Paul Landis Revelation About Assassination Bullet

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Why so? 

Isn't one explanation (WC-HSCA) that is what CE399 did---penetrate JBC's leg, and then fall out? 

Is there a body of literature on this? 

 

 

 

 

Do you really believe the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was traveling at the same low rate of speed as was the bullet when it hit Connally's thigh?  Really?

 

[Bill Brown]

 

The idea that the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was "undercharged" and traveling at a significantly lower rate of speed even though it had yet to strike anything is laughable.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

The idea that the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was "undercharged" and traveling at a significantly lower rate of speed even though it had yet to strike anything is laughable.

 

Why? Misfires sometimes happen. 

LHO may have been armed with WWII or 1950s-era surplus ammo. 

Many witnesses said the first shot sounded different from the second two, louder and rapid shots. 

Keep an open mind. 

If Landis' memory is correct, then where did the nearly pristine slug in the back of the JFK limo---now known as CE399---come from? 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Bill Brown]

 

Look, this is real simple... Landis is saying he placed the bullet on Kennedy's gurney right next to Kennedy's body. But we know this goes against the known facts. The Parkland doctors did not take Kennedy off of that gurney, it's the same gurney he was on as they were trying to save his life in Trauma Room One. None of the Parkland doctors ever mention a bullet lying on the gurney. It simply did not happen.

 

[Bill Brown]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think we are in alignment on this. He may very well have put it on a gurney in the hallway, thinking it was JFK's gurney. His current claim he put it on the gurney in Trauma Room One while JFK was surrounded by medical people doesn't pass muster, IMO. 

 

Except, I do not believe Landis would have found a bullet in or on the back seat.

Another location inside the limo, possibly (having already worked it's way out of Connally's thigh).

 

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Look, this is real simple... Landis is saying he placed the bullet on Kennedy's gurney right next to Kennedy's body. But we know this goes against the known facts. The Parkland doctors did not take Kennedy off of that gurney, it's the same gurney he was on as they were trying to save his life in Trauma Room One. None of the Parkland doctors ever mention a bullet lying on the gurney. It simply did not happen.

 

The problem with your conclusion is you do not know when he put it next to the body.   If he placed the bullet there after efforts to treat JFK ceased then it makes sense no doctors saw it.  However, even if it was placed beforehand, depending on where he put it on the gurney it could easily have been overlooked in the rush to save JFK.   

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Unless it never made its way inside the shirt... Some like to twist Humes' statements into his saying the bullet penetrated an inch or so. His testimony is clear, however, that it barely broke the skin. if so, this would 1) indicate that the bullet was under-charged, and 2) be in keeping with Landis' current recollection of seeing an intact bullet in the rear compartment.

Didn't Humes and/or Finck say they stuck their finger into the wound in the rear-back of JFK, but only an inch or two---and they said bullet-wound pointed down at a 60-degree angle? 

If the JFK back-wound barely broke the skin, where does the 60-degree angle come from? 

My recollection is the amateur autopsists found the back-wound blocked at a couple inches or less.

What we still don't know is if experienced autopsists could have found the bullet passage, after expert probing.

We also don't know if bullet wounds sometimes "close up" (I have been researching this, but without avail).  That is, after a bullet passes through a body, then internal organs and muscles shift, blocking the passageway to probes, even by experts. 

As it stands, I am leaning towards JFK was struck by an undercharged bullet, that penetrated a couple inches and fell out---that is, if Landis is telling the truth. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

The idea that the bullet which hit Kennedy in the back was "undercharged" and traveling at a significantly lower rate of speed even though it had yet to strike anything is laughable.

 

Agreed.  Conventional firearms don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.

A discussion of the kind of firearm that does leave shallow wounds in soft tissue:

 

[Cliff Varnell]

 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

There was never any credible evidence that the back wound perforated the body.

The FBI agents there were very strong on this issue.

As Wecht said in Stone's film, that was an idea that evolved over time from necessity.  

But there is a back wound in the pictures.

So the other side is stuck with the facts that there is a wound there, but utterly no evidence that the projectile perforated the body. 

So where did it go?

The bullet Landis is talking about cannot be CE 399. How could it possibly eject from Connally's thigh into the back seat. 

And it cannot be the one found allegedly on Connally's stretcher.

So this is the problem Landis presents for the other side.  I liked what Daily Beast tried to do: the bullet bounced off of Kennedy's stretcher into Connally's.  

LOL, 🙃

Edited September 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There was never any credible evidence that the back wound perforated the body.

Wrong.....

Quoting from the Clark Panel Report.....

[QUOTE ON:]

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found.

There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck.

The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity.

Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report."

[END QUOTE.]

This part of the above Clark Panel excerpt deserves a replay and added emphasis:

"There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..."

Another interesting part of the 1968 Clark Panel Report is the portion of the report in which the Clark Panel confirms, via measurements, that the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in the President's upper back....

[QUOTE ON:]

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body.

[...]

The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body."

[END QUOTE.]

Edited September 12, 2023 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

This is why I have DVP on ignore.

But every once in awhile I get stupid and look at his nonsense.

What is described in the Clark panel is not a bullet track.

Just read what it says.

You might want to explore a bit about those metallic fragments.  And the fact that the trachea wound,  that is part "the track", was described as an entrance wound 3 times by Perry.  And the doctors at Bethesda called him that night and tried to get him to change his declaration under penalty of facing a licensing hearing.

Anyone who takes the Clark Panel at face value is simply not credible.

Repeat: there was never any credible evidence that the back wound perforated.

And this is why I think there was no dissection, which should have been SOP.

So now I go back to ignore.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

7 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Vincent "Two and only two bullets" Guinn. What a joke!

That is one of the worst travesties in this case and man there are dozens.

Pat Speer did a nice long detonation of Guinn in layman's terms.

The two formal ones are by Spiegelman and Tobin and Randich and Grant.

After one reads all that you will be sickened.  And for Posner to use Guinn today is truly disturbing.

Edited September 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

41 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why I have DVP on ignore. But every once in awhile I get stupid and look at his nonsense.

What is described in the Clark panel is not a bullet track.

Bullshit. Of course it is. Which is why the Clark Panel utilized that very word -- "track".

 

41 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And the fact that the trachea wound  that is part "the track" was described as an entrance wound 3 times by Perry. 

And Perry also said this (which is always totally ignored by CTers, of course):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. MALCOLM PERRY -- "It could have been either."

 

41 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Anyone who takes the Clark Panel at face value is simply not credible.

Naturally, Jim. They were part of the never-ending cover-up too, right?

 

41 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So now I go back to ignore.

Good decision. That Ignore button might keep you from embarrassing yourself any further. (But based on your past performance, I kinda doubt it.)

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Jason Nixon]

David.  Why will you not consider the witness testimony of Perry's work colleague? Nurse Audrey Bell. 

Perry had worked hard to get to his career goals. There was intimidation. Why can you not recognise that possibility?