Jump to content
The Education Forum

MARK LANE HAS PASSED AWAY


Recommended Posts

~Yawn~
~Stretch~

Oswald's guilt is all too obvious -- with or without all the fancy words spoken by Mr. Mark Lane.

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 969 of "Reclaiming History"

Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Davey:

I am not talking about guilt or innocence. And you know it.

I am talking about representation and rights.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable.

But let us look at just one example to show what a difference proper procedure would have made.

Everyone knows what a dog and pony show Specter's examination of the pathologists was. He pre-interviewed them 10-12 times. Sent them to see 22 year old Rydberg with nothing: no pics, no x rays, no official measurements. And because of that Rydberg prepared those BS illustrations for the Warren Commission. Which Rydberg later disowned.

Could those pics have been committed to the record if Oswald had been properly represented?

HInt: Compare the direct examination by Specter of Humes, Boswell and Finck, with the cross examination of FInck by Alvin Oser in New Orleans at the trial of Clay Shaw.

Night and Day.

Comparing them you will see why rights are so important. That is what Lane was talking about.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not talking about guilt or innocence. And you know it.

I am talking about representation and rights.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable.

Well, that's nice, Jim, but I am talking about guilt or innocence.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable (of course).

But the "guilt or innocence" question is (naturally) the most important thing that needs to be decided when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Or do you think the most important thing is to keep repeating the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra simply because Oswald's case never went to trial in an American courtroom?

In other words, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crutch supersedes the massive amount of evidence that proves Lee Oswald's (double) guilt.

If you want to keep on using that crutch, Jim, that's your choice. But I think it's just a convenient and handy excuse that conspiracists use in order to avoid having to face the obvious truth --- which is: the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double murderer.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not talking about guilt or innocence. And you know it.

I am talking about representation and rights.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable.

Well, that's nice, Jim, but I am talking about guilt or innocence.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable (of course).

But the "guilt or innocence" question is (naturally) the most important thing that needs to be decided when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Or do you think the most important thing is to keep repeating the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra simply because Oswald's case never went to trial in an American courtroom?

In other words, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crutch supersedes the massive amount of evidence that proves Lee Oswald's (double) guilt.

If you want to keep on using that crutch, Jim, that's your choice. But I think it's just a convenient and handy excuse that conspiracists use in order to avoid having to face the obvious truth --- which is: the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double murderer.

I think your response here DVP is typical loon nut fashion. Most serious 1964 WCR conclusion critics are well aware that LHO may have been involved somehow in the events of 11/22/63. Either willingly or unwillingly.

What most 1964 WCR critics would like to know is the why of the presidential murder. The very thing you flee from every time you're confronted with same.

And here's YOUR crutch, "let's keep it at LHO did it all by his lonesome," right? Anything to avoid the obvious truth, eh?

53 years of disembelling the WC conclusions and your still stuck in the 1964 press conference LBJ gave when the report was released.... LMAO! It's no wonder only a few are taking you seriously these days.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davey:

Do you think no one knows your tricks by now?

I deliberately quoted Mark Lane and the intro to his 1964 legal brief for the National Guardian.

I then showed how depriving Oswald of his rights short circuited the evidentiary presentation.

YOU CUT THAT OUT!

So let me ask: Does FInck's testimony at the Shaw trial bear any resemblance to his testimony before the WC?

Answer: NO!

Why not? Because the rules of procedure were obeyed at Shaw's trial. As Mark Lane noted, there was a real cross examination of the witness.

FInck made a mistake: He told the truth. The medical evidence has never been the same.

You want to avoid that crucial evidence, which would have never surfaced under cover up man Specter, not in a 100 years.. In fact, Specter never asked any of the doctors why they did not dissect the back wound. Garrison did. And we saw what happened. But you don't want to address that crucial evidence.

Understandable.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, Specter never asked any of the doctors why they did not dissect the back wound.

Jim,

Do you think Dr. Humes was lying through his teeth in this WC testimony?....

DR. HUMES -- "Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage. .... We were unable...to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point."

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

Of course the argument can be made that with the probing of the wound being unsuccessful, this would have been even MORE of a reason for the pathologists to remove the neck organs to dissect the path of the bullet. But this was not done.

Dr. Finck, at the 1969 Shaw trial, said that he was told not to dissect the neck wound, but he could not recall who gave that order. But to think it was an order given by someone who had a desire to "cover up" proof of a frontal gunshot wound is to also suggest that that person giving the order KNEW for a fact at the time of the autopsy that there were multiple gunmen firing at JFK in Dealey Plaza. And that, IMO, is just silly.

The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night.

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

Excerpts from Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony (1969; Shaw Trial)....

Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

A (Finck): I did not dissect the track in the neck.

Q: Why?

A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask the Court so to direct.

THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Why not, Doctor?

A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --

Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

A: I had the cause of death.

Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

A: As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.

Q: I didn't hear you.

A: I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.

Q: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why [you] didn't do this as a pathologist?

A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.

BY MR. OSER:

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.

Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.

Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?

A: I did.

Q: With what?

A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.

Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?

A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.

Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?

A: Repeat the question.

Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?

A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.

Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?

A: The first fraction of an inch.

Q: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?

A: I don't know.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, Specter never asked any of the doctors why they did not dissect the back wound.

Jim,

Do you think Dr. Humes was lying through his teeth in this WC testimony?....

DR. HUMES -- "Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage. .... We were unable...to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point."

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

Of course the argument can be made that with the probing of the wound being unsuccessful, this would have been even MORE of a reason for the pathologists to remove the neck organs to dissect the path of the bullet. But this was not done.

Dr. Finck, at the 1969 Shaw trial, said that he was told not to dissect the neck wound, but he could not recall who gave that order. But to think it was an order given by someone who had a desire to "cover up" proof of a frontal gunshot wound is to also suggest that that person giving the order KNEW for a fact at the time of the autopsy that there were multiple gunmen firing at JFK in Dealey Plaza. And that, IMO, is just silly.

The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night.

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

Excerpts from Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony (1969; Shaw Trial)....

Q: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

A (Finck): I did not dissect the track in the neck.

Q: Why?

A: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask the Court so to direct.

THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: Why not, Doctor?

A: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --

Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

A: I had the cause of death.

Q: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

A: As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.

Q: I didn't hear you.

A: I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.

Q: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a pathologist?

A: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.

BY MR. OSER:

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.

Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

A: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.

Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?

A: I did.

Q: With what?

A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.

Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?

A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.

Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?

A: Repeat the question.

Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?

A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.

Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?

A: The first fraction of an inch.

Q: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?

A: I don't know.

You realize, I hope, that Humes' concluding the back wound did not extend into the body is a far bigger problem for the SBT than his failure to dissect the back wound. The failure to dissect the back wound could be written off in the name of expediency--because someone told him not to. Spending a significant amount of time studying and probing the back wound, only to conclude it was but a shallow dent in the back, however, is lethal for the single-bullet theory.

High-velocity missile wounds into muscle tissue don't come to an end just below the skin. Dr. Wecht has long challenged his fellow pathologists to find any bullet in an actual case that did as much damage as CE 399, and received such little damage in return. And he's had no takers. It's safe to say the failure to find the bullet track is equally problematic. While the forensic pathology literature is filled with anecdotes about bullet hole entrances that were not noticed in the hair, or were not noticed in a crease in the skin, I've never read one in which a doctor, let alone a number of doctors, were able to find the entrance of a high-velocity bullet into the skin but were unable to find its entrance into the muscle below.

This confluence, moreover, of two amazing facts--that no passage of a high-speed bullet could be found in Kennedy's back, and that the high-speed bullet supposedly creating this passage was far less damaged than would reasonably be expected--would lead a competent pathologist, or even a layman with a lick of sense, to reject this theory outright. But no, this is the Kennedy assassination, where the cart drives the horse, and the conclusion drives the investigation.

So, let's give this some perspective. As there is no reason, whatsoever, to believe these two amazing facts are connected in any way, we have two one in a million events happening in regards to the passage of the bullet. The bullet leaves no cavity in Kennedy's back, and the bullet is undamaged after striking Kennedy's back. The odds of such a thing happening in the same shooting are thereby what? A trillion to 1.

Well, now let's say I've overstated the rarity of it all, and that the odds of the bullet receiving such little damage is really only a thousand to one (with anything less than a thousand to one, someone somewhere would have come up with a similar-looking bullet which had performed a similar amount of damage.) And that the odds of it leaving no observable hole is also but a thousand to 1. Well, this is still a million to one occurrence.

SO, isn't it a heck of a lot more likely that the bullet didn't transit as claimed? And was actually a low velocity bullet? I mean, really, are the odds a million to one against that? Almost certainly not.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize, I hope, that Humes' concluding the back wound did not extend into the body is a far bigger problem for the SBT than his failure to dissect the back wound. The failure to dissect the back wound could be written off in the name of expediency--because someone told him not to. Spending a significant amount of time studying and probing the back wound, only to conclude it was but a shallow dent in the back, however, is lethal for the single-bullet theory.

Not at all. The reason for the unsuccessful probing of the back wound was fully explained by two of the three pathologists in their testimony over the years -- Finck in 1969 (which I just quoted above) and Boswell in 1996.

And then there is this testimony, also quoted earlier, by Dr. Finck (emphasis is my own):

"I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path."

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP: The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night

Incredible.

Recall, this is a murder case in 1963, therefore the standard of evidence is: beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

The third word above, "probably", is Von Pein's. In other words it is his assumption.

​He then quotes a long hunk from FInck's testimony, but he does not quote the most revealing part. FInck said that he was not running the autopsy that night. Then this exchange occurred:

Q: Was Dr. Humes running the show?

​A: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that--he said--"Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating :I am, You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.

Somehow, Davey did not find that passage important, probably because it belies his necessary assumption with actual evidence.

​Further belying it, actually wrecking it with finality, is more evidence from the horse's mouth, that is Humes. In my CBS article that Davey said (for good reasons) he only skimmed, Humes told a representative from the network that yes, he was limited from doing a proper autopsy on JFK. He did not want to reveal who gave him those instructions except to say that it was not Bobby Kennedy.

So , we know from both FInck and Humes that it was the military, and not RFK who deliberately stopped a full autopsy from being performed. And this information was in the record by 1969.

Now, let us also comment on the so-called probing of the back wound with a malleable exploratory tool. The declassification of the ARRB was quite powerful in this regard. You know, those documents which Davey did not go through, but he says there isn't anything important there. (Never explaining how he could know the latter, if he did not do the former.) Today there is a list of ten witnesses that, combined, say:

1. The location and angle of declination in the back wound made it impossible to meet up with the throat wound, and

​2. The malleable probe was inserted through the back wound and it could not penetrate through.

Finally, there were photos taken of this. Which, no surprise, do not exist today. (Reclaiming Parkland, James DiEugenio, pgs. 116-17) Somehow, we are supposed to think that all of this info is not important. It is important, but Davey wants to pretend it does not exist.

But that is not the point. The point is something else that Davey wants to avoid: Arlen Specter did not even come close to revealing all of this utterly integral information about the autopsy of President Kennedy. Yet, that was his job. Now, if the WC had been concerned about the rights of the accused--which as Rankin wired to Lane, they were not--then Oswald's legal representative would have gotten to at least some of this information. Which goes to the heart of the case. For the simple reason that if the back wound did not penetrate the body, there is no Magic Bullet, its a prosecutorial fantasy. And the Warren Report is a novel.

By not giving Oswald a legal representative, the Commission precluded that option. But from the evidence adduced above, not in the WR, that is the actual case.

In other words, to get away with murder, you don't have to pull of a perfect crime. You just have to pull off the cover up. With Oswald having no representative, that was fairly easy to do.

Would fit have happened with Mark Lane there? I doubt it.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Oswald's rights, and his having fair representation, here is one of my all-time favorites, the Perry testimony. As it continues and Perry is describing Kennedy's wounds, he's interrupted by Dulles himself. I've always thought he was badgering the witness. Further, during questioning, Specter presents a long-winded description about feet per second and all of this other crap. But in essence, he's doing a lawyer's trick of leading the witness to a preconveived conclusion (i.e., what the Warren folks want to hear, not what really happened):


Mr. SPECTEB. And have you noted in the autopsy report the reference to

the presence of a wound on the upper right posterior thorax just above the

upper border of the scapula, being 7 by 4 mm. in oval dimension and being

located 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the

tip of the right mastoid process?


Dr. PEBBY. Yes; I saw that.


Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that was a point of entry of a missile, which parenthetically

was the opinion of the three autopsy surgeons, and assuming still

further that the missiie which struck the President at tha,t spot was a 6.5-mm.

jacketed bullet shot from a rifle at a distance of 166 to 250 feet, having a muzzle

velocity of approximately 2,606 feet per second, and that upon entering the

President’s body, the bullet traveled between two strap muscles, through a

fascia channel, without violating the pleural cavity, striking the trachea,

causing the damage which you testified about being on the interior of the

President’s throat, and exited from the President’s throat in the wound which

you have described in the midline of his neck, would your findings and observations

as to the nature of the wound on the throat be consistent with the set

of facts I just presented to you?


Dr. PERRY. It would be entirely.


So David, I ask you, if Oswald had been alive, or even if Lane or a team of lawyers representing him had been there, do you really think they would have allowed Dulles, Specter and the others to get away with this? There's no doubt in my mind they would have raised numerous objections regarding leading the witness, leading the testimony, and so on, or asked for side conferences to get things back on track.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT IS REALLY GOOD MICHAEL!

See, one of the things Bugliosi tries to do is say that Lane is leading Markham on the tape he did with her.

But see that was not a legal deposition. Second, he always lets her reply to correct him.

But Specter, time after time, put out a set of purely theoretical assumptions that went on ad infinitum never letting the witness question anything until he had the whole fantasy journey out there. Note, Specter does not say precisely where the bullet entered in the back in his question.

Check RH and see if Bugliosi notes any of that from Specter. He does not. And he understood the difference.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You realize, I hope, that Humes' concluding the back wound did not extend into the body is a far bigger problem for the SBT than his failure to dissect the back wound. The failure to dissect the back wound could be written off in the name of expediency--because someone told him not to. Spending a significant amount of time studying and probing the back wound, only to conclude it was but a shallow dent in the back, however, is lethal for the single-bullet theory.

Not at all. The reason for the unsuccessful probing of the back wound was fully explained by two of the three pathologists in their testimony over the years -- Finck in 1969 (which I just quoted above) and Boswell in 1996.

And then there is this testimony, also quoted earlier, by Dr. Finck (emphasis is my own):

"I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path."

Finding something that is compatible is not science. Let's make an analogy. They found an entrance to a railroad tunnel that ended just a few yards into the mountain. They concluded this tunnel ended. They were later told, however, that what they thought was a mine on the other side of the mountain was a railroad tunnel. And realized that they needed to say this was the other end of the tunnel, or everyone around them would freak out and their careers would be over. So they said it was the other end of the tunnel. They then tried to justify this conclusion by saying "Well, this mine headed back in the rough general direction of the entrance they originally discovered" and ignored completely that the entrance they originally discovered headed in the opposite direction of the mine.

Subsequent studies, moreover, showed that a large block of granite lay inside the mountain between the entrance they discovered and the mine, and that an underground cavern filled with water rested to the side of the granite. This proved that the tunnel connecting the railroad tunnel with the mine, assuming there was such a tunnel, must have traveled in a very strange route through the mountain.

And so it rested. Then, years later, some buffoon realized that but a short way up the mountain range there was another railroad entrance which could not be connected to its supposed exit on the other side, and that, in this instance, a different group of experts got around this by claiming that everyone who'd been at the original entrance was mistaken regarding its exact location, and that this entrance was really a mile or so away, where no one noticed it. And the thought gradually emerged... Hmmm, maybe the entrance noted by those actually on the scene was the entrance to the tunnel that emerged at what was originally thought to be a mine? Hmmm...

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Jim, you skipped the worst part. It was bad enough that Specter led the witnesses in the manner he led them, but the scenario he painted for them was one he knew to be untrue. Here it is again.

Mr. SPECTER. Assuming that was a point of entry of a missile, which parenthetically
was the opinion of the three autopsy surgeons, and assuming still
further that the missiie which struck the President at tha,t spot was a 6.5-mm.
jacketed bullet shot from a rifle at a distance of 166 to 250 feet, having a muzzle
velocity of approximately 2,606 feet per second, and that upon entering the
President’s body, the bullet traveled between two strap muscles, through a
fascia channel, without violating the pleural cavity, striking the trachea,
causing the damage which you testified about being on the interior of the
President’s throat, and exited from the President’s throat in the wound which
you have described in the midline of his neck, would your findings and observations
as to the nature of the wound on the throat be consistent with the set
of facts I just presented to you?

There is but one muscle at the location of the supposed bullet entrance: the trapezius muscle. The strap muscles are by the throat. Specter recited this bit about the strap muscles in order to help sell the single-bullet theory to doctors who would never have gone along should he have told them the truth--that this high-velocity missile left no cavity through the underlying muscle. Now, he may have deceived himself on this point as well. But the fact remains that he pushed a medical opinion on medical experts by grossly misrepresenting the facts of the case. Should the have done this in a criminal court, I suspect he would have lost his job, and possibly have been disbarred.

Edited by Pat Speer
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...