The Clean Cut Throat Wound

[Gerry Down]

The bullet grazed the C7 bone so Gerald Ford was technically correct in saying the bullet entered the back of JFKs neck.

[Pat Speer]

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So you say. But I disagree.

 

Sorry. It's not a matter of opinion. if a rifle is wiped down, it either has no prints in the obvious places, or shows extremely smudged prints in the obvious places. In this case, it had relatively clear prints in the most obvious place--the trigger guard. Your saying the rifle was wiped down is like saying someone drove a car through a car wash--when photos prove it was caked with mud. It didn't happen. 

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

The bullet grazed the C7 bone so Gerald Ford was technically correct in saying the bullet entered the back of JFKs neck.

The wound was at T-1. This is something I corrected on wikipedia an eon ago. Certain LN writers knew T-1 was too low so they started claiming C-7/T-1. But the HSCA FPP said T-1. 

 

I do give Ford a pass on his movement of the back wound, however. His only knowledge of the wound's location came from the Rydberg drawings, which showed it to be on the back of the neck. The villains in this case are Specter and Warren, who'd seen the back wound photo, and knew the wound was on the back, but nevertheless let the rest of the commission assume the Rydberg drawings were accurate. 

[David Von Pein]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Sorry. It's not a matter of opinion. If a rifle is wiped down, it either has no prints in the obvious places, or shows extremely smudged prints in the obvious places. In this case, it had relatively clear prints in the most obvious place--the trigger guard. Your saying the rifle was wiped down is like saying someone drove a car through a car wash--when photos prove it was caked with mud. It didn't happen.

So you say. I disagree.

And it certainly IS a matter of "opinion". Because none of us can KNOW for certain what parts of the rifle Oswald might have missed when (or if) he tried to hurriedly wipe his prints off the gun in a frenzied dash across the 6th floor.

You, Pat Speer, are placing a level of "It didn't happen" certainty on this topic that you cannot possibly prove.

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Burkley was just acting on the orders of RFK. Their whole goal was to make sure the public didn't find out about JFKs addisons disease. 

A cover up, yes.

But a cover up that had nothing to do with trying to hide a second shooter etc.

Follow the record. No one stopped the doctors from examining a bullet track from a back wound they thought went nowhere to a throat wound they thought was a tracheotomy incision. 

The only thing they didn't inspect out of courtesy, whatever, was the thyroid gland. The throat wound was below this gland. 

[Pat Speer]

7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So you say. I disagree.

And it certainly IS a matter of "opinion". Because none of us can KNOW for certain what parts of the rifle Oswald might have missed when (or if) he tried to hurriedly wipe his prints off the gun in a frenzied dash across the 6th floor.

You, Pat Speer, are placing a level of "It didn't happen" certainty on this topic that you cannot possibly support.

 

You just don't know what you're talking about. Fingerprints would not adhere to the wood stock, which made up the bulk of the rifle. So the main thing to wipe down--should someone wipe it down--would be the trigger guard, y'know that part of the rifle one touches with one's fingers. 

As the trigger guard was not wiped down it follows that the rifle was not wiped down. This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 stuff. Your buddy Bugliosi would undoubtedly agree. 

[Michael Crane]

REGIS T BLAHUT

Edited March 2, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Gerry Down]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The wound was at T-1. This is something I corrected on wikipedia an eon ago. Certain LN writers knew T-1 was too low so they started claiming C-7/T-1. But the HSCA FPP said T-1. 

 

I do give Ford a pass on his movement of the back wound, however. His only knowledge of the wound's location came from the Rydberg drawings, which showed it to be on the back of the neck. The villains in this case are Specter and Warren, who'd seen the back wound photo, and knew the wound was on the back, but nevertheless let the rest of the commission assume the Rydberg drawings were accurate. 

Ok, I thought though some official body mentioned the bullet passed in between T1 and C7. Thought it was the Clark panel but not sure.

That would put the upper half of CE399 passing beside a neck bone, C7, so technically you could say the bullet entered JFKs neck, at least the top half of the bullet. The lower half of the bullet passed beside T1, which would be JFKs back.

[David Von Pein]

On 3/2/2023 at 5:47 PM, Pat Speer said:

Fingerprints would not adhere to the wood stock...

Go tell that to Oswald.

Oswald might very well have felt it was necessary to wipe down the rifle's wooden stock. We can't know what he was thinking when it comes to the parts of the rifle that he might have thought fingerprints would adhere to.

Also....

The fact that there were fresh fibers matching Oswald's brown arrest shirt wedged into a surface of the C2766 rifle is, in my opinion, pretty good circumstantial evidence that Oswald did, indeed, utilize that brown shirt to wipe off the gun on 11/22. Otherwise, how did the shirt fibers manage to firmly wedge themselves onto the rifle?

Yes, I know that you, Pat, think the fibers were planted onto the rifle by the evil DPD. But that's a theory that only a desperate CTer would come up with. So, IMO, that ridiculous theory about the cops wanting to plant some fibers under the butt plate of the rifle is something that (to use Pat Speer's own words in a post to me earlier) "did not happen".

Yes, there are certainly other legitimate (non-planting) ways for the fibers to have gotten there other than using the shirt as a print-wiping tool. But my theory has some weight too. And it can't possibly be totally disproved.

 

Edited March 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Go tell that to Oswald.

Also....

The fact that there were fresh fibers matching Oswald's brown arrest shirt wedged into a surface of the C2766 rifle is, in my opinion, pretty good circumstantial evidence that Oswald did, indeed, utilize that brown shirt to wipe off the gun on 11/22. Otherwise, how do the shirt fibers manage to wedge themselves onto the rifle? (Yes, I know that you, Pat, think the fibers were planted onto the rifle by the evil DPD. But that's a theory only a desperate CTer might come up with. So, IMO, that ridiculous theory about the cops wanting to pl;ant some fibers under the butt plate of the rifle is something that (to use Pat Speer's own words in a post to me earlier) "did not happen".

Yes, there are certainly other ways for the fibers to have gotten there other than using the shirt as a print-wiping tool. But my theory has some weight too. And it can't possibly be totally disproved.

 

I hope you realize how desperate that is. The fibers must have got there when he wiped down the rifle, even though there is absolutely no evidence the rifle was wiped down, and all the evidence suggests it was not wiped down. 

Anything, anything, anything, but admit something strange was afoot at the Circle DPD. 

[David Von Pein]

34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I hope you realize how desperate that is.

That's a nice hunk of irony there, Pat. Because, IMO, it's Patrick J. Speer (not DVP) who belongs in the "desperate" category when it comes to the topic of "How Did The Shirt Fibers Get On The Rifle?"

My theory regarding that topic isn't nearly as desperate as yours.

But, of course, it doesn't make a bit of difference whether my theory regarding the shirt fibers is correct or not. Because Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder has been established beyond all reasonable doubt---even without wiping down the gun.

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

That's a nice hunk of irony there, Pat. Because, IMO, it's Patrick J. Speer (not DVP) who belongs in the "desperate" category when it comes to the topic of "How Did The Shirt Fibers Get On The Rifle?"

But, of course, it doesn't make a bit of difference whether my theory regarding the shirt fibers is correct or not. Because Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder has been established beyond all reasonable doubt---even without wiping down the gun.

 

Because that's how smurt people think. He was guilty so that means ALL the evidence against him was legit because y'know cops, and the DPD in particular, would NEVER EVER plant a few fibers on a rifle to help sell that a smart-assed commie was also a killer. I mean, they would never do that, right? 

I mean, do you watch the news? There's been what? 20 shootings over the last few years where a police dept. has put out a story that is quickly disproved by the body-cam or cell-phone footage. They lie all the time. 

[Michael Crane]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Because that's how smurt people think. He was guilty so that means ALL the evidence against him was legit because y'know cops, and the DPD in particular, would NEVER EVER plant a few fibers on a rifle to help sell that a smart-assed commie was also a killer. I mean, they would never do that, right? 

I mean, do you watch the news? There's been what? 20 shootings over the last few years where a police dept. has put out a story that is quickly disproved by the body-cam or cell-phone footage. They lie all the time. 

I don't think so Pat,but then again,I don't think the DPD let Jack Ruby in the basement either.

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Ron Ege]

Pat, David, Michael, et al:

Thank you for the discussion.

I guess I'm still a wee bit bumfuzzled.  

It seems if one had been the chief of police in a major city when a POTUS was assassinated, and then one eventually developed unequivocal direct evidence, instead of circumstantial evidence that the accused assassin was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, then one would've shouted it out "to highest yardarm".  Imagine the notoriety, book contracts, etc.

Instead - DPD Jesse Curry, 11/06/1969, Dallas Morning News:

"I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."

JEH, from a 11/24/1963 memo:

"They (DPD) did not really have a case against Oswald until we gave them our information. "We traced the weapon, we identified the handwriting, we identified the fingerprints on the brown bag." 

Hm-m. "Ole Edgar" was mighty helpful, wasn't he?

 

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 3/2/2023 at 4:37 PM, Michael Crane said:

Gerald Ford got his hand caught in the cookie jar

Will you please, for the love of God, stop clogging up the forum with these ancient, tremendously unfunny memes? At least you've stopped posting ones with the "N" word in them, so I guess that's what passes for progress here these days?