CE 843: Proof of Fraud in the JFK Autopsy Evidence

[Michael Crane]

I personally think the skull fraction pattern is consistent with a hammer being used.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I personally think the skull fraction pattern is consistent with a hammer being used.

You're on the right track. People have heard "entrance small exit big" so many times they think it applies to the size of fractures as well as the size of defects. But it's the reverse. The fracture size is related to amount of energy expended, so a bullet will normally create larger fractures at entrance than at exit. If a bullet tumbles while intact, of course, it can exit sideways at a sufficient velocity to create a larger fracture at exit. But the HSCA's ballistics expert claimed the bullet exited intact and that the large exit was caused by the expansion of the brain, and not by the impact of the bullet on the inside of the skull upon exit. Well, for this to have happened, the large fractures would need to be in a spider-web pattern leading back to the cowlick. They do not. He was blowing smoke. In 2013, for what's worse, a forensic pathologist in Boston came forward and announced that there was a spider-web pattern--only leading back to the EOP entrance. That's right. He said the massive fractures near the top of the skull all started at an entrance by the EOP low on the back of the skull. Well, no such fractures were noted at the autopsy. So why all the bs?

The large fractures at the top of the head designate it as an impact location. Period. They are scientific proof that the EOP entrance described at autopsy represents a second impact location, and thus two headshots. It's textbook. 101. Basic stuff. And all this mumbo jumbo about the x-rays being fake is just a distraction. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Jean Ceulemans]

And the one entering on top would exit the throat ?  I´m trying to time this but have been avoiding the medical stuff so far, not my cup of tea frankly

[Pat Speer]

27 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

And the one entering on top would exit the throat ?  I´m trying to time this but have been avoiding the medical stuff so far, not my cup of tea frankly

Kennedy's head was tilted forward at Z-312. A bullet on a descent slightly greater than this forward tilt and impacting above his ear would not make a neat round hole, as it would encounter much more resistance--think of someone trying to karate chop a 2 by 4 on the end down the length of the board instead of across the board. In any event this increased resistance would lead the bullet to rupture, while tearing a huge hole at the impact location. Fragments of this bullet would then be scattered at both this location and further down the road from the target. And skull fragments would fly into the air.  After years of research, It seems obvious to me that's what happened. 

Well this, of course, leaves the EOP entrance unaccounted for. It is a second entrance., which I have come to suspect leads to the small throat wound. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

And the one entering on top would exit the throat ?  I´m trying to time this but have been avoiding the medical stuff so far, not my cup of tea frankly

I wouldn't recommend going down the medical evidence trail at all.

Just know,that one single bullet did not cause all of the tragic damage to JFK's head.It's like a time bomb went off in there & there is no telling just how much of it the Dr.s did during autopsy.

*Of course,I am going off some of the autopsy pictures I have seen with JFK's head completely blasted,and not knowing if they are even real pictures or not and what time that they were actually taken.

Edited October 12, 2023 by Michael Crane

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/11/2023 at 2:24 PM, Pat Speer said:

Are you out to set some kind of record?

1. You need to realize that images on x-rays are 2-d, and that it is impossible to tell from an A-P view where an object is on a lateral view. This is Radiology 101.  First chapter in a textbook. First day of class. So one can not say a fragment not visible on the back the head on a lateral x-ray is at the back of the head on an A-P X-ray. That's just bonkers. 2 + 2 = 5. What one CAN say is that a large fragment apparent high on the head on an A-P view has no obvious partner on the back of the head on a lateral view.  In such case, then, one SHOULD look to where the doctors said they found the largest fragment--BEHIND the right eye. I did just that, and guess what, there lies a fragment. And no, you can't rule out that the fragment in the FBI photo is the fragment on the x-rays. 

2.  When one reads radiology text books one finds that they address some of the frequent mistakes of x-ray techs and that one of these mistakes results in a white round spot on the finished image. Such spots are attributed to drops of fixer, not acid. So, no, the film is not burned. While I have never pushed this as an explanation for the shape on JFK's A-P x-ray, I mention it to expose one of the many flaws in Mantik's methodology. Here is a common mistake often discussed in textbooks, that addresses otherwise unexplained white round and oval shapes--that is not mentioned by Mantik in his papers, even in passing. This is not a coincidence, IMO. It seems obvious he doesn't want his readers to know that radiologists encounter white spots in every day life, and attribute such spots to a mistake in development. He wants people to believe he has made this great find, and that the white spot on JFK's A-P x-ray can ONLY be explained by some giant conspiracy. Please. 

Please indeed. I guess Dr. Fitzpatrick, according to what you claim, must have flunked Radiology 101, because he was very disturbed by the fact that the 6.5 mm object has no partner image on the lateral skull x-rays. 

Yes, of course, everyone understands that the skull x-rays are 2D images. We all know that. But you keep citing this fact as if you're proving something, or as if a 3D image of the 7x2 mm fragment would magically change its height and width. The only thing a 3D image would show us that the AP x-ray does not is the fragment's depth/thickness. 

You can just keep going around and around with your specious speculation about the largest fragment that Humes said he removed, but I've already proved that Humes plainly, clearly, and unmistakably said that the largest fragment was the 7x2 mm fragment. You can't accept this because it destroys your cockamamie theory that Humes was actually describing the 6.5 mm object, never mind that even a child could identify the 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment as different objects on the AP x-ray.

Not only does your theory require us to discard the hard science of the OD measurements, but it demands that we view your tiny slice object on the lateral x-rays as the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object. Never mind that no expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, and that nearly all experts have said the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. 

I suspect we could go around and around about this stuff forever, because you brush aside all contrary evidence and then act like anyone who disagrees with you is refusing to follow the evidence where it leads, which is very strange posturing for someone who's pushing a theory that virtually no one else accepts. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

50 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Please indeed. I guess Dr. Fitzpatrick, according to what you claim, must have flunked Radiology 101, because he was very disturbed by the fact that the 6.5 mm object has no partner image on the lateral skull x-rays. 

Yes, of course, everyone understands that the skull x-rays are 2D images. We all know that. But you keep citing this fact as if you're proving something, or as if a 3D image of the 7x2 mm fragment would magically change its height and width. The only thing a 3D image would show us that the AP x-ray does not is the fragment's depth/thickness. 

You can just keep going around and around with your specious speculation about the largest fragment that Humes said he removed, but I've already proved that Humes plainly, clearly, and unmistakably said that the largest fragment was the 7x2 mm fragment. You can't accept this because it destroys your cockamamie theory that Humes was actually describing the 6.5 mm object, never mind that even a child could identify the 6.5 mm object and the 7x2 mm fragment as different objects on the AP x-ray.

Not only does your theory require us to discard the hard science of the OD measurements, but it demands that we view your tiny slice object on the lateral x-rays as the lateral view of the 6.5 mm object. Never mind that no expert has identified that slice as a bullet fragment, and that nearly all experts have said the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the head. 

I suspect we could go around and around about this stuff forever, because you brush aside all contrary evidence and then act like anyone who disagrees with you is refusing to follow the evidence where it leads, which is very strange posturing for someone who's pushing a theory that virtually no one else accepts. 

I can't even read you anymore, Michael. When I present you with facts, such as Mantik's falsely claiming the fragment on the forehead is the fragment removed from behind the eye, or his failing to realize that the fragment in the archives had been butchered during testing and is not the fragment as it originally appeared, you double-down and try to make it appear that I am the sloppy researcher. 

Are you willing to learn, or not? And if you think you have nothing to earn from me, because you read one or two books by one author and have decided he's the bee's knee's, why are you trolling me? To save the forum from sloppy research? Really? When you refuse to see or can not see that your chosen emperor has no clothes?

I used to write on the John McAdams newsgroup. There was someone there who thought John Lattimer was all that, and was on the constant attack. I would show him the obvious--that in his blithering defense of the single-bullet theory Lattimer had claimed JFK was a hunchback, and grossly distorted his body shape in drawings, and so on. His response was always the same "HE'S A DOCTOR!!! Who knows way more than you!!!" It was pointless to talk to him. These exchanges with you have become equally pointless.

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/13/2023 at 1:32 PM, Pat Speer said:

I can't even read you anymore, Michael. When I present you with facts, such as Mantik's falsely claiming the fragment on the forehead is the fragment removed from behind the eye, or his failing to realize that the fragment in the archives had been butchered during testing and is not the fragment as it originally appeared, you double-down and try to make it appear that I am the sloppy researcher. 

Are you willing to learn, or not? And if you think you have nothing to earn from me, because you read one or two books by one author and have decided he's the bee's knee's, why are you trolling me? To save the forum from sloppy research? Really? When you refuse to see or can not see that your chosen emperor has no clothes?

I used to write on the John McAdams newsgroup. There was someone there who thought John Lattimer was all that, and was on the constant attack. I would show him the obvious--that in his blithering defense of the single-bullet theory Lattimer had claimed JFK was a hunchback, and grossly distorted his body shape in drawings, and so on. His response was always the same "HE'S A DOCTOR!!! Who knows way more than you!!!" It was pointless to talk to him. These exchanges with you have become equally pointless.

You are the one who appears unwilling to learn anything. 

You are once again misrepresenting Dr. Mantik's statements. 

Anyone can look with their own eyes and see that the CE 843 fragments cannot be the fragments that Humes described. It's that simple. You keep trying to make this about Mantik, but I noticed the problem with CE 843 before I checked to see what others had said about it. 

The core problem here is that you are emotionally attached to the idea that not a single item of evidence was faked, substituted, or deceptively altered. So even when confronted with the brazen and unsolvable conflict between the EOP entry site and the brain photos, you resort to mountains of special pleading and specious theories to avoid the obvious. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

You are the one who appears unwilling to learn anything. 

You are once again misrepresenting Dr. Mantik's statements. 

Anyone can look with their own eyes and see that the CE 843 fragments cannot be the fragments that Humes described. It's that simple. You keep trying to make this about Mantik, but I noticed the problem with CE 843 before I checked to see what others had said about it. 

The core problem here is that you are emotionally attached to the idea that not a single item of evidence was faked, substituted, or deceptively altered. So even when confronted with the brazen and unsolvable conflict between the EOP entry site and the brain photos, you resort to mountains of special pleading and specious theories to avoid the obvious. 

You've been suckered. The fragment behind the eye s far more likely to be the 7 x 2 fragment than the forehead fragment. 

 

As far as my "emotional attachment"...hogwash. If you'd read my website, you'd know I've discovered and have pointed out numerous problems with the evidence.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

On 10/11/2023 at 4:37 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

And the one entering on top would exit the throat ? 

If this were the case why did JFK raise his fists in front of his throat 6 seconds earlier?

Is that what people do when they’re shot in the back— raise their fists in front of their throat to prevent getting shot in the back again?

On 10/11/2023 at 4:37 PM, Jean Ceulemans said:

I´m trying to time this but have been avoiding the medical stuff so far, not my cup of tea frankly

The subject of head wound(s) is one of the biggest go-nowhere rabbit holes in the case.  Don’t walk away from it — run.

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

You've been suckered. The fragment behind the eye is far more likely to be the 7 x 2 fragment than the forehead fragment. 

Gosh, you must be kidding. We've been over this. You keep repeating arguments that I have proved are full of holes. Again, for the umpteenth time, your supposed "fragment behind the eye" is the slice object that no medical expert has even identified as metallic. That's just for starters.

Then, as I've also pointed out several times, to believe that your slice object is the 7x2 mm fragment, we'd have to believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and the radiologist committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the round 6.5 mm object for a club-shaped 7x2 mm object on the AP x-ray, even though the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are plainly visible on the AP x-ray. 

And, of course, your entire convoluted explanation also requires us to dismiss the hard science of the OD measurements that prove the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. We have two sets of OD measurements that include hundreds of data points and that were done independently by two medical experts, one of whom uses OD measurements in his work as a board-certified radiation oncologist. 

As far as my "emotional attachment"...hogwash. If you'd read my website, you'd know I've discovered and have pointed out numerous problems with the evidence.

Here we go again. So far, every single time you have claimed that your website (your online book) "explains X" or "explains Y" or "explains Z," when I have gone back and checked your website, I have found that it does not explain those issues. 

So how about we do this: How about if you name just one piece of evidence that you believe was faked or deceptively altered? How about that? Just name one. Now, obviously, I'm not talking about a diagram, drawing, or statement created or submitted to the WC or the HSCA, etc. I'm talking about an item of physical evidence, such as an autopsy photo, an autopsy x-ray, a bullet fragment, a film, a rifle, a shell casing, a fingerprint, etc., etc. Just name one. Just one.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

Gosh, you must be kidding. We've been over this. You keep repeating arguments that I have proved are full of holes. Again, for the umpteenth time, your supposed "fragment behind the eye" is the slice object that no medical expert has even identified as metallic. That's just for starters.

Nice dodge. ONE expert noticed it and thought it didn't look like metal. There is no evidence he was told or knew that the autopsy participants specified from where the fragment was removed, and that it matched the location of what is undeniably a fragment. Think clearly, Michael. What are the odds of a bone fragment just so happening to appear on the x-rays where the doctors said they recovered a metal fragment? Hmmm... 

Then, as I've also pointed out several times, to believe that your slice object is the 7x2 mm fragment, we'd have to believe that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and the radiologist committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the round 6.5 mm object for a club-shaped 7x2 mm object on the AP x-ray, even though the 7x2 mm fragment and the 6.5 mm object are plainly visible on the AP x-ray. 

What? They saw a fragment on the x-rays. As they provided but two measurements for this 3-d fragment, they probably even measured it on an x-ray. The fragment behind the eye is roughly 7 x 2 on the lateral x-ray. They said nothing about a club-shape. In any event, the fragment I've identified--which was also picked out by others--is far closer in proportion to being 7 x 2 on the lateral x-ray than the club-shaped fragment INCHES AWAY from where they removed a fragment. . 

And, of course, your entire convoluted explanation also requires us to dismiss the hard science of the OD measurements that prove the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. We have two sets of OD measurements that include hundreds of data points and that were done independently by two medical experts, one of whom uses OD measurements in his work as a board-certified radiation oncologist. 

OD is hard science for determining bone density. It has never been used by forensic radiologists to determine the authenticity of x-rays. Before one can state the whiteness on an x-ray is so white it must be fake, moreover, one must ascertain the settings on the machine, and time of exposure, etc. Mantik never even tried to do any of this. In one of his embarassing responses to my writings, he expressed outrage that I would suggest they used sub-standard x-ray equipment at Bethesda. He was CLUELESS to the fact the x-rays were created on an old portable machine, and that such machines were notorious for their wide swings in contrast. He also claimed that he'd compared his OD measurements to those on similar x-rays, and that he used these as controls. This is deceptive. Apples vs Oranges. None of these x-rays were created on old portable machines, and none of them involved over-lapping bone. And not only that, there is reason to doubt he  tested as many as he and others would later claim. You, Michael, keep playing the science card. So where's the data 0n his controls? And where are his images of similar skull wounds created on similar machines? That would be science, Michael.  As it is, no one in radiology-land takes him seriously. He is like someone who spotted a ghost image on an old photo who jumps right to "It's a ghost" without first testing to see if it could be a double-exposure. 

(And no, you shouldn't run to him to get his response. READ some textbooks and see for yourself. Or, better yet, join a radiology forum and see what they have to say about all this.)

Here we go again. So far, every single time you have claimed that your website (your online book) "explains X" or "explains Y" or "explains Z," when I have gone back and checked your website, I have found that it does not explain those issues.

WRONG.

So how about we do this: How about if you name just one piece of evidence that you believe was faked or deceptively altered? How about that? Just name one. Now, obviously, I'm not talking about a diagram, drawing, or statement created or submitted to the WC or the HSCA, etc. I'm talking about an item of physical evidence, such as an autopsy photo, an autopsy x-ray, a bullet fragment, a film, a rifle, a shell casing, a fingerprint, etc., etc. Just name one. Just one.

I'll give you a bunch. I believe the palm print lift is a fake--perhaps lifted off a table top or palm print card. I also believe the paper bag was created by the DPD, for unclear reasons, perhaps to transport a part of the window frame, and that it was then decided it should be used against Oswald. So, yeah, that would mean the bag prints--which I proved were misrepresented in the WR--are also fakes. And, oh yeah, there's Oswald's shirt. All the photos of the shirt he was wearing when arrested fail to show a hole in the elbow, but then Bledsoe said she thought his shirt he'd been wearing had a hole, and all the photos after that show a hole in the elbow. And this wasn't a coincidence, mind you. Fibers from that shirt were "discovered" on the rifle before Oswald told Fritz he had actually been wearing a different shirt at work. This then led to a desperate attempt to prove he really had been wearing the dark brown shirt at work. So it's a two-fer. The DPD/FBI planted fibers on the rifle, and then tore a hole in the sleeve to elicit an ID from Bledsoe. 

My response in bold.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Michael Griffith]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Pat, you accidentally put your reply in the quoted portion that contains my reply.

[Michael Griffith]

@Pat Speer

Nice dodge. ONE expert noticed it and thought it didn't look like metal.

Dr. Mantik has noticed it as well. He, too, says it’s not metallic.

There is no evidence he was told or knew that the autopsy participants specified from where the fragment was removed, and that it matched the location of what is undeniably a fragment. Think clearly, Michael. What are the odds of a bone fragment just so happening to appear on the x-rays where the doctors said they recovered a metal fragment? Hmmm... 

Sigh. . . . You just keep repeating this nonsense and ignoring the refutation of it. You know that to make this argument, you must assume that Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole committed the mind-boggling blunder of mistaking the round 6.5 mm object for the narrow, club-shaped 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray. That is just ridiculous. A child could tell the difference between these two objects on the AP x-ray.

You also know that your argument requires that we dismiss the fact that Humes clearly, plainly, and undeniably stated that the largest fragment he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment, which he correctly said was behind and slightly above the right orbit, exactly where it appears on the x-rays.

You further know that your argument requires that the 6.5 mm object is the AP view of your tiny slice object on the lateral x-rays, which is just hogwash for several reasons, starting with the fact that nearly all experts who’ve studied the x-rays have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, not to mention that no expert has identified your slice as metallic, much less as the partner image of the 6.5 mm object.

You keep making these dogmatic, emphatic assertions for a position that is utterly devoid of evidence and that is contradicted by every expert who has examined the x-rays.

What? They saw a fragment on the x-rays. As they provided but two measurements for this 3-d fragment, they probably even measured it on an x-ray. The fragment behind the eye is roughly 7 x 2 on the lateral x-ray. They said nothing about a club-shape. In any event, the fragment I've identified--which was also picked out by others--is far closer in proportion to being 7 x 2 on the lateral x-ray than the club-shaped fragment INCHES AWAY from where they removed a fragment. . 

One, see above.

Two, “the fragment” you’ve “identified” is not metallic, and no expert has said it is. Not one. So, poof, there goes your convoluted theory from the get-go.

Three, I did not say that the autopsy doctors described the 7x2 mm fragment as club-shaped. I’m saying that this is the fragment’s shape. Humes described is as “irregular,” 7 mm in height and 2 mm in width. But you’re making the absurd argument that Humes was actually describing the neatly round 6.5 mm object.

Four, you know, you must know, that it is patently false to claim that the 7x2 mm fragment was “inches away from where they removed a fragment.” That is total bunk. Humes specified, in plain English, that the 7x2 mm fragment was behind and slightly above the right orbit, and that it was the largest fragment that he removed. It is simply amazing that you keep dismissing this fact.

OD is hard science for determining bone density. It has never been used by forensic radiologists to determine the authenticity of x-rays.

That’s a cop-out and a dodge. OD analysis can determine the density of any object on an x-ray, not just bone. It is usually used to determine bone density, but it can also determine the density of other objects on an x-ray, as Dr. Mantik has demonstrated. When he provided his hundreds of OD measurements to Dr. Fitzpatrick and invited him to review them, Fitzpatrick refused. Dr. Arthur Haas, the chief of medical physics at Kodak, reviewed Mantik’s OD research and saw no problems with it.

Before one can state the whiteness on an x-ray is so white it must be fake, moreover, one must ascertain the settings on the machine, and time of exposure, etc. Mantik never even tried to do any of this. In one of his embarassing responses to my writings, he expressed outrage that I would suggest they used sub-standard x-ray equipment at Bethesda. He was CLUELESS to the fact the x-rays were created on an old portable machine, and that such machines were notorious for their wide swings in contrast.

This is false. Have you not read his response to your critique of his research?

He also claimed that he'd compared his OD measurements to those on similar x-rays, and that he used these as controls. This is deceptive. Apples vs Oranges. None of these x-rays were created on old portable machines, and none of them involved over-lapping bone.

This is nonsensical gibberish. The overlapping bone is irrelevant because it is not even close to the area of the white patch, and it has nothing to do with the OD measurements of the 6.5 mm object.

Folks, I suggest interested readers read Dr. Mantik’s reply to Pat’s amateurish attacks (LINK).

And not only that, there is reason to doubt he tested as many as he and others would later claim. You, Michael, keep playing the science card. So where's the data 0n his controls? And where are his images of similar skull wounds created on similar machines? That would be science, Michael.  

This is more amateurish flailing. How about Dr. Chesser’s OD measurements? Hey?

As it is, no one in radiology-land takes him seriously.

This is a petty smear. If no one takes him seriously, how has he been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals on issues relating to radiation oncology? What about the doctors, one of whom is a radiation oncologist, who have endorsed his work?

He is like someone who spotted a ghost image on an old photo who jumps right to "It's a ghost" without first testing to see if it could be a double-exposure. (And no, you shouldn't run to him to get his response. READ some textbooks and see for yourself. Or, better yet, join a radiology forum and see what they have to say about all this.)

You have no clue what you are talking about. He compared JFK’s pre-mortem x-rays with the autopsy x-rays. He collected hundreds of data points in OD measurements of the white patch. He was able to demonstrate how the white patch was created, i.e., via double-exposure. As mentioned, Dr. Arthur Haas checked his work and saw no issues with it. Dr. Greg Henkelmann, a fellow radiation oncologist who also happens to have a background in physics, has endorsed Dr. Mantik’s research.

[[ME: Here we go again. So far, every single time you have claimed that your website (your online book) "explains X" or "explains Y" or "explains Z," when I have gone back and checked your website, I have found that it does not explain those issues.]]

WRONG.

Uh, no. NOT WRONG. You said your online book explains the virtually undamaged cerebellum, but it does no such thing. You said your online book has diagrams that show a bullet entering at the EOP could have exited the throat, but no such diagrams appear in your book. Do you want me to quote what you said to refresh your memory?

[[MG: So how about we do this: How about if you name just one piece of evidence that you believe was faked or deceptively altered? How about that? Just name one. Now, obviously, I'm not talking about a diagram, drawing, or statement created or submitted to the WC or the HSCA, etc. I'm talking about an item of physical evidence, such as an autopsy photo, an autopsy x-ray, a bullet fragment, a film, a rifle, a shell casing, a fingerprint, etc., etc. Just name one. Just one.]]

I'll give you a bunch. I believe the palm print lift is a fake--perhaps lifted off a table top or palm print card. I also believe the paper bag was created by the DPD, for unclear reasons, perhaps to transport a part of the window frame, and that it was then decided it should be used against Oswald. So, yeah, that would mean the bag prints--which I proved were misrepresented in the WR--are also fakes. And, oh yeah, there's Oswald's shirt. All the photos of the shirt he was wearing when arrested fail to show a hole in the elbow, but then Bledsoe said she thought his shirt he'd been wearing had a hole, and all the photos after that show a hole in the elbow. And this wasn't a coincidence, mind you. Fibers from that shirt were "discovered" on the rifle before Oswald told Fritz he had actually been wearing a different shirt at work. This then led to a desperate attempt to prove he really had been wearing the dark brown shirt at work. So it's a two-fer. The DPD/FBI planted fibers on the rifle, and then tore a hole in the sleeve to elicit an ID from Bledsoe. 

Uh, well, yeah, I’ll buy these examples as examples of faked/altered evidence. So, I happily stand corrected on this point. However, I was thinking more of medical evidence, but I take your point.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith