossfire,” which then leaves them free to speculate about any old political theory they are comfortable with; whereas the very thought that it was planned in advance to alter the body is just too much. Way too much.

So they would rather sit with maps of Dealey Plaza, drawing pictures of numerous shooters, stationed on various rooftops, all blasting away at once, with no bullets being found other than Oswald’s—and somehow not batting an eye, or losing any sleep over the problems with such a “reconstruction.”

Again, thanks for your concise summary re the back wound. I have little time to post. So I appreciate what you did.

More another time.

DSL

3/27/12; 2pm PDT

Los Angeles, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on there David/Daniel...

Since there is no reliable measurement of the location of the hole on JFK, how can you say the jacket and shirt are so much higher...?

"This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion

process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Scroll down for a look at the right acromion process

http://www.aidmyrotatorcuff.com/rotator-cuff-information/rotator-cuff-and-shoulder-anatomy.php

In WHICH DIRECTION 14cms from the acromion? There is a wound 1-2 inches off the spine and they use a landmark at the tip of the right shoulder

Dorsal-and-ventral-views-of-left-scapula.jpg

and now the Mastoid process... and the other landmark is at the bottom of the MOVEABLE skull...

There is NO WAY to determine where that wound was from this description... when the measuremenat needed to be from one of the Cervical vertebrae down and then a number of cms over.

In fact... if you measure straight down from the acromion you are still on the arm...

STRAIGHT to the left, then go UP to the Mastoid and measure down?

Are you willing to state that holes were put into the jacket and shirt BEFORE there was any wound on JFK (who had the clothes?) and then this information is relayed to the autopsy room where a hole is made prior to Sibert/O'Neill coming back in at 8:15... Maybe you are suggesting this was one fo the things they did on AF-1 to JFK?

Is that more likely than a non-transiting wound from which a bullet is removed and disappeared?

sklattp5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things:

Remember that Clint Hill has always said that he saw the first shot to hit JFK enter at the right shoulder rear. Didn't Dave Powers say about the same thing?

Gerry Hemming, in one of his revelatory moments with A, J Webermann, referred to the back wound as "the meat shot," meaning it was fired to establish that there was a shot from behind, and intended not to wound deeply and thus be discoverable. A faked bullet wound inflicted before autopsy (and accepted at autopsy) would establish this to an investigative body, of course. But I'm slightly impressed that Hemming - who was there - seems to attest to a back hit. (Of course, the missile wasn't truly tied to the wound, and the wound track was empty when examined.)

When I posted earlier my question about whether the back wound could have been inflicted with a metal punch (a glorified ice-pick - was there a choice of calibers?), I meant to ask whether such a thing was medically possible, given the forensic issue of lividity evidence, and the risk of the wound being contradicted by any other body changes in the hours after death.

We could ask this of a wound faked after death by any manner: in what time range after JFK was pronounced dead could it have been inflicted, and not be obvious as a post-mortem wound at autopsy?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...