Jump to content
The Education Forum

RARE: HSCA Testimony of JFK autopsy Dr. James J. Humes 1978


Recommended Posts

Vince Palamara just posted a gem - the video footage of Humes' testimony to the HSCA. David Lifton was right, about seeing Dr. Humes fists literally shaking in anger from the panel's dismissal of his opinions (probably his opinions on the EOP wound. Humes is visibly pissed off while having to play along with the panel, and some of his responses even seem sarcastic. TOTALLY brings something the transcript couldn't. Love how the slimy HSCA guys are all dressed like used car salesmen.

 

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent find.I can't help but want Humes to burn in hell for agreeing with the Ida Dox drawing,but I think that he was being manipulated by his superiors.I also don't like his time of 7:35 for when the body arrived.There was two instances that I believe that he was trying to tell us something in Best Evidence.

One was where he said that it was impossible for the head wound to not be an entrance or a exit wound.

The second was where he said after preliminary inspection of the body.

Maybe David Lifton will see this & correct the wording.My copy and my other books about the assassination are in storage.

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2022 at 11:53 PM, Michael Crane said:

Excellent find.I can't help but want Humes to burn in hell for agreeing with the Ida Dox drawing, but I think that he was being manipulated by his superiors.I also don't like his time of 7:30 for the start of the autopsy.There was two instances that I believe that he was trying to tell us something in Best Evidence.

One was where he said that it was impossible for the head wound to not be an entrance or a exit wound.

The second was where he said after preliminary inspection of the body.

Maybe David Lifton will see this & correct the wording.My copy and my other books about the assassination are in storage.

(Edited and revised from original post; 5/16/22, 10:30 PM).

Some points.  I was there (in 1978), in the broadcast booth of WETA, the PBS station in Washington, D.C., when Humes testified.  Please keep in mind: The Ida Dox drawings were prepared by Ida Dox, working under Humes' verbal direction (my point being: Why wouldn't he agree with a drawing prepared under his direction?)  As to the "start time" of the autopsy: According to Specter's Preliminary Report (dated Feb. 1964, available in the Warren Commission "Office Files"): that time was 8 PM.   OTOH: Keep in mind that FBI Agent Sibert, based on his notes, wrote in his report (the S & O report, which is CD 7)), that the "first incision" was made at 8:15 PM.

How much blame can be ascribed to Commanders Humes (and Boswell)?

He was in an impossible situation. I would be careful about being angry with Humes. Humes was not the problem: The problem was "the body."  Do keep this in mind: without Humes' highly descriptive and detailed autopsy report (and testimony)-- there would have been no Liebeler Memorandum; and (for example) I could never have written Best Evidence.  Humes did not "rubber stamp" a medical forgery.  The autopsy report he wrote (along with his testimony) is suffused with broad hints as to what was going on. (And I did my best to spell this out in Best Evidence.) But the phrase "medical forgery" does not appear in the autopsy report he wrote, or in his WC testimony.  

Consider Humes's position on November 22, 1963.  The President of the United States was murdered in Dallas.  Humes was told that he had been selected to do the autopsy.  The body arrived at Bethesda and was brought into the Bethesda morgue. It was placed on the autopsy table; and it was immediately obvious that there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "medical alteration" of the body: "surgery of the head area, namely.in the top of the skull," according to the report of the two FBI Agents present.

Humes points all this out, and the agents made notes, including that exact statement (about pre-autopsy) in their report.  But Humes never took the next step: he never said: "Do you people understand what I'm saying?  Do I have to spell it out for you?"   Humes' partner and co-autopsy surgeon (Boswell, Chief of Pathology) turned over the piece of paper used to note the wounds;  and, -- on the opposite side--  sketched a diagram describing the huge size of the hole in JFK's head.  He wrote "10x 17" [cm] and added the word "missing".(See WCE 397, of the WC's 26 volumes).

Here's the question: What was Humes supposed to do (as I used to say): "Call the Maryland State Police?"  To repeat: He was in an impossible situation.  IThe rest is history: Humes wrote an autopsy report practically spelling out the fact that the President's body had been altered. [See B.E., Ch  7 - 9]; and then testified to that, to the Warren Commission, as well.

Nov. 1966 -- when I called Humes (twice)

Now "flash forward" to November 1966: its me, a UCLA  graduate student, calling Humes.  I got him on the phone (all this was recorded) and I confronted him with the blunt and explicit statement in the FBI report stating that (by the time the body was received at Bethesda), there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  I cross-examined him sharply about this statement, talked about UCLA Law Prof. Liebeler (who had been on the Warren Commission, which was then very much in the news); and then--apparently realizing that I knew the record fairly well -- he responded. His voice sharply raised, he said, "I'd like to know by whom it was done! (voice raised), and when !  . . and where!" (See Best Evidence for a detailed discussion of my conversations with Humes).

Bottom line (IMHO): Humes knew that the (President's) body (i.e., the wounds) had been altered. There's no other reasonable way to interpret what he said to me.  Until that moment, I was dealing with a hypothesis.  But once Humes had that exasperated outburst, and blurted out what he did, there was not the slightest doubt in my mind; and I thought: "OMG. . .Humes knows!"  No longer was it a hypothesis -- I had just received what amounted to verbal confirmation from the naval officer who performed the Bethesda autopsy -- the autopsy which was the legal foundation for the major conclusions of the Warren Commission-- was a fraud.  A medico-legal fraud. That realization was a moment I will never forget. (See Chs. 7 -9, Best Evidence, for details).

Now let's turn to March 1964, when Commander Humes testified before the Warren Commission.

March 1964

If WC Atty. Arlen Specter had done his job, then --instead of constructing his  "single bullet theory" --he would have conducted a proper investigation aimed at exploring the integrity of the President's body.  He would have asked: how was it that JFK's body had arrived at Bethesda "already altered."  I'll always remember Specter's initial reaction to my discovery (as relayed to me by Prof. Liebeler [on Oct. 24, 1966] immediately after speaking with him): "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact."

Another point:  Addressing the question of trajectory, Humes (under oath, before the Warren Commission) made the bizarre statement:  that it was impossible for the bullet to have done anything other but "entered from behind"; and to have "exited" from behind(!)  As I wrote in Best Evidence, Humes was able to disguise the truth, by using technical language to talk in riddles, and disguise the truth about President Kennedy's body. (Again, see B.E. for my discussion of Humes' ability to talk in riddles.) (DSL, 4/8/22, 4 AM PST; 5/16/22, 10:30 PM, PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Added info, for clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Some points.  I was there, in the broadcast booth of WETA, the PBS station in Washington, D.C. Please keep in mind: The Ida Dox drawings were prepared by Ida Dox, working under Humes' verbal direction (my point being: Why wouldn't he agree with a drawing prepared under his direction?  Please explain.)  As to the "start time" of the autopsy: According to Specter's Preliminary Report (dated Feb. 1964): that time was 8 PM.   OTOH: Keep in mind that FBI Agent Sibert, based on his notes, wrote in his report (the S & O report, which is CD 7)), that the "first incision" was made at 8:15 PM.

I don't understand why you are so angry with Humes.  Consider his position on November 22, 1963.  The President of the United States is murdered in Dallas.  He is told that he has been ordered to do the autopsy.  The body is brought into the Bethesda morgue, placed on the autopsy table; and its obvious that there has "medical alteration" of the body.  What was he supposed to do (as I used to say): "Call the Maryland State Police?"  Instead, he writes an autopsy report practically spelling out the fact that the President's body had been altered. (See B.E., Ch  7 - 9).

Now "flash forward" to November 1966: its me, a UCLA  graduate student, calling Humes.  I get him on the phone (all this was recorded) and I confront him with the blunt and explicit statement in the FBI report that (by the time the body was received at Bethesda), that there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  I cross examine him sharply about this statement, and now--apparently realizing that I know the record -- he responds.  The mask drops and he says, voice sharply raised,  "I'd like to know by whom it was done! (voice raised), and when!  . . and where!" (See Best Evidence for a detailed discussion of my conversation with Humes).

Bottom line: Humes knew the body (i.e., the wounds) had been altered.

If WC Atty. Arlen Specter had done his job, then --instead of constructing his "single bullet theory" --he would have conducted a proper investigation aimed at the integrity of the President's body , and how it was that JFK's body had arrived at Bethesda "already altered."  I'll always remember Specter's initial reaction to my discovery (as relayed by Prof. Liebeler, immediately after speaking with him): "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." (Quoting Liebeler, on 10/24/66)

Addressing the question of trajectory, Humes makes that weird statement -- that it was impossible for the bullet to have done anything but "entered from behind"; or to have "exited" from behind.  Humes was able to disguise the truth, by using technical language to talk in riddles, and disguise the truth about President Kennedy's body. (Again, see B.E. for my discussion of Humes' ability to talk in riddles.) (DSL, 4/8/22, 4 AM PST)

I would love to hear the audio of your conversation with Dr. Hume. Can you post it online? If you have already, can you link?

 

Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Some points.  I was there, in the broadcast booth of WETA, the PBS station in Washington, D.C. Please keep in mind: The Ida Dox drawings were prepared by Ida Dox, working under Humes' verbal direction (my point being: Why wouldn't he agree with a drawing prepared under his direction?  Please explain.)  As to the "start time" of the autopsy: According to Specter's Preliminary Report (dated Feb. 1964): that time was 8 PM.   OTOH: Keep in mind that FBI Agent Sibert, based on his notes, wrote in his report (the S & O report, which is CD 7)), that the "first incision" was made at 8:15 PM.

I don't understand why you are so angry with Humes.  Consider his position on November 22, 1963.  The President of the United States is murdered in Dallas.  He is told that he has been ordered to do the autopsy.  The body is brought into the Bethesda morgue, placed on the autopsy table; and its obvious that there has "medical alteration" of the body.  What was he supposed to do (as I used to say): "Call the Maryland State Police?"  Instead, he writes an autopsy report practically spelling out the fact that the President's body had been altered. (See B.E., Ch  7 - 9).

Now "flash forward" to November 1966: its me, a UCLA  graduate student, calling Humes.  I get him on the phone (all this was recorded) and I confront him with the blunt and explicit statement in the FBI report that (by the time the body was received at Bethesda), that there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  I cross examine him sharply about this statement, and now--apparently realizing that I know the record -- he responds.  The mask drops and he says, voice sharply raised,  "I'd like to know by whom it was done! (voice raised), and when!  . . and where!" (See Best Evidence for a detailed discussion of my conversation with Humes).

Bottom line: Humes knew the body (i.e., the wounds) had been altered.

If WC Atty. Arlen Specter had done his job, then --instead of constructing his "single bullet theory" --he would have conducted a proper investigation aimed at the integrity of the President's body , and how it was that JFK's body had arrived at Bethesda "already altered."  I'll always remember Specter's initial reaction to my discovery (as relayed by Prof. Liebeler, immediately after speaking with him): "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." (Quoting Liebeler, on 10/24/66)

Addressing the question of trajectory, Humes makes that weird statement -- that it was impossible for the bullet to have done anything but "entered from behind"; or to have "exited" from behind.  Humes was able to disguise the truth, by using technical language to talk in riddles, and disguise the truth about President Kennedy's body. (Again, see B.E. for my discussion of Humes' ability to talk in riddles.) (DSL, 4/8/22, 4 AM PST)

David- you were there with Sanford Unger and a reporter, right? I saw that a while ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry David,but I revisited my post & realized that I had made an error in what I wanted to say.The part that I need to change is Humes saying that the body arrived there at 7:35 - 7:40.

I'm disgusted with Humes because he knows that is not the condition of the head when it arrived.In all of my time learning about the assassination of JFK,I believe that Dr McClelland got the closest when describing the original size of the back of the head wound only a little smaller.

image.jpeg.86e5907b8921fbf4594c7544af68a100.jpeg

 

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Some points.  I was there, in the broadcast booth of WETA, the PBS station in Washington, D.C. Please keep in mind: The Ida Dox drawings were prepared by Ida Dox, working under Humes' verbal direction (my point being: Why wouldn't he agree with a drawing prepared under his direction?  Please explain.)  As to the "start time" of the autopsy: According to Specter's Preliminary Report (dated Feb. 1964): that time was 8 PM.   OTOH: Keep in mind that FBI Agent Sibert, based on his notes, wrote in his report (the S & O report, which is CD 7)), that the "first incision" was made at 8:15 PM.

I don't understand why you are so angry with Humes.  Consider his position on November 22, 1963.  The President of the United States is murdered in Dallas.  He is told that he has been ordered to do the autopsy.  The body is brought into the Bethesda morgue, placed on the autopsy table; and its obvious that there has "medical alteration" of the body.  What was he supposed to do (as I used to say): "Call the Maryland State Police?"  Instead, he writes an autopsy report practically spelling out the fact that the President's body had been altered. (See B.E., Ch  7 - 9).

Now "flash forward" to November 1966: its me, a UCLA  graduate student, calling Humes.  I get him on the phone (all this was recorded) and I confront him with the blunt and explicit statement in the FBI report that (by the time the body was received at Bethesda), that there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  I cross examine him sharply about this statement, and now--apparently realizing that I know the record -- he responds.  The mask drops and he says, voice sharply raised,  "I'd like to know by whom it was done! (voice raised), and when!  . . and where!" (See Best Evidence for a detailed discussion of my conversation with Humes).

Bottom line: Humes knew the body (i.e., the wounds) had been altered.

If WC Atty. Arlen Specter had done his job, then --instead of constructing his "single bullet theory" --he would have conducted a proper investigation aimed at the integrity of the President's body , and how it was that JFK's body had arrived at Bethesda "already altered."  I'll always remember Specter's initial reaction to my discovery (as relayed by Prof. Liebeler, immediately after speaking with him): "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." (Quoting Liebeler, on 10/24/66)

Addressing the question of trajectory, Humes makes that weird statement -- that it was impossible for the bullet to have done anything but "entered from behind"; or to have "exited" from behind.  Humes was able to disguise the truth, by using technical language to talk in riddles, and disguise the truth about President Kennedy's body. (Again, see B.E. for my discussion of Humes' ability to talk in riddles.) (DSL, 4/8/22, 4 AM PST)

Quick correction, David. The Dox drawings were made for the HSCA. Humes had nothing to do with them. It was Baden who directed her every move, including that the non-hole "hole" in the cowlick needed to be made to look more like a bullet wound. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a 1/18/1996 ARRB interview with former HSCA staffer Dr. Donald A. Purdy:

Purdy: During the course of that meeting, as I think the transcript shows, when they were- in fact, somebody said 'this shouldn't- we shouldn't even be recording this'. And I think it was Petty who took, I believe it was Humes, out of the room to basically set him straight. Basically 'you're just wrong, you're just clearly wrong, this is not something evidentiary'... And that's why they keep things on- is the whole thing altered or whatever. It's like Humes is lying, we don't even have to. Or he's mistaken, or he's being overly firm about something that doesn't have evidentiary significance. And unless he takes his stupid, incompetent position, which is the lower thing's the entrance hole. I mean, we're practically- he's practically down to the shirt.

(Audio, part 1, 31:39)

More, from Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, Chapter 13:

In 1996 HSCA counsel Andy Purdy told the ARRB that after Humes made his comments about the panel's presumed bullet hole being nothing but "clotted blood," Dr. Charles Petty took Humes outside and yelled at him. And this wasn't just Purdy's fantasy. In a 2-20-2000 meeting with researchers, Dr. Michael Baden not only confirmed Purdy's story, but built upon it. He re-constructed Petty's words to Humes for dramatic effect, and had Petty call Humes a "God-damned jackass."

Dr. Humes was set to testify to the HSCA live on public television 9/7/1978. Gary Cornwell, the Committee's chief counsel Deputy Chief Counsel, bragged about intimidating Humes in his own 1998 book Real Answers. Obviously, Cornwell was a big believer of the "cowlick" wound theory. From pages 71-74:

Based upon the work of our panel, I was able to get the main doctor who performed the original autopsy to admit some of his errors during my cross-examination of him in our public hearings-but not without a lot of hair raising resistance from one of the Select Committee's own forensic pathologists. Late in the evening of September 6, 1978, I was working in my office, preparing to cross-exam Captain James J. Humes, M.D., who was scheduled to testify at the committee hearings the following afternoon, live, on national television. After completing his residency in pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in 1956, Captain Humes became the chief of anatomic pathology at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in 1960, and the director of the laboratories at the National Medical Center in 1961. It was because he held that respected position that he was chosen to be in charge of the autopsy of President Kennedy.

As I prepared for my cross-examination of Captain Humes, and studied in detail the conclusions of our photographic experts and our panel of forensic pathologists, I realized that Captain Humes’ errors in conducting the autopsy had been the cause of many misplaced conspiracy theories over the years. And I came to the conclusion that when he had been questioned under oath on prior occasions, Captain Humes had not told the truth about the facts in an apparent attempt to cover up his own mistakes, and that I could prove it!

Around 9:30 p.m., just as I was finishing the outline of my questioning for the next day, one of the doctors on our forensic pathology panel walked by my office door. Feeling what admittedly may have been excessive trial lawyer enthusiasm, I called for the doctor to come in and told him of my intentions: “Humes has been lying all of these years, and I am going to destroy him!” The Committee’s doctor replied, “You cannot do that, Humes is a very respected man!” My cavalier response was something to the effect, “What difference does that make, he hasn’t been telling the truth, has he?” The conversation ended-without my realizing the note on which it had ended.

The next day, at the end of the lunch hour, as the television camera lights were being turned on for the afternoon session and I was going over my outline of questions in final preparation to cross-examine Dr. Humes, my pathologist came up to the podium and anxiously said that he had to talk to me. I asked him what the problem was and he said he had taken Humes to lunch and told Humes exactly what my questions were going to be, and that Humes was ready to confess that his original autopsy report was wrong! I was furious. Within minutes, I would have to start questioning Humes. I had the terrible sinking feeling that all of the drama that I had structured my questioning to achieve-the extraction of the truth, Perry Mason style-had just been destroyed by the well-meaning efforts of a doctor who had decided to take it upon himself to save his fellow colleague from public embarrassment.

I went with him and met Humes. What he said was accurate, Humes was ready to admit the errors in his prior testimony. I rushed back to the podium and frantically restructured my outline of questions in light of the development.

 

Lifton said that, when he worked as a commentator for the Washington PBS station WETA covering the HSCA hearings, he noticed that Dr. Humes' hands were literally trembling after testifying, apparently in anger:

The Committee had tried to impeach his testimony, which stood in the way of their analysis. He should have had legal representation.

Sitting next to him, I could see that Humes' hands were trembling.

I asked him: "Dr. Humes, why don't you have a lawyer?"

He replied: "I don't need a lawyer. I have nothing to hide."

I said nothing more, and returned to the WETA booth.*

(Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David S. Lifton, 1980)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had added next to nothing to my website since beginning my fight against leukemia last year, but the ridiculousness of one part of Humes' testimony inspired me to add a slide today. Here it is. 

 

fourinchmigration.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about dishonest.  To show him a drawing and not to reveal it was advised by Baden, and then not to reveal that it was actually encouraged by Baden in order to misrepresent whatever that is in the cowlick area.  To the point of creating the illusion of cratering.

I refer you to Tim Smith's expose of this charade.  Which is the best I have seen.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mysteries-around-ida-dox

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am undecided on Hulme's testimony. The problem of an alleged bullet entry location in the back of the head is absolutely not "semantics". If Hulme's original location is correct the Z film is incorrect (shot angle wrong) . If the HSCA is right, Hulme's lied originally and I believe he returned to that position. John Hunt demonstrated, that the HSCA Forensics Panel were not honest in their conclusions, particularly in their portrayal of Dr Angel's findings on fragment location.

I know this is not a commonly held view but I lean to believing Hulmes' original location. I believe his embarrassing problem was that by the HSCA his evidence suggested film alteration. An untenable position, so he obfuscated the location. I think the back of the head photo fails to show a bullet hole because the scalp sagged over the hole. The autopsy surgeons were probably disturbed in 1966 to see an inconclusive photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic,but I was always confused when I seen that X-ray of president Kennedy's skull.I was always under the interpretation that the dark circle hole area was in back of the head and not the side.Anybody know why it's hard to find David Mantik's claims of some x-rays being altered on Youtube?

Maybe it was possible that the x-ray was taken after the morticians packed the cranium with Plaster of Paris?

Edited by Michael Crane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

A little off topic,but I was always confused when I seen that X-ray of president Kennedy's skull.I was always under the interpretation that the dark circle hole area was in back of the head and not the side.Anybody know why it's hard to find David Mantik's claims of some x-rays being altered on Youtube?

Maybe it was possible that the x-ray was taken after the morticians packed the cranium with Plaster of Paris?

The X-rays make perfect sense and are perfectly consistent with the autopsy photos. Mantik's initial claim was that a white patch had been added to the back of the head on the x-rays to cover up a hole. When I pointed out that the so-called white patch was not on the back of the head but on the side of the head, he changed his tune and began claiming the white patch didn't cover up a hole, but an area of missing brain. This came as news to his biggest supporter, Fetzer, who had been telling people for years that Mantik had proved there was a white patch added to the far back of the head. 

The dark circle you see on the lateral x-ray, moreover, does not represent missing skull, but thin skull on the side of the head. There is missing skull on the frontal bone, and at the top of the head in the parietal area. This would presumably mark the locations of the skull fragments blasted from the skull, including the Harper fragment and large triangular fragment. 

Reading skull x-rays is confusing and is most certainly not for everyone. When discerning what is a hole, etc, one must take into account that the relative whiteness of an area is conditioned on the thickness of the skull, the density of the brain, and the settings on the x-ray machine. There are two settings that affect the appearance, moreover, the intensity of the x-rays and the length of exposure. 

Humes said something in his testimony, btw, that was positively laughable. He said the entrance wound up by the cowlick was more apparent on the A-P x-ray than the lateral  x-ray. One wound not expect to find an entrance on the back of the head on an A-P x-ray. The large fractures one can see on the A-P x-ray that the HSCA presumed were on the back of the head were actually in the eye sockets. This is discussed and demonstrated at great length on my website.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am undecided on Hulme's testimony. The problem of an alleged bullet entry location in the back of the head is absolutely not "semantics". If Hulme's original location is correct the Z film is incorrect (shot angle wrong) . If the HSCA is right, Hulme's lied originally and I believe he returned to that position. John Hunt demonstrated, that the HSCA Forensics Panel were not honest in their conclusions, particularly in their portrayal of Dr Angel's findings on fragment location.

I know this is not a commonly held view but I lean to believing Hulmes' original location. I believe his embarrassing problem was that by the HSCA his evidence suggested film alteration. An untenable position, so he obfuscated the location. I think the back of the head photo fails to show a bullet hole because the scalp sagged over the hole. The autopsy surgeons were probably disturbed in 1966 to see an inconclusive photo.

Humes' original location was backed up by all the eye-witnesses who saw an entrance wound on the back of the head. This location became a problem when Thompson's book came out and proved a trajectory through this location failed to match up with Kennedy's position at Z-312. So Ramsey Clark convened a secret panel that moved the location to a red spot which no one but no one who saw the body thought was a hole. They had a radiologist on this panel, moreover, who coughed up that a hole was readily apparent on the back of the head on the x-rays. He even provided measurements for this hole, both on the inside of the skull and the outside of the skull. Subsequent experts, while willing to play along and claim the evidence suggested an entrance wound at the red spot, could not bring themselves to sign off on the precise measurements provided by the secret panel. And there's a reason for this. Because they were absurd. 

One of the great tragedies about this case, in my opinion, is that people got seduced by claims of alteration, etc. When the evidence has been clear since 1969 that no alteration would have been necessary, as Government lackeys were willing to lie and just make stuff up to sell the single-assassin theory. 

Now, to be clear, the reason I consider this a tragedy is that the focus on things that can never be proven took the focus off people who should have been held accountable for their provable lies, such as Specter, Fisher, Morgan, and Baden.

 

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...