“Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

[James DiEugenio]

Have you ever admitted on your site that Humes told the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn that he not only incinerated his notes but his original autopsy report also?

Have you ever indicated on you rite that his original BS story about not having the blood of the president on report as a souvenir was a pile of BS since he wrote the report in the confines of his home?

If you have not then who is pot and who is kettle?

Edited January 15, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Have you ever admitted on your site that Humes told the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn that he not only incinerated his notes but his original autopsy report also?

Have you ever indicated on you rite that his original BS story about not having the blood of the president on report as a souvenir was a pile of BS since he wrote the report in the confines of his home?

If you have not then who is pot and who is kettle?

I thought Humes said he burned his notes because of the blood...did he say he burned his first draft for the same reason? 

I must admit I do agree with DVP on something, and that is that Specter knew the actual location of the back wound and that the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate...

This is not less troubling, however, it is more troubling... WHY?

Because AFTER testing the SBT using the real location, Specter sought to hide that he did so. I sincerely doubt he'd have done this if he thought it "worked."

Here's a section on this from chapter 10 at patspeer.com:

As we've seen, the Rydberg drawings were made at the request of the Warren Commission. As we've seen, Chief Justice Earl Warren prevented anyone from checking their accuracy. 

This should lead us to conclude, then, that, as of May 24, 1964, the day of the Warren Commission's re-enactment of the shooting, the wound locations depicted on the Rydberg drawings were presumed to have been accurate. 

This raises an intriguing question...why weren’t they used in the re-enactment? I mean, news photos of the re-enactment, published in, among other places, the New York Times, make it clear as day that on May 24, 1964, more than two months after the Rydberg drawings had been placed into evidence as the official representations of the president's wounds, those running the re-enactment had relied upon other sources when placing a chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, in order to designate the wound location. 

Well, why was this done?

Well, the thought occurs that someone--in this case, Warren Commission Junior Counsel Arlen Specter--was trying to be accurate. An April 30, 1964 Specter memo, after all, admitted that, in opposition to Dr. Humes’ sworn testimony, and in opposition to Specter’s subsequent words in the Warren Report, the Rydberg drawings “were made from the recollections of the autopsy doctors as told to the artist.” 

The measurements on the face sheet were not used in the creation of the Rydberg drawings, and Arlen Specter knew it. It seems likely, then, that he wanted to see for himself if his single-bullet theory made sense--when using the actual locations of Kennedy's wounds.

In any event, the Warren Report says that for the re-enactment “The wounds of entry and exit on the President were approximated based on information gained from the autopsy reports and photographs.”Well, this is curious. Which photographs? Certainly not the ones Chief Justice Warren withheld from the doctors?

Oh, yeah? Specter, in his 2000 autobiography, Passion for Truth, finally shed some light on this matter. He admitted that on the day of the re-enactment in Dallas he was shown an autopsy photo of the back wound by a member of the Secret Service, Thomas Kelley. (The Saturday Evening Post had mentioned Kelley’s name in regards to this incident in 1967 and Kelley had admitted his role to researcher Harold Weisberg a few years later.) While Specter didn’t say he consulted this photo before approving the chalk mark on the jacket of the stand-in, one can only assume he used it to confirm its location.

Specter and Kelley’s use of the photos wrongly denied them in their passion for truth can only be considered admirable. And yet...

When one looks at the re-enactment photo published in the New York Times and re-printed in the Doubleday edition of the Warren Report, it is clear that a bullet passing through the chalk mark on the President's stand-in’s back and continuing on to hit Connally’s stand-in in his armpit would most likelyexit from the President’s stand-in’s chest, and not his throat. Specter had seen the Zapruder film. He knew Kennedy wasn’t leaning forward before the first shot. He knew, for that matter, that the theory he was testing left no room for deflection and he knew--from the photo Kelley showed him--that the chalk mark was accurate and that the wounds didn’t align. 

It is truly troubling, then, that on June 4, 1964 Thomas Kelley testified that the location for the chalk mark used during the re-enactment was "fixed from" CE 386. As shown on the slide above, the entrance on this drawing was inches away from the entrance used during the re-enactment. While it's true, for that matter, that Kelley claimed they'd also conducted "an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time" this actually makes matters worse, as it suggests that the bullet hole on the coat aligned with the wound on CE 386, when the fact was their examination of the coat, if anything, proved the wound to have been inches lower than on CE 386, in alignment with the wound on the autopsy photo. (The 1977 testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt in a civil suit brought by Harold Weisberg confirmed that the coat was at Kelley's and Specter's disposal during the re-enactment.)

That Kelley's inaccurate testimony was no simple mistake becomes clear, moreover, once one realizes that the man taking his testimony, and leading him to make such a claim, was someone who undoubtedly knew better--you guessed it, Arlen Specter.

And it's even worse than that. Not only did Specter extract false testimony from Kelley regarding the source of the chalk mark used in the re-enactment, he asked Kelley if Exhibit 386 was the "basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck." Well, this was in striking contrast to Specter's former descriptions of the wound. 

Here, then is a quick recap of Specter's earlier descriptions of this wound: 

1-23-64 statement of objectives: “There would seem to be considerable amount of confusion as to the actual path of the bullets which hit President Kennedy, particularly the one which hit the right side of the back.”                                                                                                                     

3-12-64 memo Specter to Rankin on a 3-11-64 meeting with Dr.s Humes, Boswell, and Galloway: "All three described the bullet wound on President Kennedy's back as being a point of entrance."       (And then later) "According to Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeons hypothesized that the bullet might have been forced out the back of the President on the application of external heart massage..."                                                                                                                       

3-16-64 testimony of the autopsy doctors: Specter asks Dr. Humes about a wound in the “upper part of the back” and “the President’s back or lower neck” and asks Dr. Finck about a “back wound.”

4-30-64 memo Specter to Rankin: "Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head." (And then later) “It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President’s back so that the angle may be calculated.”

5-12-64 memo Specter to Rankin: (It is essential that) “The photographs and x-rays confirm the precise location of the wound of entrance in the upper back of the President as depicted in Commission Exhibits 385 and 386.” (And then later) “The characteristics of the wounds on the President’s back and on the back of his head should be examined closely in the photographs and x-rays...”

So, yeah, it seems mighty suspicious that, subsequent to 5-24-64, when he was shown a photo of a back wound, Specter would suddenly start calling this wound a neck wound. 

But it's even worse than that. Not only did Specter, during Kelley's 6-4-64 testimony, start calling the back wound a neck wound, he cut off and corrected Kelley when Kelley started to call it a shoulder wound.  

Mr. KELLEY. From the evidence that has been shown previously, the wound in the throat was lower on the President's body than the wound in the shoulder, and---- 
Mr. SPECTER. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the back of the President's neck, the base of his neck? 
Mr. KELLEY. Yes.

Specter's behavior is not just suspicious, then, it's incredibly suspicious. It smells to high heaven. It seems obvious, then, that Specter and Kelley were conspiring to keep from the record that Specter had looked at an autopsy photograph that proved the Rydberg drawings--already part of the record--inaccurate. 

As FBI agent Robert Frazier, only moments later, told Commissioner Allen Dulles that the location of the chalk mark used in the re-enactment was determined by the measurements on the face sheet, Kelley’s lie may also have been designed to hide that these measurements proved the wound Specter had taken to claiming was on the back of Kennedy's neck...was really inches lower on his back.

 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Have you ever admitted on your site that Humes told the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn that he not only incinerated his notes but his original autopsy report also?

Oh, sure. I certainly have. The topic of Dr. Humes burning the first draft of the autopsy report and his blood-stained notes has come up many times in the discussions I have archived at my site. For some examples, CLICK HERE.

And, BTW, Humes first testified about the burning of the first draft of the autopsy report in his 1964 Warren Commission testimony. That subject didn't first come up in the 1990s with the ARRB. Humes said this to Arlen Specter on Page 373 of WC Volume 2....

"In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room."

And Humes also testified in 1964 that he had "destroyed certain preliminary draft notes" (also at 2 H 373). The specific reason for the burning of the notes (the blood stains) was not mentioned by Humes in his Warren Commission testimony, however. But, as we can see, Humes admitted to having "burned" and "destroyed" both the first draft of the autopsy report and some draft notes during his WC testimony in 1964.

 

Quote

Have you ever indicated on you [site] that his original BS story about not having the blood of the president on [the] report as a souvenir was a pile of BS since he wrote the report in the confines of his home?

Dr. Humes never said the burned first draft of the autopsy report had any blood on it. The blood was only on the notes, not the "report".

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I must admit I do agree with DVP on something, and that is that Specter knew the actual location of the back wound

Pat and David are allies in the attempt to make the Fox 5 autopsy photo the sun around which all the back wound evidence revolves.

In any other murder case the physical evidence recovered with the body is the sun around which all other evidence revolves.

Pat and David put the wound at the top of the back, but the bullet defects in the clothes are consistent with a location just below the upper margin of the scapula, just to the right of the Third Thoracic Vertebra.

At 4 inches below the collars, the bullet holes in the clothes needed to elevate a full two inches to the top of the back -- without pushing up on the jacket collar.

This event has never been replicated; it's disingenuous to insist it occurred with JFK.

Quote

It is truly troubling, then, that on June 4, 1964 Thomas Kelley testified that the location for the chalk mark used during the re-enactment was "fixed from" CE 386. As shown on the slide above, the entrance on this drawing was inches away from the entrance used during the re-enactment. While it's true, for that matter, that Kelley claimed they'd also conducted "an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time" this actually makes matters worse, as it suggests that the bullet hole on the coat aligned with the wound on CE 386, when the fact was their examination of the coat, if anything, proved the wound to have been inches lower than on CE 386, in alignment with the wound on the autopsy photo

Pure hogwash!  The top of the back is not 4 inches below the bottom of a clothing collar.

I've been pointing this out to Pat Speer since he appeared on the scene in 2003 and he refuses to stand corrected.

Same with David.  The guy admits JFK's jacket was only elevated "a little bit" on Elm St. but he refuses to stand corrected.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Now, if these were all burned how do we know what was in them?

Especially in relation to a part of McKnight's book, p. 162.

 

Let me quote from my review:

But with this established, Specter and Humes moved on to a second deception. Namely that Commission Exhibit 397 was the documentary record upon which the official autopsy report was based. This exhibit consisted of a set of notes, and the handwritten revision of the incinerated draft of the autopsy report. One of the note pages was the autopsy "face sheet" (body diagram with wounds marked), and the others were notes of Humes' talk with Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland Hospital about the tracheotomy he had performed on President Kennedy in Dallas. But this cannot be the entire record since the final, single-spaced, 6-page autopsy report contains many facts that are not contained in these documents. After a thorough analysis, McKnight concludes:

There are, give or take, about eighty-eight autopsy "facts" in the official prosectors' report. About sixty-four of these "facts" or pieces of medicolegal information (almost 75%) cannot be found in either the published notes or CE 397. Some fifteen of these pieces of information involve measurements and numbers that are not found in the published record. (p. 162)

So where did these other "facts" come from?