Altered Evidence in the JFK Case

[James DiEugenio]

Davey says the above did not happen.

I have already submitted two things that demonstrate it did.

1.) Hoover fabricates a story to say it was really Hall, Seymour and Howard at Odio's doorstep. When both he and the FBI knew it was not.

Davey dismiss this as being unimportant.

It was very important for more than one reason. And the WC knew it. This is why Liebeler was sent down to try and talk her out of her story.

For one, her dates conflict with the WC schedule of the Mexico City trip. Instant alibi, Oswald cannot be in two places at once. If the evidence is credible for both then there is an imposter involved. Which implies a conspiracy.

This is unimportant?

To me, and I have said it before, this aspect of the story is the key. And Syliva Meagher thought so also.

And the WC knew it. Which is why they needed help from the FBI to cover it up.

Soon, I will post my MC essays to demonstrate just why this is so crucial.

Unimportant?!

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

The second thing I submitted was Humes's sworn testimony to the ARRB, to Jeremy Gunn specifically.

There, Humes looked at one of the extant X-rays. He noted that his autopsy report, written back in 1963, based on the X-ray he saw in 1963, did not match what was in the x ray today.

What does Davey say? Well, see in that case you go with what the x ray says today.

As I quoted back to him, no that is not what you do in a legal proceeding. Which is why Gunn, a very good lawyer, asked him to compare what he wrote about his observations in 1963 to what was in NARA today.

Its called certification of the evidence. Humes' testimony and his autopsy report would supersede the X-ray.

So this makes two instances.

Everyone contribute one good example to this thread. I have no real preference: it can be witness testimony being altered, it can be documents being altered etc. I know there are literally dozens of instances of this happening in this case.

Hey maybe we can convert Davey? Stranger things have happened.

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is a third instance.

"Not long after the assassination, New Orleans special agent Harry Maynor drafted a message that was changed before it arrived at FBI HQ. This message was directed to Director Hoover, Scratched out, but still visible were the words, "Several Fair Play for Cuba pamphlets contained the address 544 Camp Street." " (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition p. 102)

Does anyone think that something like that kind of evidence alteration could happen unless the word came down from above that it was OK to do it?

The FBI rigorously tried not to use the 544 Camp Street address in its inquiry and what it gave to the WC. (ibid) In other words, they mislead the Commission on this point so as not to connect the pamphlets and Oswald to 544 Camp Street.

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

How about the myth of Oswald in Mexico City.

As most of us know today, the CIA sent a tape up to the Texas border. They said it was Oswald in MC. This was listened to by FBI agents in Dallas who had interviewed Oswald in detention. The wrote a memo that was forwarded to Washington saying the tapes were not of Oswald. And Hoover communicated this to the White House.

After this, on the 25th, the cover up about this serious problem began. The CIA began a BS story that the tapes had been destroyed prior to the assassination. This appears to have been started by David Phillips' Girl Friday Anne Goodpasture.

This is all baloney of course, as several sources heard the tape in addition to the FBI agents in Dallas. And I name three of them in Destiny Betrayed. (p. 358) Let us not forget, Hoover understood it was BS also. As he wrote in the marginalia of a memo, "OK, but I hope you are not being taken in. I can't forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA, nor the false story re Oswald's trip to Mexico, only to mention two instances of their double dealing." (RP, p. 242-43, isn't it great when the lying gets so bad and they turn on each other?)

That makes four.

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

What about the Commission tricking its own members and falsifying their own executive session transcript?

That is what the controlling members and Rankin--what I call the Troika-- did to Cooper, Boggs and Russell, what I call the Southern Wing, at the last meeting.

They knew Russell wanted to get into the record his objections to the Single Bullet Fantasy. So they tricked him. They placed a female secretary there and made it look like she was recording things. But she was not from the stenographic agency they had hired. That contract had run out the previous week.

So when Russell objected, his objections were not in the record as he thought they were. In fact, he told LBJ that he did get them in. But he did not. They aren't there since there is no stenographic record of this meeting.

And btw, Cooper also thought it was in the record. Several years later he talked about it in a British documentary. He said, yep there were disagreements about the Magic Bullet. He specifically said, "I heard Connally testify he was not struck by the same bullet. I could not convince myself the same bullet struck both of them." (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs 258-59)

They were tricked by their own colleagues. The record was eliminated. Does it get any worse than that?

That makes five.

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

How about the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph test.

FBI polygraph technician Bell Herndon told the WC that Ruby passed his polygraph. Well, not really.

The WC did not independently cross check his work.

The HSCA did. In their report, they scored him for about ten violations of professional procedure in this test, from having too many men in the room to having Ruby answer way too many questions, like over a hundred. I mean the test lasted over four hours.

These were serious violations. For example, the panel noted that when one gets asked too many questions, liars become test tired, therefore the physiological indications don't show up. If there are too many people in the room, it could lead to false readings, since one can be surprised by a tap on the shoulder.

But the worst part was this, Bell turned down the GSR machine. GSR means Galvanic Skin Response. Its a very sensitive machine and is one of the three key measurements in the test, the other two being breathing pattern and blood pressure. Herndon turned the machine to only a quarter of its power at the start and then TURNED IT DOWN!

This is the opposite of what should have been done. The panel thought this reading was so bad that the machine was defective. They thought Herndon should have had a back up and should have used it.

Now let me quote the killer part of the report as I use it in Reclaiming Parkland to impeach Bugliosi, since he does not mention this part, but had to know about it since he read the report:

"The strongest indication that Herndon's violations were deliberate was in his use of a faulty control question to map out a patterned response. When Ruby was asked, "Have you ever been arrested?" Herndon testified that the response resulted in a "noticeable rise in blood pressure." The panel disagreed with this because the rise was seven seconds after the answer. Which is at least three times longer than a normal reaction. They believed the reaction was due to a physical movement at the seven second point, which Herndon had actually recorded. The panel then applied the clincher. They wrote that Ruby's reaction to the preceding question--"Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?" to which he replied in the negative--recorded the largest valid GSR reaction in the first test series. Plus there was a constant suppression of breathing and a rise in the blood pressure at the time." (pgs. 245-46, emphasis added)

That makes six.

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

The Fox 5 "back-of-head" autopsy photo is demonstrably fake.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

It's physically impossible for 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric to bunch up in a manner consistent with the "wound" location given JFK's casual posture in the limo.

It's not even a good fake job.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

The HSCA Ida Dox illustration of the rear of the skull photo is a false representation.

In order to make the so called "cowlick" head wound look more like an actual bullet perforation, not just a drop of blood, Baden instructed "Ida Dox" (I put her name in quotes because that is a pseudonym) to raise the edges around the outside to give it a more cratered look.

We actually have this in his own words. Randy Robertson found the memo at NARA in which he tells her, "You can do better than this." (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 133)

Attached to that note was a photo of an actual wound. Doctors who have seen the actual photos, like Gary Aguilar, agree that this illustration was altered. This is how intent the HSCA was to sell the public on this new raised head wound in the back of the skull. And this is why Baden cannot be trusted with the medical evidence in this case.

VInce Bugliosi prints the Dox drawing in his book in order to represent this new position of the head wound, without telling the reader about this embellishment.

BTW, VInce was invited to the conference where Randy announced the discovery about Baden, but did not show up.

Edited July 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

The Fox 5 "back-of-head" autopsy photo is demonstrably fake.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

It's physically impossible for 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric to bunch up in a manner consistent with the "wound" location given JFK's casual posture in the limo.

It's not even a good fake job.

'FOX 5?" autopsy photo? since when have they claimed such a discovery...?

[Glenn Nall]

Davey says the above did not happen.

I have already submitted two things that demonstrate it did.

1.) Hoover fabricates a story to say it was really Hall, Seymour and Howard at Odio's doorstep. When both he and the FBI knew it was not.

Davey dismiss this as being unimportant.

It was very important for more than one reason. And the WC knew it. This is why Liebeler was sent down to try and talk her out of her story.

For one, her dates conflict with the WC schedule of the Mexico City trip. Instant alibi, Oswald cannot be in two places at once. If the evidence is credible for both then there is an imposter involved. Which implies a conspiracy.

This is unimportant?

To me, and I have said it before, this aspect of the story is the key. And Syliva Meagher thought so also.

And the WC knew it. Which is why they needed help from the FBI to cover it up.

Soon, I will post my MC essays to demonstrate just why this is so crucial.

Unimportant?!

"the above" ... i'm not sure what that refers to as it relates to this thread... if Davey says it didn't happen then the premise is that it did?

what happened? in any case, I'd love to see this is that you've submitted which demonstrates that it did.

whatever it is.

[Cliff Varnell]

The Fox 5 "back-of-head" autopsy photo is demonstrably fake.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

It's physically impossible for 4+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric to bunch up in a manner consistent with the "wound" location given JFK's casual posture in the limo.

It's not even a good fake job.

'FOX 5?" autopsy photo? since when have they claimed such a discovery...?

They call this "Fox 5"

[Glenn Nall]

ah - right - silly me (our Fox affiliate in Atlanta is Fox 5, so that's what jumped to the forebrain first).

Edited July 12, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

in one of the doctor's testimonies to WC, Humes, i think, he describes the flap as being held "forward toward the scalp" even while he was describing the gaping rear wound, and it sounded very much to me like he was saying that this flap was large enough to have covered that wound -

he admitted that the finger in the other rear head pic was his and said that the flap would have fallen away if not held in place - i'm under the impression that the wound is being "hidden" perhaps by the flap AND by not releasing existing pictures of the wound with the flap out of the way. easy deceit by negligence, instead of even having to "doctor" the photos. or perhaps a combination of both.

both the WC interviewer and Humes points out the small, white piece at the hairline (more visible in the other pic of Ks head and somewhat visible in this one) and both wondered what it was, as part of a wound (i think Humes said he'd worried about that little piece for part of the day or something) or not.

Kellerman also describes the wound in the same place, of course (as do many others) along with the second entrance wound, finger's width in diameter. which goes to distinctly separate the two wounds in size and location.

and then in another similar angle they point out an obvious entrance hole right in the calic there, which doesn't sound to me to be in the area Kellerman described, and doesn't seem to be visible here. am i misremembering this "entrance hole?"

[Glenn Nall]

...

Hey maybe we can convert Davey? Stranger things have happened.

I thought so, too, once.

I said, "Hey Mom, maybe we can convert Santa to Judaism so he can come see us. too!" and she said, "Honey, that kinda sh** runs much deeper than you think. You have no idea what you ask."

and I took that to mean that Santa was CIA, too, and all this making a list and checking it twice meant a lot more than who gets coal in their stockings and from then on - oh, hell, it was a long childhood...

[Robert Prudhomme]

in one of the doctor's testimonies to WC, Humes, i think, he describes the flap as being held "forward toward the scalp" even while he was describing the gaping rear wound, and it sounded very much to me like he was saying that this flap was large enough to have covered that wound -

he admitted that the finger in the other rear head pic was his and said that the flap would have fallen away if not held in place - i'm under the impression that the wound is being "hidden" perhaps by the flap AND by not releasing existing pictures of the wound with the flap out of the way. easy deceit by negligence, instead of even having to "doctor" the photos. or perhaps a combination of both.

both the WC interviewer and Humes points out the small, white piece at the hairline (more visible in the other pic of Ks head and somewhat visible in this one) and both wondered what it was, as part of a wound (i think Humes said he'd worried about that little piece for part of the day or something) or not.

Kellerman also describes the wound in the same place, of course (as do many others) along with the second entrance wound, finger's width in diameter. which goes to distinctly separate the two wounds in size and location.

and then in another similar angle they point out an obvious entrance hole right in the calic there, which doesn't sound to me to be in the area Kellerman described, and doesn't seem to be visible here. am i misremembering this "entrance hole?"

"Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

Testimony to the WC by Secret Service Agent Clinton J. Hill, 1964

I've always wondered what became of the rear portion of JFK's head that Hill saw lying in the rear seat of the car. This is the only time I ever see it mentioned.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme