"Evidence" that was never identified

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, you need to re-watch JFK Revisited  at the 26-32 minute mark.

Throat entrance wound; shallow T3 back wound.

You lost the argument, Pat.

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

If you can show me where Henry Lee ever wrote a book about the JFK case, please do.

I would like to see it.

Its incredible to me that when one of the most respected and illustrious forensic scientists in America says some sensible and revealing things about the JFK case, which shows how bad the case was handled, Pat tries to group him with, my God, of all people: Mike Baden?

As per your other point, how can anyone excuse what the Warren Commission did in ignoring important witnesses and evidence.  Jeremy Gunn is a conservative guy.  He said that Spencer was the best witness they interviewed.  

The question we should be asking is not what do you think of a witness and his or her delayed testimony.  The question one should ask is:  why did it take that long for them to get in the record?  That is the key point. I have no doubt if they had been interviewed earlier they would have said the same thing.  For example, Knudsen did.  Try and find his testimony in the HSCA volumes.

I stand by what I said.  The JFK case was not investigated until the arrival of  the ARRB e.g. The Lopez Report.

Edited July 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat:

If you can show me where Henry Lee ever wrote a book about the JFK case, please do.

I would like to see it.

Its incredible to me that when one of the most respected and illustrious forensic scientists in America says some sensible and revealing things about the JFK case, which shows how bad the case was handled, Pat tries to group him with, my God, of all people: Mike Baden?

As per your other point, how can anyone excuse what the Warren Commission did in ignoring important witnesses and evidence.  Jeremy Gunn is a conservative guy.  He said that Spencer was the best witness they interviewed.  

The question we should be asking is not what do you think of a witness and his or her delayed testimony.  The question one should ask is:  why did it take that long for them to get in the record?  That is the key point. I have no doubt if they had been interviewed earlier they would have said the same thing.  For example, Knudsen did.  Try and find his testimony in the HSCA volumes.

I stand by what I said.  The JFK case was not investigated until the arrival of  the ARRB e.g. The Lopez Report.

Spencer may have been nice and well-spoken, but her recollections would hold little weight in any re-opening of the case. She took no notes. She failed to write a report. She was exposed to God knows how many books and television programs claiming the body was altered etc. Now, her statements about the circumstances under which she developed the photos deserve consideration, but her recollections of the exact nature of the wounds she saw aren't worth much. 

As far as Knudsen, he was interviewed by the HSCA and his statements contradicted what his family said years later. Although his recollection of JFK's wounds may very well have differed from what is shown in the photos, It is clear that his connection to the case is that he developed photos, not that he took photos. 

As far as Lee, I read through at least five books by him and he discusses the case in more than one. He also wrote a short article on it that I read somewhere--maybe on the Weisberg site. And his angle is that the evidence wasn't gathered and tested properly, not that it suggests conspiracy. As stated, he has staked out a position between the other two "investigators"--Wecht and Baden. This is not a coincidence, IMO. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Pat, you need to re-watch JFK Revisited  at the 26-32 minute mark.

Throat entrance wound; shallow T3 back wound.

You lost the argument, Pat.

Thanks for the laugh. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That’s funny from a fella who fetishizes fabrication.

HSCA

<quote on emphasis added>

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.  These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance.  As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

 (quote off)

By saying "would have rested with the prosecution" they mean that the prosecution would have to establish the authenticity. As stated, the procedure for this is simple: put the guy who took the pictures on the stand and have him say he took the pictures, and have the guy who asked for the pictures to be taken say the pictures reflect the wounds as he saw them. Period. There is no rule stating all evidence submitted needs to be submitted in pen, or pencil, or that all photos entered into evidence need an ID on the photo. That's a fantasy. Photographic evidence is most always used to back up eyewitness evidence. As Humes and Stringer IDed the photos as ones taken of Kennedy, and the x-rays were IDed by Custer, the prosecution would have no problem entering these items into evidence.

There is an unless...of course. If a judge found the photos too gruesome and the defense thought they might prejudice the jury, the judge might have disallowed them. But that would be a serious mistake. The photos and x-rays are proof of more than one shooter, and would win the day for the defense if they let the evidence speak for itself, as opposed to trying to fit it all into a box built by Mark Lane or Harry Livingstone or Robert Groden, etc. . 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks for the laugh. 

Are you denying the conclusions of JFK Revisited  regarding the throat and back wounds?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

By saying "would have rested with the prosecution" they mean that the prosecution would have to establish the authenticity. As stated, the procedure for this is simple:

You’ve admitted that this is not automatic.  No extenuating circumstances ever considered?  Prove it.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

put the guy who took the pictures on the stand and have him say he took the pictures, and have the guy who asked for the pictures to be taken say the pictures reflect the wounds as he saw them.

Wrong.  There are many times more witnesses who dispute the wound location shown in Fox 5.  As the HSCA pointed out the photo’s deficiencies as evidence would allow challenges to authentication.

You seem to suffer the impression that Humes and Stringer possessed god-like infallibility, that their statements discount the physical evidence and 15 eye witnesses.

Drool on the floor idiocy.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Period. There is no rule stating all evidence submitted needs to be submitted in pen, or pencil, or that all photos entered into evidence need an ID on the photo.

The facesheet was filled out in pencil by James Jenkins.  The measurements written in pen were not contemporaneous— they had to be added later.  The measurements use improper landmarks, as did the final autopsy report.  To claim that a judge wouldn’t take the lack of proper protocol and broken chain of possession into account is absurd.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

That's a fantasy. Photographic evidence is most always used to back up eyewitness evidence.

Not if you can’t establish authenticity.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As Humes and Stringer IDed the photos as ones taken of Kennedy, and the x-rays were IDed by Custer, the prosecution would have no problem entering these items into evidence.

And the defense would have no problem pointing out a “wound” with a lower margin abrasion collar, broken chain of possession, multiple violations of autopsy protocol, discrepancies with the physical evidence and 15 eyewitnesses.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’ve admitted that this is not automatic.  No extenuating circumstances ever considered?  Prove it.

Wrong.  There are many times more witnesses who dispute the wound location shown in Fox 5.  As the HSCA pointed out the photo’s deficiencies as evidence would allow challenges to authentication.

You seem to suffer the impression that Humes and Stringer possessed god-like infallibility, that their statements discount the physical evidence and 15 eye witnesses.

Drool on the floor idiocy.

The facesheet was filled out in pencil by James Jenkins.  The measurements written in pen were not contemporaneous— they had to be added later.  The measurements use improper landmarks, as did the final autopsy report.  To claim that a judge wouldn’t take the lack of proper protocol and broken chain of possession into account is absurd.

Not if you can’t establish authenticity.

And the defense would have no problem pointing out a “wound” with a lower margin abrasion collar, broken chain of possession, multiple violations of autopsy protocol, discrepancies with the physical evidence and 15 eyewitnesses.

So we agree then. The prosecution could enter the photos into evidence should the judge not find them too horrifying and the defense could claim they weren't authentic if they chose to. 

it's like the O.J. case. The prosecution got the glove into evidence and the defense successfully cast doubt on the authenticity of the giove. Something like that may well have come to pass should Oswald have reached trial. 

Most probably regarding Oswald's shirt. 

I can see it now. The prosecution would enter the brown shirt into evidence and link it to the fibers wrapped around the butt plate.

After which the defense would question whether Oswald had even worn that shirt to work that day, and raise strong doubt about the authenticity of the evidence. 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So we agree then. The prosecution could enter the photos into evidence should the judge not find them too horrifying and the defense could claim they weren't authentic if they chose to.

The judge wouldn’t allow the evidence if the defense convinced the court the photos weren’t authentic.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Spencer may have been nice and well-spoken, but her recollections would hold little weight in any re-opening of the case. She took no notes. She failed to write a report.

Since when do you give a damn about reports and notes, Pat?

Glen Bennett, Francis O’Neill, James Sibert, Thomas Robinson, George Burkley, James Jenkins, Charles Carrico, Ronald Jones made contemporaneous notes/reports about the T3 back/throat entrance wounds — you claim they all got it wrong.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

She was exposed to God knows how many books and television programs claiming the body was altered etc.

So what?  She testified she didn’t develop the extant autopsy photos.  That breaks the chain of possession.  Cut and dry.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, her statements about the circumstances under which she developed the photos deserve consideration, but her recollections of the exact nature of the wounds she saw aren't worth much. 

The significance of her testimony is the broken chain of evidence.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Love this one.

Knudsen was gone three days because he was looking at pictures.

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Glen Bennett, Francis O’Neill, James Sibert, Thomas Robinson, George Burkley, James Jenkins, Charles Carrico, Ronald Jones made contemporaneous notes/reports about the T3 back/throat entrance wounds — you claim they all got it wrong.

 

First of all, what notes are you talking about? Second of all, Carrico and Jones never saw the wound and most certainly never said it was at a location inches below where it is shown in the autopsy photos. 

In fact, I don't believe any of these witnesses have said as much... 

[David Josephs]

On 7/11/2023 at 9:09 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

Boone and others guarded the rifle (CE 139) until Day came over and took possession, marked it, etc. This is fairly well documented. The notion that it wouldn't have been admitted into evidence in a criminal trial is just bizarre.

As has been mentioned in recent threads, Norvell did identify CE 573 as the bullet he found (CE 2011).

"Others" include Seymour Weitzman and Roger Craig both stating along with Boone  that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser, described in virtually the exact same terminology.  If Day called out a 6.5 Italian rifle at the scene, can you think of any reason these men sign an affidavit to a different fact?

 

The rifle in Day's possession as he leaves the TSBD was not CE139... there are a number of visible differences but most notably the lack of a "CAL 6.5" etched in white, the different lengths of the scope end and the lack of markings where "Made Italy" is seen on the only close up images of CE139

 

 

This is the moment DAY picks up the rifle and we see there is no clip protruding from the bottom of the rifle.

On a Carcano Fucile Corte the clip falls out when the last round is CHAMBERED, not ejected.  So unless they jammed a clip back up into the rifle, like the paper bag, there was no clip on the 6th floor.

On 7/11/2023 at 4:45 PM, Pat Speer said:

The reality is that with photos you can ignore chain of possession almost entirely if you have a witness who was there who is willing to say the photos reflect what he saw. That's it.

Gil nails it once again.  and once again Mr. Speer seems to forget that the DPD and FBI lied there a$$es off.  Pat is talking about the process of AUTHENTICATING REAL EVIDENCE for acceptance in court which includes as he says, a witness: https://practice.findlaw.com/practice-support/rules-of-evidence/summary-of-evidence-rules--overview.html 

Generally, authentication can be shown in one of two ways. First, a witness can testify as to the chain of custody through which the evidence passed from the time of the discovery up until the trial. Second, the evidence can be authenticated by the opinion of an expert witness examining the evidence to determine if it has all of the properties that it would be expected to have if it were authentic.

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.

What Pat fails to include is who were are relying on in this case to authentic this evidence or the chain.
If the DPD or FBI is the witness corroborating this chain how reliable is it?  When, in fact and with this rifle, the earliest evidence signed by Boone and Weitzman makes it impossible to authenticate as a 6.5 Carcano...  there is no photo of the caliber on the 6th floor, or the clip, or the paper bag, or even the shells where they were found.

Again, I appreciate Mr. Speer, but it remains a bit naive to simply state that if an FBI witness says the photo is what they say it is, then you don't need a proper chain of custody.

And finally Pat "There is no real evidence ...." only means you have not found anything in the millions of pages of public docs or the unknown pages not available but from private collections.  and by your own words, all we need is someone to testify that Bobby did and the chain of custody of that brain is rendered unimportant?... Really ?

On 7/11/2023 at 5:28 PM, Pat Speer said:

there is no real evidence

[Cliff Varnell]

On 7/13/2023 at 7:32 PM, Pat Speer said:

First of all, what notes are you talking about?

 Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in his notes on the afternoon of 11/22/63:

<quote on>

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder. </q>

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. 

In his notes mortician Thomas Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder".

In their report for the FBI, James Sibert and Francis O’Neill wrote the back wound “was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.”

O’Neill clarified the location for the HSCA:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm

 

James Jenkins filled out the autopsy sheet and placed a dot in a location consistent with the bullet holes in the clothes.

Then for good measure there was SS SA Clint Hill who went to the morgue to make mental notes on the wounds.  He told the WC:.  “...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.”</q>

These are back wound witnesses.  Carrico and Jones were throat wound witnesses.

On 7/13/2023 at 7:32 PM, Pat Speer said:

Second of all, Carrico and Jones never saw the wound and most certainly never said it was at a location inches below where it is shown in the autopsy photos. 

In fact, I don't believe any of these witnesses have said as much... 

Dr. Charles Carrico’s contemporaneous note: “small penetrating wound of ent. neck".

Ronald Jones’ contemporaneous note:       “a small hole in anterior midline of neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound” 

T3 back wound, throat entrance.  

Get over it, Pat.

 

Edited April 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

14 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

"Others" include Seymour Weitzman and Roger Craig both stating along with Boone  that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser, described in virtually the exact same terminology.  If Day called out a 6.5 Italian rifle at the scene, can you think of any reason these men sign an affidavit to a different fact?

 

The rifle in Day's possession as he leaves the TSBD was not CE139... there are a number of visible differences but most notably the lack of a "CAL 6.5" etched in white, the different lengths of the scope end and the lack of markings where "Made Italy" is seen on the only close up images of CE139

 

 

This is the moment DAY picks up the rifle and we see there is no clip protruding from the bottom of the rifle.

On a Carcano Fucile Corte the clip falls out when the last round is CHAMBERED, not ejected.  So unless they jammed a clip back up into the rifle, like the paper bag, there was no clip on the 6th floor.

Gil nails it once again.  and once again Mr. Speer seems to forget that the DPD and FBI lied there a$$es off.  Pat is talking about the process of AUTHENTICATING REAL EVIDENCE for acceptance in court which includes as he says, a witness: https://practice.findlaw.com/practice-support/rules-of-evidence/summary-of-evidence-rules--overview.html 

Generally, authentication can be shown in one of two ways. First, a witness can testify as to the chain of custody through which the evidence passed from the time of the discovery up until the trial. Second, the evidence can be authenticated by the opinion of an expert witness examining the evidence to determine if it has all of the properties that it would be expected to have if it were authentic.

The chain of custody requires that from the moment the evidence is collected, every transfer of evidence from person to person be documented and that it be provable that nobody else could have accessed that evidence.

What Pat fails to include is who were are relying on in this case to authentic this evidence or the chain.
If the DPD or FBI is the witness corroborating this chain how reliable is it?  When, in fact and with this rifle, the earliest evidence signed by Boone and Weitzman makes it impossible to authenticate as a 6.5 Carcano...  there is no photo of the caliber on the 6th floor, or the clip, or the paper bag, or even the shells where they were found.

Again, I appreciate Mr. Speer, but it remains a bit naive to simply state that if an FBI witness says the photo is what they say it is, then you don't need a proper chain of custody.

And finally Pat "There is no real evidence ...." only means you have not found anything in the millions of pages of public docs or the unknown pages not available but from private collections.  and by your own words, all we need is someone to testify that Bobby did and the chain of custody of that brain is rendered unimportant?... Really ?

To be clear, David, the question is not whether or not we should trust the DPD, FBI or military. My point is that for years certain people have been claiming the evidence prepared by the DPD, FBI, and military, could not be admitted at trial. This is nonsense. As in the O.J. case, ti could be admitted. The defense could then hack away at it. That's the way the system works.