Jump to content
The Education Forum

FBI agent James Sibert talks about JFK's wounds and the autopsy


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Transcript:

James Sibert: They got this sheet unwrapped off the head, there was a big gaping hole in the right rear of the head back here by the cowlick part. And he said in, apparent surgery of the head, in the head area. So, we made notes of this. Gerald Ford had the description of the wound to the back, which actually had entered five and a half inches below the collar, changed to describe it as having entered at the base of the back of the neck. He, he admitted this when the, uh, AARB (sic) people contact him by phone, he admitted that he had made this change. Specter said “Sibert said he didn’t make any notes.” And he said, “O’Neil made just a few and destroyed them.” And when I read that, I could feel the heat coming up on the back of my neck. And I made this statement, and it’s in the record, in the archives: “That’s a false statement.”

Edited by Denny Zartman
Corrected misspelled name
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Transcript:

James Siebert: They got this sheet unwrapped off the head, there was a big gaping hole in the right rear of the head back here by the cowlick part. And he said in, apparent surgery of the head, in the head area. So, we made notes of this. Gerald Ford had the description of the wound to the back, which actually had entered five and a half inches below the collar, changed to describe it as having entered at the base of the back of the neck. He, he admitted this when the, uh, AARB (sic) people contact him by phone, he admitted that he had made this change. Specter said “Siebert said he didn’t make any notes.” And he said, “O’Neil made just a few and destroyed them.” And when I read that, I could feel the heat coming up on the back of my neck. And I made this statement, and it’s in the record, in the archives: “That’s a false statement.”

THANKS!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vince Palamara said:

THANKS!

Did he witness the type of casket that JFK's body was in?

In David Lifton's 'Best Evidence' Sibert's report states:-"When the body was removed from the coffin and the wrapping taken off".

Did he ever describe the Dallas coffin or a shipping casket?

Edited by Pete Mellor
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm happy to do it, thank you for all your research and your willingness to share!

my pleasure!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Did he witness the type of casket that JFK's body was in?

In David Lifton's 'Best Evidence' Sibert's report states:-"When the body was removed from the coffin and the wrapping taken off".

Did he ever describe the Dallas coffin or a shipping casket?

good question-I will have to check. My first thought is that he was one of the official casket witnesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

good question-I will have to check. My first thought is that he was one of the official casket witnesses.

Sibert and O'Neil's 302 report states "The president's body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table".

As the FBI agents were in the Andrews AFB to Bethesda motorcade they must have been referring to the Dallas casket.  Contrary to Dennis David's + others stated arrival

time & shipping casket.  Another mystery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 7:23 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Did he witness the type of casket that JFK's body was in?

In David Lifton's 'Best Evidence' Sibert's report states:-"When the body was removed from the coffin and the wrapping taken off".

Did he ever describe the Dallas coffin or a shipping casket?

I believe that the exact quote was that "the body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported" (per Pete Mellor, above). The point is: that the coffin [in which the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue, a shipping casket] was distinctly different from the four-hundred pound ceremonial casket which was in the Navy ambulance (and in which Jackie and RFK arrived at Bethesda).  From the language in their FBI report, it seems clear that the two FBI agents were making an explicit distinction between two separate coffins: the one that was in the naval ambulance (in which Jacqueline and Bobby had been riding from Andrews Air Force Base) and the one in which JFK's body was delivered to the morgue.  

So exactly what did the FBI agents know, and when did they know it? (To use Sen. Howard Baker's question, from Watergate). 

The more I studied this (years ago), the more it seemed evident to me that the two FBI agents must have been aware that two coffins were used, and that the one in the Navy ambulance (arriving from Andrews AFB) was empty.  However: this does not mean that they knew (or truly understood) the full ramifications of what they were witnessing--i.e., how this deception worked;  just that something strange or peculiar was going on.  Bottom line: they may not have understood the details, or grasped all the implications, but its hard to believe that they were completely duped (or unaware).

So they (or one of them) made notes, and then dictated an important, and detailed report-- which, please note, was not typed up until November 26th, 1963.* (Which raises another question:  why four days later?)

*Note the three (3) separate dates on each FBI "302" report: lower left, lower right. upper right.

  But no one (as far as I know) ever "blew the whistle" or spelled out the details of the deception that they witnessed (or even wrote anything down which suggested that they understood what  I would call "the wider implications."  Another point (and an important one): what did RFK know, and when did he know it?

One final point: remember the sentence in the S & O report where they wrote (i.e., where their report states) that the Navy autopsy doctors were "at a loss explain" why they could find no bullets?  IMHO:  you don't write a sentence like that unless you have a specific awareness that something peculiar is going on -- even if you cannot figure it out.

 DSL (2/03/21; 3:30 PST)

 

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

One final point: remember the sentence in the S & O report where they wrote (i.e., where their report states) that the Navy autopsy doctors were "at a loss explain" why they could find no bullets?  IMHO:  you don't write a sentence like that unless you have a specific awareness that something peculiar is going on -- even if you cannot figure it out.

 DSL (2/03/21; 3:30 PST)

 

But the autopsists weren’t entirely at a loss when they asked the FBI guys about the possibility JFK was hit with hi-tech rounds that wouldn’t leave a trace.

S & O left that part out of their report, coming clean on the matter for the HSCA in ‘78.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But the autopsists weren’t entirely at a loss when they asked the FBI guys about the possibility JFK was hit with hi-tech rounds that wouldn’t leave a trace.

S & O left that part out of their report, coming clean on the matter for the HSCA in ‘78.

I suppose "hi tech rounds the wouldn't leave a trace" is a possibility.  But I prefer the more probable explanation: that they were puzzled because they could find no bullets; and expected to find (one or more) bullets (or substantial size fragments) because of the wound geometry.  For example (and I'm writing this from recollection). . . Humes found a bruise atop the right lung, and testified to that, in detail.  So I believe that based on the wound geometry (entry in the neck, based on news reports, for example), Humes' expectation --most likely (if he was relying on "Dallas information"--was that he expected there to be a retrievable missile in the body, in the upper right thorax area.  

 As for Sibert's call to the FBI Laboratory  the more plausible explanation (IMHO)  is that he had been informed by SS Agent Kellerman that a bullet had been found on a Dallas stretcher, and had been told that that missile had been brought to the FBI Lab.  In your hypothesized scenario, you believe the phone call was made to inquire about some sort of exotic ammunition.  Yes, that is a possibility, but I think the the more plausible explanation is what I have hypothesized above.   Which brings me to the next point.

NEXT POINT:  There another point I'd like to raise. In the 55 plus years since Dallas, has anyone ever filed an FOIA request for any FBI Lab record re incoming phone cals that night; and, specifically,  memorandum or notes about that specific telephone call? The FBI is famous for saving various notes and documents, and I would think its never too late to file a request for any such record. Has such an FOIA request been made?  (DSL 2/4/2021; 7:10 PM PST)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...