The (laughable) SBT

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, the autopsy physicians were, indeed, "pathologists". But they have also been referred to as "surgeons" as well....including here (twice) on page 60 of the Warren Report.

 

I'm not aware of any THIRD attempt by Dr. Humes at writing the final autopsy report. I only know of two such efforts by Humes, which was due to the fact that the first draft of the autopsy report contained some errors, which an irritated Dr. Humes attempted to clarify (at least in part) during his ARRB testimony session in February of 1996:

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- Well, it [the first draft of the autopsy report] may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know. I can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I apologize for that. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't want anything to remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don't know. But it doesn't make any difference because that was my decision and mine alone. Nobody else's.

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

And as for any "confirmation" of the autopsy doctors physically searching for bullets inside President Kennedy's body, we have that confirmation in Dr. Humes' WC testimony  (at 2 H 364)....

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- Before the arrival of Colonel Finck, we had made X-rays of the head, neck and torso of the President, and the upper portions of his major extremities, or both his upper and lower extremities. At Colonel Finck's suggestion, we then completed the X-ray examination by X-raying the President's body in toto, and those X-rays are available.

ARLEN SPECTER -- What did those X-rays disclose with respect to the possible presence of a missile in the President's body?

DR. HUMES -- They showed no evidence of a missile in the President's body at any point. And these were examined by ourselves and by the radiologist, who assisted us in this endeavor.
 

I believe he roasted his notes on the old chestnut fire also, yes?

[David Von Pein]

41 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I believe he roasted his notes on the old chestnut fire also, yes?

Yes, Dr. Humes did burn his original autopsy notes in his home fireplace on 11/24/63. And the reason why he burned those notes is a very logical and sensible reason, as Dr. Humes himself explained in his HSCA testimony on September 7, 1978 (at 1 HSCA 330)....

DR. HUMES -- "The original notes which were stained with the blood of our late President, I felt, were inappropriate to retain to turn in to anyone in that condition. I felt that people with some peculiar ideas about the value of that type of material, they might fall into their hands. I sat down and word for word copied what I had on fresh paper."

MR. CORNWELL -- "And then destroyed them?"

DR. HUMES -- "Destroyed the ones that were stained with the President's blood."

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

Related discussion from September 2010:

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID -- "Autopsy report number one: Burned by Humes and testified to by him before the ARRB. He said it three times and it's in the transcript."

DAVID VON PEIN SAID -- "Dr. Humes admitted to the Warren Commission in 1964 that he burned the first draft of the autopsy report [2 H 373]. So we certainly didn't have to wait until Humes' 1996 ARRB testimony to learn about that particular burning episode. And the very fact that Dr. Humes admitted to burning a draft of the autopsy report is a very good sign that that burning was not done with CONSPIRATORIAL intent or with the thought of a COVER-UP in Dr. Humes' mind. For Pete sake, if Humes had been part of a cover-up and/or conspiracy, the last thing in the world he would have ADMITTED to the Warren Commission is that he was burning autopsy papers in his home fireplace. Get real, Jim."

Edited October 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Karl Hilliard]

On 9/25/2022 at 2:48 PM, David Von Pein said:

I wonder how many conspiracy theorists endorse Dr. Cyril Wecht when he continually goes on TV and radio and tries to sell his bucket of anti-SBT crap to the world, armed with his silly argument about the test bullet seen in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 856, with Wecht acting as though the CE856 test bullet took the very same path through TWO bodies that CE399 took through the bodies of JFK and John Connally in Dallas.

 A 'crap salesman' = implied kook---

 Why is the case for CE 399 still referred to as "The Single Bullet THEORY"? I keep asking this.

 

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

If there were upper torso X-rays of JFK please link to this as I am not aware.

Check out the final report of the 1968 Clark Panel....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

There were no torso x-rays of JFK that were submitted into the Warren Report or anywhere that I have seen. I cannot claim that none were taken.

[Karl Hilliard]

Quote

"Why and by what authority was Doctor Humes working on the autopsy at home?
Why end by what authority did he take those records to his home':
and by what authority, or by whose orders, instructions or suggestions, did
he destroy those papers he burned in his fireplace And certify it?
Specify what was destroyed, where and When, and what remained.
then pictures and xrays were taken of the President's body, and when the doctors
testified these were "of most value" and "quite routine" in autopsies, why did
they assume the pictures and Xrays would not be available for their use in
preparation for their testimony and for use during it'. Were they so informed,
or was any indication of this of whatever nurture made.to them: As experts in
forensic medicine, do they believe that in the presence of the existence of
these photographs and Xrays, their testimony without the photographs and for
use and reference during it, was competent testimony': Did they not, in fact,
testify with their "best evidence"? Why, especially because they are qualified in
forensic medicine, did they not demand these photographs and Xrays for use
during their testimony' .........Harold Weisberg

 

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

... the reason why he burned those notes is a very logical and sensible reason, as Dr. Humes himself explained in his HSCA testimony on September 7, 1978 (at 1 HSCA 330)....

...the very fact that Dr. Humes admitted to burning a draft of the autopsy report is a very good sign that that burning was not done with CONSPIRATORIAL intent or with the thought of a COVER-UP in Dr. Humes' mind.   Get real, Jim."

 Blood stains? This was a logical and sensible reason? There was a legal and prudent reason to file a report as written and left with a records keeper.

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Karl Hilliard said:

Blood stains? This was a logical and sensible reason?

Yes. It most certainly was.

But to clarify....

It was not the autopsy report that was stained with JFK's blood. Only Humes' autopsy notes had blood on them.

Edited October 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

39 minutes ago, Karl Hilliard said:

There were no torso x-rays of JFK that were submitted into the Warren Report or anywhere that I have seen. I cannot claim that none were taken.

From the Clark Panel Report....

EXAMINATION OF X-RAY FILMS:
The films submitted included: an anteroposterior film of the skull (#1), two left lateral views of the skull taken in slightly different projections (#2 and 3), three views of a group of three separate bony fragments from the skull (#4, 5, and 6), two anteroposterior views of the thoracolumbar region of the trunk (#7 and 11), one anteroposterior view of the right hemithorax, shoulder, and upper arm (#8), one anteroposterior view of the chest (#9), one anteroposterior view of the left hemithorax, shoulder, and upper arm (#10), one anteroposterior view of the lower femurs and knees (#12), one anteroposterior view of the pelvis (#13) and one anteroposterior view of the upper legs (#14).

Edited October 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

From the Clark Panel Report....

EXAMINATION OF X-RAY FILMS:
The films submitted included: an anteroposterior film of the skull (#1), two left lateral views of the skull taken in slightly different projections (#2 and 3), three views of a group of three separate bony fragments from the skull (#4, 5, and 6), two anteroposterior views of the thoracolumbar region of the trunk (#7 and 11), one anteroposterior view of the right hemithorax, shoulder, and upper arm (#8), one anteroposterior view of the chest (#9), one anteroposterior view of the left hemithorax, shoulder, and upper arm (#10), one anteroposterior view of the lower femurs and knees (#12), one anteroposterior view of the pelvis (#13) and one anteroposterior view of the upper legs (#14).

This is not related to this specific comment, but in this thread and elsewhere you’ve stated that no extra bullets were found. As far as I know there are reports suggesting that other bullets were found, just not in JFK’s body. I think there’s the report of the SS agent finding one in the back of the limo, that has some corroboration I believe, and then there’s the manhole cover.

What are your thoughts on the manhole cover? That whole deal plus the fact that there are photographs of the hole in the ground and people screwing around with it reminds me of the Ambassador Hotel pantry door, which was enough to convince Bugliosi of a conspiracy in the RFK case.   

[Bob Ness]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes. It most certainly was.

But to clarify....

It was not the autopsy report that was stained with JFK's blood. Only Humes' autopsy notes had blood on them.

So then... What you're saying is he burned his notes AND the first draft of the report and what is left is the THIRD draft of the RECORD of the autopsy. That's what I thought. He burned the first two. I presume the report he had at home was destroyed for some other reason. Like it needed to be changed.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Bob Ness

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

So then... What you're saying is he burned his notes AND the first draft of the report and what is left is the THIRD draft of the RECORD of the autopsy. That's what I thought. He burned the first two. I presume the report he had at home was destroyed for some other reason. Like it needed to be changed.

Not exactly. Humes burned ONE draft of the autopsy report and ONE set of bloody notes (from which, I assume, portions of the final autopsy report came). He said he re-wrote the notes "word for word" on fresh paper.

I'm surprised that CTers aren't screaming more about the fact that Humes' re-written notes have apparently never seen the light of day either. I don't recall having ever seen them at any rate. Has anyone here seen them?

Edited October 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

What are your thoughts on the manhole cover? That whole deal plus the fact that there are photographs of the hole in the ground and people screwing around with it reminds me of the Ambassador Hotel pantry door, which was enough to convince Bugliosi of a conspiracy in the RFK case.   

I think you're probably referring to the alleged "bullet" that Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers (allegedly) found and picked up in the grass just across from the Depository. Is that correct? If not, I apologize in advance for this link, which is all about the alleged "Walthers Bullet" (which, of course, was not a "bullet" at all):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-927.html

Edited October 3, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Gerry Down]

On 9/25/2022 at 2:15 PM, Sean Coleman said:

The photos of CE572, bullets fired into cotton wadding, appear to show the base of the bullets completely circular unlike CE399 which is flatted at one edge. This would appear to prove that CE399 was not fired into cotton wadding but must have struck something. 

This raises the problem that if this bullet was planted at Parkland, how did the conspirators manage to get a bullet like CE399 that was more damaged than a bullet fired into cotton wadding. How would they go about creating such a bullet?

Edited October 6, 2022 by Gerry Down

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The photos of CE572, bullets fired into cotton wadding, appear to show the base of the bullets completely circular unlike CE399 which is flatted at one edge. This would appear to prove that CE399 was not fired into cotton wadding but must have struck something. 

This raises the problem that if this bullet was planted at Parkland, how did the conspirators manage to get a bullet like CE399 that was more damaged than a bullet fired into cotton wadding. How would they go about creating such a bullet?

CE 856.

Doesn't that bullet say it all?

[Gerry Down]

28 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

CE 856.

Doesn't that bullet say it all?

It depends on how that bullet went through the goat rib - front on or sideways. There are too many variables like this to rule out ce399 in so far as the sbt is concerned.

[Joe Bauer]

2 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

It depends on how that bullet went through the goat rib - front on or sideways. There are too many variables like this to rule out ce399 in so far as the sbt is concerned.

Front on or sideways? 

[Joe Bauer]

Again I mention the "found on a stretcher" aspect to the CE 399 bullet provenance.

If Doctors Robert Shaw and Charles Gregory were 3 hour hand to body tending to Connally and neither they nor their assistants ever saw the thigh plopping out CE 399 bullet, then at what point in the transportation of Connally from the limo to surgery did the bullet plop out?

Wouldn't have Connally's non-removed pants have held the bullet until they were removed?

Shaw says he was only told about the bullet 10 days after his surgery on Connally.

The provenance of CE 399 is as suspicious as it's condition.