How Would You Defend Lee Harvey Oswald In A Court Of Law?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

How would you defend Lee Harvey Oswald in a court of law vs How you would prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald using fraudulent evidence.

And how would you go about PROVING that all of the various pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are "fraudulent"?

Thus far in 60 years, not a single person on Earth has PROVEN that ANY of the evidence is fraudulent, let alone all of it.

Good luck to you.

 

Edited Tuesday at 11:49 AM by David Von Pein

[Johnny Cairns]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, of course. Why would I argue anything else (given the photographic record PLUS the testimony that I'd be getting from the three autopsy surgeons, who each would swear under oath that there was no huge hole in the back part of the President's head)?

Would you argue that this conclusion reached by the HSCA's Photographic Panel was just a big pack of lies?....

Great so now there’s no ambiguity let me begin. 

In a court of law, the admission of photographs follows a specific standard. The standard, McCormick on Evidence, states that "The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams. A photograph is viewed merely as graphic portrayal of oral testimony and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness. 
 

So with that in mind, let’s take at the testimony of some of the Doctors, Nurses, FBI agents, SS agents, corpsman etc, in relation to the Presidents wounds.
 

Dr Paul Peters. I could see that he (Kennedy) large, about 7cm opening in the right occipital parietal area. A considerable portion of the brain was missing there and uh the occipital cortex the back portion of the brain was lying down near the opening of the wound and blood was trickling out".
 

Dr Robert McClelland. As I took position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and it seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I had mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see possibly a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open." (Volume VI; p. 33.)

Dr Charles Crenshaw. "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater-an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum. The wound resembled a deep furrow in a freshly ploughed field." (Crenshaw, Conspiracy of Silence; p. 86.)

Dr Kemp Clark. "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present." (Volume IV; p. 20.)

Dr Malcolm Perry. "...It informed us that the President had been shot and was being brought to the emergency room. We went there immediately, and he had just been brought in. It was obvious initially that he had a severe lethal wound. Arriving at the emergency room Dr Carrico had placed a tube in the President's trachea to assist his breathing. There was a neck wound internally and a large wound of his head in the right posterior area." See video

Dr Ronald Jones. "There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. * (Volume VI; p. 53/54.)

Dr Marion Jenkins. "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage." Report of DR. M. T Jenkins, 11/22/63 16:30. (Volume XVII; p. 14/15.)

Dr Gene Coleman Akin. "The back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding." (Volume VI; p. 65.)

Dr Charles Baxter. "We had an opportunity to look at his head wound then and saw that the damage was beyond hope, that is, in a word-literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present-a large quantity of brain was present on the cart." (Volume VI; p. 41.)

Dr Adolph Giesecke Jr. "It seemed that from the vortex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing."

Arlen Specter. Was that the left-hand side of the head, or the right-hand side of the head?

Dr Adolph Giesecke Jr. "I would say the left, but this is just my memory of it." (Volume VI; p. 74.)

Nurse Doris May Nelson.

Ben Bradlee Jr. "On page 104 of the House Assassination Committee Report, this rear view of the head. This is a photograph taken of the President's head, during the autopsy. I should say it's not a photograph, it's a tracing, a drawing, which claims to be an exact replica of the rear-"

Nurse Nelson. "After he was shot?"

Bradlee. "After he was shot."

Nurse Nelson. "It's not true"

Bradlee. "It's not true?"

Nelson. …." Not unless they pulled all that skin back down, but some of his head was blown away, and his brains were fallin' out on a stretcher."

Bradlee. "Oh, can you be more specific? Are you saying that this photo- this photograph does not show the wounds that you saw?"

Nelson. "No."

Bradlee. "And how doesn't it exactly?"

Nelson. "Cause there was no hair, there wasn't even hair back there, it was blown away". See supporting video at 6:00.

Nurse Audrey Bell. "I recall the injury being right along in this area (pointing to occipital parietal area in autopsy photograph). I know they lifted it up for me to see the injury at the back of the head.

Robert Groden. "Ok but you remember there being a large hole there that is not apparent in this photograph?"

Bell. "Oh yes there was a big hole there. There was a large hole back in this area (pointing to occipital parietal area in autopsy photograph)" See video at 1.03.25

Nurse Pat Hutton. "Mr Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head. A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound, this was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of his head." (Volume XXI; p. 216.)

Nurse Diana Bowron. "He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car, I saw the condition of his head."

Mr Spector. "You saw the condition of his what?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "The back of his head"

Mr Spector. "And what was that condition?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "Well, it was very bad-you know."

Mr Spector. "How many holes did you see?"

Nurse Diana Bowron. "I just saw one large hole." (Volume VI; p. 136.)

Aubrey Rike. "The first time we began to pick up the President, I put my right hand underneath his head; I could feel the back of the skull had been blown out-it was literally blasted away. I felt the serrated edge of the hole in the skull on my hand. It was not painful, but I could feel the jagged edges of the bones through the sheet on the palm of my hand. I could also feel the President's brain shifting in my hand within the hole located just to the right of the centre of the head." (At The Door Of Memory; p. 58.)

ARRB Testimony

Jeremy Gunn. "Okay. If we could now look at the sixth view, which is described as the 'wound of entrance ln right posterior occipital region". Photograph No.42. Mr. Slbert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head?"

James Sibert. "Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact, as compared with these other pictures. I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo."

Gunn. "But do you see anything that corresponds in Photograph No. 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy?"

Sibert. "No. I don't recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much- the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was and those other photographs." (Sibert, ARRB Testimony; p. 126.)

Jeremy Gunn. "Okay. Can we take a look at view number six, which is described as wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region, Colour Photograph No. 42...I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy"?

Francis X. O'Neill. "This looks like it's been doctored in some way. Let me rephrase that, when I say "doctored" Like the stuff has been pushed back in, and it looks like more towards the end than at the beginning. All you have to do was put the flap back over here, and the rest of the stuff is all covered on up". (O'Neill, ARRB Testimony; p. 158.)

Mrs Jackie Kennedy. Declassified excerpt from her testimony to the Warren Commission which was suppressed "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (Weisberg, Post Mortem; pp. 380/381.)

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill. "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (Volume II; p. 141.)

Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman.

Arlen Specter. "I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy."

Roy Kellerman. "OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size"

Arlen Specter. "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct"?

Roy Kellerman. "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head."

Arlen Specter. Indicating the rear portion of the head.

Roy Kellerman. Yes.

Arlen Specter. "More to the right side of the head"?

Roy Kellerman. "Right. This was removed." (Volume II; p. 80/81.)

Secret Service Agent William Greer.

Arlen Specter. "What did you observe about the President with respect to his wounds"?

William Greer "His head was all shot; this whole part was all a matter of blood like he had been hit"

Arlen Specter. "Indicating the top and right rear side of the head"?

William Greer "Yes sir; it looked like that was all blown off." (Volume II; p. 124.)

Thomas Robinson, mortician

Reporter. "What do you remember about the wounds you witnessed"?

Tom Robinson. "Well, the one at the back of the head course is the major one, that's the one that took him. The one that killed him… it's like that [Pointing to diagram on sheet] but its right here [pointing to right back of his head] right at the medulla.

Reporter. "Yeah… what happened to the brains of the President?

Tom Robinson. It was removed... course the back [points to back of head] portion of the brain was badly torn up. Then put into a jar and taken away. See supporting video.

Edward Reed, Bethesda assistant: "The head wound was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region." (Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up; p. 33.)

Dr John Ebersole. "The back of the head was missing." (Cover-Up; p. 33.)

Phil Willis. "I am very dead certain that at least one shot including the one that took the President's skull off had to come from the right front...and I will stand to that to my death. Over my mother's grave." See all three Willis statements at 24:00.

Marilyn Wills. "The head shot seemed to come from the right front. It seemed to strike him here [pointing to right temple] and his head went back, and all of the brain matter went out the back of the head it was like a red halo, a red circle with bright matter in the middle of it it just went like that. It was a terrible time you cannot imagine seeing this. You knew it happened, but you didn't want to believe it."

Linda Kay Wills. "The particular headshot must have come from another direction besides behind him because the back of his head blew off and it doesn't make sense to be hit from the rear and still have your face intact. So, he must have been hit from another position you know possibly in the front or over to the side I really don't know where, but the back of his head blew off".

Dr John Ebersole. "The back of the head was missing and the regular messy wound." p. 3 of PDF

Jan Rudnicki. " The back right quadrant of the head was missing" p. 2 of PDF.

James Metzler Bethesda witness "Right side of the head behind the right ear extending down to the centre back of the skull." (Cover-Up; p. 33.)

Floyd Riebe

ARRB. "I would like you to describe as best you recall what or provide a description of the injuries to President Kennedy's head so we will say from above the throat. Not to the throat but above the throat. What did you observe on the body?"

Riebe. "The right side in the back was gone (indicating). Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it."

ARRB. "When you said that, you put your hand on the back of your head."

Riebe. "The occipital."

ARRB. "The occipital area? "

Riebe. "Yes." See Riebe deposition

Question; why would you want these scores of credible witnesses to testify at Oswald’s trial? 

[David Von Pein]

Johnny C.,

In short, the things illustrated below, in tandem, trump and supercede any and all "Back-of-the-Head Wound" witnesses. They always have. They always will....

 

Edited yesterday at 01:08 AM by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Johnny just pinned the tail on the donkey.

See, before any trial you have what is called in California a 402 hearing.

At that hearing the defense gets to challenge the prosecutor's evidence for issues of chain of custody and admissibility.

Can you imagine trying to get those pictures in with the witnesses above?  I mean Sibert and ONeill would be utterly humiliating.  

But then, there is the issue of dissection.

Tanenbaum: Dr. Humes, what was the cause of death in this case?

Humes: A bullet wound to the head.

Tanenbaum: Well, if such was the case, why did you not section the brain for a dissection?

Humes: In the interests of preserving the specimen.

Tanenbaum:  Preserving it for whom?  Did you plan on putting it on display in a museum?

Edited 19 hours ago by James DiEugenio

[Johnny Cairns]

6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Johnny C.,

In short, the things illustrated below, in tandem, trump and supercede any and all "Back-of-the-Head Wound" witnesses. They always have. They always will....

 

Mr. Von Pein, we are essentially left with two possibilities here:

    1.    There was indeed a significant exit wound in the occipital-parietal area of the President’s head, as testified/described by an abundance of witnesses or…
    2.    All 33 witnesses I have listed—comprising competent doctors, nurses, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, corpsmen, and others—are part of an elaborate conspiracy against the Government to conceal, as you are implying, the true nature of President Kennedys head wound. 
 

Your choice. 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Mr. Von Pein, we are essentially left with two possibilities here:

    1.    There was indeed a significant exit wound in the occipital-parietal area of the President’s head, as testified/described by an abundance of witnesses or…
    2.    All 33 witnesses I have listed—comprising competent doctors, nurses, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, corpsmen, and others—are part of an elaborate conspiracy against the Government to conceal, as you are implying, the true nature of President Kennedy's head wound.

Mr. Cairns,

Your #2 choice above is, of course, totally absurd. I have never once said or even vaguely implied that any of the "back-of-the-head" witnesses were part of an "elaborate conspiracy" to "conceal" the true nature of the President's head wounds.

For reasons we'll probably never know with any certainty, those witnesses who thought they saw a large wound in the back part of President Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital were (simply) wrong -- i.e., they were innocently mistaken -- i.e., they were incorrect in their individual assessments regarding the actual location of the large wound in the President's head. But they certainly weren't part of some cover-up scheme.

It might seem incredible to some people (and downright impossible to others) that so many medical professionals could all be mistaken about the location of the President's head wound. But, in my opinion, such a mass mistake did, indeed, occur on November 22, 1963.

More of my thoughts about how such a multi-person error could have happened can be
found HERE and HERE.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:28 AM by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Excerpt from a 2011 Internet discussion.....

JOHN KING SAID:

Ok, once again, I ask you one of the most important questions of all. Please do not reply to my article without answering this very specifically. It is crucial that you answer this, because without this answer you cannot present a plausible argument:

IF THE HOLE IN [JOHN F. KENNEDY'S] HEAD WASN'T WHERE THEY [THE PARKLAND WITNESSES] SAID IT WAS, THEN WHERE ON HIS HEAD WAS THE HOLE THEY SAW?

Unless you're going to dismiss these witnesses even further and claim that not only were they mistaken about where the hole was, they were mistaken about there being ANY hole (in which case I'll never take you seriously again), you realize that you or anyone else doubting what they said absolutely MUST answer this question plausibly to produce an even remotely plausible argument.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best evidence in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the autopsy report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the major wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the "occipital" (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I can legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID see a wound in the occipital area of his head.

And, yes, I realize that Humes' autopsy report does say that the large wound in JFK's head extended "somewhat" into the "occipital" region of his head. But that "somewhat" is a far cry from placing the major portion of that wound in a place where virtually everyone at Parkland placed it.

This leaves the REAL wound of exit in Mr. Kennedy's head for the Parkland witnesses to ACTUALLY see, quite obviously.

But, since I've already stated that it's my belief that it is highly likely that the REAL wound of exit (or at least the major portion of that wound) in the right-front of the head was "closed up" by Jackie Kennedy during the high-speed drive to Parkland Hospital, I'm going to actually have to suggest to you a theory that is probably going to cause you to lose all respect for me entirely and, hence, you will never take me seriously again (as you just said):

I'm going to suggest to you, via the previously discussed "pooling" theory, that the Parkland witnesses actually saw NO PART of the major exit wound that existed in John F. Kennedy's head on 11/22/63.

I had never really thought about this issue from this particular point-of-view prior to today, but that theory I just laid on the table is also almost CERTAINLY the exact theory that people like Dr. Michael Baden and Vincent Bugliosi must believe as well.

Otherwise, we would have Baden and Bugliosi "pulling a Jim Moore" on us and suggesting that the Parkland witnesses actually DID see the one and only large right-frontal wound in John Kennedy's head, but (somehow) they all became disoriented as to the real location of that wound, due to Kennedy's supine posture while in the emergency room.

But Baden and Bugliosi are NOT suggesting such a ludicrous thing at all. Instead, they are saying what I have said in the past as well -- that the Parkland people DID know JFK's "front" from his "back", but they interpreted a lot of blood and brain tissue adhering to the right-rear of Kennedy's head as being an actual/physical WOUND residing in the location of all that blood and tissue.

But since we know that a large wound was NOT located in that right-rear-occipital area (and Baden and Bugliosi don't think ANY sort of wound resided in that location either), this must, therefore, indicate that both Baden and Bugliosi must legitimately believe that most of the Parkland witnesses saw NO REAL WOUND in President Kennedy's head.

And, stopping to think about this scenario a tad longer, that theory of the Parkland people seeing no large wound at all DOES make some sense indeed, due to the fact that Jackie Kennedy, in effect, CONCEALED that large exit wound from the view of the Parkland witnesses before JFK's limousine reached the hospital. So, what "real" wound WOULD there have been to see at Parkland under these conditions (and via the "pooling blood" theory I've spoken of)?

But we must also realize that the Parkland people were not there to perform an autopsy on President Kennedy's body. They were there to try and save his life if they could. They did not closely inspect or examine ANY of the President's wounds. Nor was it their job to do any such extensive examination. Once the President was pronounced dead, Trauma Room 1 cleared out quickly, and very few people even saw the President's body after that point at Parkland.

So, while it might be hard to believe that the massive wound in JFK's head could go completely unnoticed by many, many trained doctors and nurses at a major U.S. hospital, given the circumstances and conditions outlined above concerning Mrs. Kennedy's probable handling of her husband's head before the car got to Parkland (and even you, yourself, say that you believe it's true that Jackie most certainly DID close up the open flaps on JFK's head), such a theory about the Parkland personnel not being able to see any of the actual wounds in the President's head seems quite possible and palatable, in my opinion.


JOHN KING SAID:

Where do you think on JFK's head the hole was that they saw? Do you see any hole in his head in that autopsy photo with him laying on his back? I sure don't. And in that photo the area where they said there WAS a hole is completely covered by his hair.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You have just confirmed the point I made above.

I.E.,

You just admitted (inadvertently) that a situation could, indeed, exist whereby the head of President Kennedy (after he had been shot) could appear to a witness to have NO HOLES IN IT WHATSOEVER (via the autopsy picture you mentioned [which is shown below]).

So, via the "pooling blood" theory that I still maintain is likely the correct theory (even though I cannot reconcile that theory with ALL of the Parkland/Bethesda witnesses, and probably will never be able to do that), why would it be considered so outlandish to postulate that the Parkland witnesses saw the President's body in approximately the same condition in which it appears in this autopsy photo?:

Hence, those Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head, and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was the only physical "hole" in his head.

David Von Pein
July 17, 2011

 

Edited yesterday at 09:49 AM by David Von Pein

[Gil Jesus]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Johnny just pinned the tail on the donkey.

See, before any trial you have what is called in California a 402 hearing.

At that hearing the defense gets to challenge the prosecutor's evidence for issues of chain of custody and admissibility.

And that's an excellent point.

In my state we call it a "pre-trial conference". Mr. Von Pein and his associates on the Lone Nut side don't realize that this evidence would have been challenged by a competent defense attorney BEFORE the jury even heard from the first witness.

Much of this evidence would have been thrown out for reasons I've already mentioned.

They also don't realize that the defense is involved in jury selection. Before a person is chosen to sit on a jury, he or she must be approved by BOTH the prosecution AND the defense. Potential jurors are questioned to measure their ability to be impartial. This is to avoid any bias for either side based on race, politics or sex.

Now you know why Oswald was killed. To save the Dallas DA and the police dept. the embarrassment of having to drop the charges against him. So they let Ruby into the station to take him out.

Edited yesterday at 10:11 AM by Gil Jesus

[Johnny Cairns]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Mr. Cairns,

Your #2 choice above is, of course, totally absurd. I have never once said or even vaguely implied that any of the "back-of-the-head" witnesses were part of an "elaborate conspiracy" to "conceal" the true nature of the President's head wounds.

For reasons we'll probably never know with any certainty, those witnesses who thought they saw a large wound in the back part of President Kennedy's head at Parkland Hospital were (simply) wrong -- i.e., they were innocently mistaken -- i.e., they were incorrect in their individual assessments regarding the actual location of the large wound in the President's head. But they certainly weren't part of some cover-up scheme.

It might seem incredible to some people (and downright impossible to others) that so many medical professionals could all be mistaken about the location of the President's head wound. But, in my opinion, such a mass mistake did, indeed, occur on November 22, 1963.

More of my thoughts about how such a multi-person error could have happened can be
found HERE and HERE.

 

Mr Von Pein. 

With all due respect here, I find it utterly ridiculous that 33 witnesses would be specifically wrong about seeing something as horrific as the large, gaping wound to the occipital parietal area of the head of the President of the United States. We are talking, in large part, medical professionals here. For what you are implying to be true, Henry Wade would have to sell the jury that all these competent professionals were wrong, and specifically wrong about the nature of the Presidents head wound. Now do you think then when these people take the stand, and describe with horror the mass, volcanic wound to the back of the head, all independent of each other, that Wade wouldn’t have had a serious problem? I think we both know the answer to that. 
 

As for calling Humes, Boswell and Finck to save the day for the governments case, that wouldn’t be such a good idea. Under cross examination in the Trial, People V Clay Shaw, Pierre Finck crumbled under the cross examination of questioning counsel Alvin Oser, and admitted, under oath, that the autopsy doctors were taken orders that night and that wounds in the Presidents body were not dissected to establish the bullet path. Which as we know is a fundamental aspect of an autopsy. 
 

Alvin Oser. “Was Dr. Humes running the show?”
Pierre Finck. “Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said, "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.”
Alvin Oser. “But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?”
Pierre Finck. “Yes, I am.”
Alvin Oser. “Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?”
Pierre Finck. “No.”
Alvin Oser. “Was he a doctor?”
Pierre Finck. “No, not to my knowledge”.
Alvin Oser. “Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General that was there directing the autopsy?”
Pierre Finck. “No, because there were others, there were Admirals.”
Alvin Oser. “There were Admirals?”
Pierre Finck. “Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders…

Alvin Oser. “Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?”
Pierre Finck. “I did not dissect the track in the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “Why?”
Pierre Finck. “This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.”
Alvin Oser. “Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel, and I would as the Court so to direct.”
Judge: “That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.”
Pierre Finck. “We didn't remove the organs of the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “Why not, Doctor?”
Pierre Finck. “For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the –"
Alvin Oser. “Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?”
Judge: “Let him finish his answer”.
Pierre Finck. “I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.”
Alvin Oser. “You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?”
Pierre Finck. “I had the cause of death.”
Alvin Oser. “Why did you not trace the track of the wound?”
Pierre Finck. “As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.”
Alvin Oser.” I didn't hear you.”
Pierre Finck. “I examined the wounds, but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a pathologist?”
Pierre Finck. “From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.”
Alvin Oser. “Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.”
Alvin Oser. “I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today, and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.”
Pierre Finck. “As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.”
Alvin Oser. “You were told not to, but you don't remember by whom?”
Pierre Finck. “Right.”
Alvin Oser. “Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?”
Pierre Finck. “I don't recall.”
Alvin Oser. “Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?”
Pierre Finck. “Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?”
Pierre Finck. “I was interested in the track, and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.”
Alvin Oser. “But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?”
Pierre Finck. “From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.”

Second case in point would be Dr Humes. Humes stated in 1964 that; “In [the] privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this [handwritten draft of autopsy report] represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room.” Commander J. J. Humes. (Volume II; p. 373)

But during his deposition/questioning by Gunn and Horne of the ARRB, Humes is caught out in his deception. 
 

Jeremy Gunn. “When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it (the draft report on Kennedy autopsy) was that it had the blood of the President on it.”
Jim Humes. “Right”.
Jeremy Gunn. “The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of…”
Jim Humes. “Well, it may have had errors in spelling, or I don't know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that…

Now this is the real kicker. Humes and Finck testified to the Warren Commission that CE399, which you contend caused all the non fatal wounds in the President and the Governor, could not even have inflicted the wrist wound of Gov. Connelly. 

Arlen Specter. “Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes…could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?”

Commander James Humes. “I think that that is most unlikely… The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.”

 

Arlen Specter “And could it [CE399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?”

Pierre Finck. “No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.” (Volume II; p. 382)

So in reality, you would have to impugn the credibility of you’re own star witnesses to the medicinal evidence, in front of the Jury, because as we know, CE399 is absolutely fundamental to the case of a lone gunman, carrying out the assassination of President Kennedy. 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:15 AM by Johnny Cairns

[David Von Pein]

Johnny,

The bottom-line choice is, of course, this:

1. Believe that a lot of people made a rather significant (but innocent and unintentional) error regarding the location of the large wound in JFK's head.

Or:

2. Believe that the various autopsy photographs and X-rays have been falsified and altered to make it appear that JFK had no large wound at all in the back of his head....PLUS....believe that all (or certainly most) of the (20?) members of the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel deliberately lied in HSCA Volume 7 when they concluded (as a unit) that all of the autopsy photos/X-rays were genuine and had not been altered in any manner (even though, per CTers, they had to have known that that conclusion was nothing but a big fat falsehood)....PLUS....believe that the Zapruder Film has also been faked/altered so that it can (falsely) show no large wound of any kind in the rear portion of Kennedy's cranium....PLUS....believe that all three autopsy surgeons lied their heads off in their autopsy report and in all of the official sworn testimony they would ever provide for the rest of their lives.

Now, which choice do you think is the most likely to be accurate?

For most conspiracy theorists, it's #2 (naturally). For every LNer who has ever walked the Earth, #1 wins the day.

Stalemate....as always.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:54 AM by David Von Pein

[Sean Coleman]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Johnny,

The bottom-line choice is, of course, this:

1. Believe that a lot of people made a rather significant (but innocent and unintentional) error regarding the location of the large wound in JFK's head.

Or:

2. Believe that the various autopsy photographs and X-rays have been falsified and altered to make it appear that JFK had no large wound at all in the back of his head....PLUS....believe that all (or certainly most) of the (20?) members of the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel deliberately lied in HSCA Volume 7 when they concluded (as a unit) that all of the autopsy photos/X-rays were genuine and had not been altered in any manner (even though, per CTers, they had to have known that that conclusion was nothing but a big fat falsehood)....PLUS....believe that the Zapruder Film has also been faked/altered so that it can (falsely) show no large wound of any kind in the rear portion of Kennedy's cranium....PLUS....believe that all three autopsy surgeons lied their heads off in their autopsy report and in all of the official sworn testimony they would ever provide for the rest of their lives.

Now, which choice do you think is the most likely to be accurate?

For most conspiracy theorists, it's #2 (naturally). For every LNer who has ever walked the Earth, #1 wins the day.

Stalemate....as always.

 

So who would you call as a head wound witness?

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

So who would you call as a head wound witness?

Abe Zapruder, Gayle Newman, and Bill Newman.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by David Von Pein

[Johnny Cairns]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Johnny,

The bottom-line choice is, of course, this:

1. Believe that a lot of people made a rather significant (but innocent and unintentional) error regarding the location of the large wound in JFK's head.

Or:

2. Believe that the various autopsy photographs and X-rays have been falsified and altered to make it appear that JFK had no large wound at all in the back of his head....PLUS....believe that all (or certainly most) of the (20?) members of the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel deliberately lied in HSCA Volume 7 when they concluded (as a unit) that all of the autopsy photos/X-rays were genuine and had not been altered in any manner (even though, per CTers, they had to have known that that conclusion was nothing but a big fat falsehood)....PLUS....believe that the Zapruder Film has also been faked/altered so that it can (falsely) show no large wound of any kind in the rear portion of Kennedy's cranium....PLUS....believe that all three autopsy surgeons lied their heads off in their autopsy report and in all of the official sworn testimony they would ever provide for the rest of their lives.

Now, which choice do you think is the most likely to be accurate?

For most conspiracy theorists, it's #2 (naturally). For every LNer who has ever walked the Earth, #1 wins the day.

Stalemate....as always.

 

Respectfully, I do not agree with your standpoint and I’ll tell you why. 
 

1. The Photograph you have provided, does not need to be faked, to conceal the massive head wound in the back of the Presidents head does it? You do realise there is ways to manipulate the scalp to cover the wound, as Dorris May Nelson told Ben Bradlee, 

On 7/9/2024 at 4:21 PM, Johnny Cairns said:

This is a photograph taken of the President's head, during the autopsy. I should say it's not a photograph, it's a tracing, a drawing, which claims to be an exact replica of the rear-"

Nurse Nelson. "After he was shot?"

Bradlee. "After he was shot."

Nurse Nelson. "It's not true"

Bradlee. "It's not true?"

Nelson. …." Not unless they pulled all that skin back down, but some of his head was blown away, and his brains were fallin' out on a stretcher."

In the documentary, What the Doctors saw, the surviving Parkland Doctors discussed this very point, the manipulation of the scalp in order to cover up the large defect in the back of the head. Maybe that is why there is a hand somewhat obscured at the front of the Presidents head in this picture. 
 

2. Can you please produce a frame from the Zapruder film that shows clearly the entirety of the Presidents head intact after the shooting? A square on still so to speak will suffice. 
 

3. As I posted in my last message, Humes, Boswell and Finck would turn out to be rather poor witnesses for your case, why? Because as I have already alluded to Finck crumbled during his testimony during the Shaw trial in 1969 and the Humes had a similar outburst during his deposition for the ARRB. I include it here again: 

 

Alvin Oser. “Was Dr. Humes running the show?”
Pierre Finck. “Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that -- he said, "Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officers, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.”
Alvin Oser. “But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that autopsy table, were you not, Doctor?”
Pierre Finck. “Yes, I am.”
Alvin Oser. “Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?”
Pierre Finck. “No.”
Alvin Oser. “Was he a doctor?”
Pierre Finck. “No, not to my knowledge”.
Alvin Oser. “Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General that was there directing the autopsy?”
Pierre Finck. “No, because there were others, there were Admirals.”
Alvin Oser. “There were Admirals?”
Pierre Finck. “Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders…

Alvin Oser. “Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?”
Pierre Finck. “I did not dissect the track in the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “Why?”
Pierre Finck. “This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.”
Alvin Oser. “Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel, and I would as the Court so to direct.”
Judge: “That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.”
Pierre Finck. “We didn't remove the organs of the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “Why not, Doctor?”
Pierre Finck. “For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the –"
Alvin Oser. “Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?”
Judge: “Let him finish his answer”.
Pierre Finck. “I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.”
Alvin Oser. “You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?”
Pierre Finck. “I had the cause of death.”
Alvin Oser. “Why did you not trace the track of the wound?”
Pierre Finck. “As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.”
Alvin Oser.” I didn't hear you.”
Pierre Finck. “I examined the wounds, but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't do this as a pathologist?”
Pierre Finck. “From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.”
Alvin Oser. “Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question.”
Alvin Oser. “I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today, and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.”
Pierre Finck. “As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.”
Alvin Oser. “You were told not to, but you don't remember by whom?”
Pierre Finck. “Right.”
Alvin Oser. “Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?”
Pierre Finck. “I don't recall.”
Alvin Oser. “Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?”
Pierre Finck. “Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.”
Alvin Oser. “You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?”
Pierre Finck. “I was interested in the track, and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.”
Alvin Oser. “But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?”
Pierre Finck. “From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.”

Second case in point would be Dr Humes. Humes stated in 1964 that; “In [the] privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this [handwritten draft of autopsy report] represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room.” Commander J. J. Humes. (Volume II; p. 373)

But during his deposition/questioning by Gunn and Horne of the ARRB, Humes is caught out in his deception. 
 

Jeremy Gunn. “When I first asked the question, you explained that the reason that you had destroyed it (the draft report on Kennedy autopsy) was that it had the blood of the President on it.”
Jim Humes. “Right”.
Jeremy Gunn. “The draft report, of course, would not have had the blood of…”
Jim Humes. “Well, it may have had errors in spelling, or I don't know what was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that…

Now Mr. Von Pein, let’s consider the probability of all 33 witnesses being wrong about the wound’s location. These witnesses include highly trained professionals—doctors, nurses, FBI agents, Secret Service agents, and corpsmen, all trained to observe and report accurately in such situations. The likelihood of each one independently misidentifying such a critical detail is already low. When combined, the odds of all 33 making the same mistake are astronomically low, likely in the range of millions to one. This overwhelming consensus among these qualified observers strongly supports the presence of an exit wound in the occipital-parietal area. I already know that your response to this will just be to outright dismiss the testimony’s of these witnesses as an honest mistake. However, that is easy to do on an open forum online. It would be next to impossible to take such a stance in a court of law, in front of a jury of 12, when the standard demands that you prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Johnny Cairns

[James DiEugenio]

Further:

Stringer's testimony about the brain photos would be quite compelling.

Secondly, the ARRB had testimony that Stringer did not follow his regular routine when taking the other pictures.

His routine, which he actually taught, was three pictures of each impacted area: close up, medium shot and distant shot.

Why did he not do that in this case?

Edited 10 hours ago by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

1. The Photograph you have provided does not need to be faked to conceal the massive head wound in the back of the President's head, does it?

Yes, it does (if you want to believe that the witnesses at Parkland did, in fact, actually see a large gaping wound in the back of JFK's head). Because there's no huge hole in JFK's SCALP in this photo either:

And the Parkland witnesses insist there was a huge BLOW-OUT in the rear of the head, which would (of course) have no choice but to include a SCALP "blow-out" too.

Unless you want to postulate that Kennedy's perfectly-intact scalp was reflected backward while he lay on his stretcher in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland -- and his scalp got that way on its own, without any doctors' assistance.

Such a notion regarding the scalp of the President is, of course, preposterous.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by David Von Pein