lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 22, 2006 9:56:53 GMT -4
However, I do notice that the purchase order Klein's submitted to Crescent seems to indicate a change to the M91/38 model, which, as I understand it, is the 40-inch rifle. Klein's Purchase OrderIn that same thread that contained the Martin Shackelford post, Walt Cakebread suggests that you can determine the gun type by the weight: [/size] Delivery ReceiptHere is Alexander Eichener's web site that covers the Carcano: A Carcano HomepageCan we tell which model he was holding in the "backyard photos" ?It is said to be the model 91/38 short rifle (40-inches long).[/quote] Unfortunately Mr. Cakebread seems to have gotten the weight of the carbine wrongand some Carbines are 91/38's. There are 5 Carcano models that fit the description,"Late Issue: 6.5 Italian Carbine. Only 36" overall", from the ad Oswald ordered from: 91 Cav, 91/24 T.S., 91/28 T.S., 91/38 Cav. and 91/38 T.S., do you have any information that would indicate which one it was? They weight 6 - 7 pounds and 91/33 could also refer t o 2 of them. personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.htmlWhere can I find high resolution copies of the 'backyard photos' and the TSBD carbine?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 22, 2006 12:32:52 GMT -4
Unfortunately Mr. Cakebread seems to have gotten the weight of the carbine wrongand some Carbines are 91/38's.Walt is essentially correct. The Model 91/38 Fucile Corto is 7 pounds and 7 ounces. That times 100 plus packaging should come out to around 750 pounds. There are 5 Carcano models that fit the description,"Late Issue: 6.5 Italian Carbine. Only 36" overall", from the ad Oswald ordered from: 91 Cav, 91/24 T.S., 91/28 T.S., 91/38 Cav. and 91/38 T.S., do you have any information that would indicate which one it was?No, but look at the purchase order I provided a link to. It lists "Model 91TS", but it notes a change to M91/38. I think the serial number is the best way to track the weapon in this case. Here is Waldman's testimony, which may give you an idea of how these sports equipment dealers operated: Waldman TestimonyWhere can I find high resolution copies of the 'backyard photos' and the TSBD carbine?I don't know.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Mar 22, 2006 15:22:47 GMT -4
I have some questions for Turbonium and others who think LHO was setup.
About half the witnesses in DP said the shots came from the TSBD and half from the grassy knoll. A rifle whose ballistics match recovered bullets was found at the TSBD, LHO place of work, and lots of evidence ties that weapon to him. He was seen close to the sniper’s perch shortly after the assassination. You can claim of course that this was all set up.
He was arrested about an hour afterwards for killing police officer J.D. Tippet. Again the weapon was tied to LHO and this time there were witnesses. You can claim this was a set up too and say IIRC not all witnesses IDed Oswald.
The questions are: how did the plotters get him close to scene of the Tippet shooting? Or was that just a coincidence? How did they get him to enter the movie theater without paying, thus drawing the attention of the ticket girl? LHO was one of only 4 workers IIRC who left the TSBD after the shooting was that a coincidence too? What did LHO have in the long paper package that 2 witnesses saw he brought to work that morning? How did the CIA arrange that or was that another coincidence or did both witnesses lie?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 22, 2006 16:31:06 GMT -4
Maybe because it's always the government investigating itself?
We the people charged the government with the authority to investigate crimes and to hand out punishments.
Ah yes..a "real" investigation - the antithesis of the WC investigation. Only one scenario, LHO shoting 3 bullets from the TSBD, was ever going to be "considered", and was always going to be their conclusion. That meant ignoring dozens of witnesses who contradicted it, or trying to coerce some of them into lying about what they saw, in a despicable attempt to find anyone to support their feeble case against LHO.
Turbonium, you have this evidence to work with. The WC published the witness testimony. Read the WC Report to see how they arrived at their conclusions. Wherever you think they went astray, cross that section out and pencil in a better argument from the stronger evidence.
They stole JFK's body from Dallas.
Unfortunate, but you still have an autopsy to work with.
They stole his brain.
Nonsense. It was examined and photographed at the supplemental autopsy. The brain ended up in the possession of Bobby Kennedy. When the family had JFK's body dug up and re-interred in 1967, there were pictures taken of Bobby next to the grave being dug with a steel bucket/container. That may be the brain.
They sliced him up in a ghoulish, pathetic attempt to make it fit their scenario.
That slicing is called an autopsy. Since the pathologists are supposedly so inept and shoddy, is it reasonable to think they were competent enough to alter a body to support a given scenario?
They switched his coffins.
No, they didn't.
They removed the limo evidence.
No, they didn't. The Secret Service agents at Parkland put the cover on the limo in preparation for its return to Washington. Although photographed with a bucket, there is no evidence that they washed out the inside of the limo. The only people who removed evidence were Robert Frazier of the FBI and fellow agents. He recounted in a recent e-mail how they had the unpleasant task of squeezing the blood-soaked carpets with their hands searching for fragments.
They relied on one "witness" to identify LHO as the shooter.....after first saying he never saw him at all.
That's one of the problems with with witness testimony, but Brennan did give his general description minutes after the assassination. Also, you do have a couple of witnesses spotting a gun barrel being drawn from the window after the last shot. The 3 TSBD employees below the sniper's nest window heard the shots coming from right above them and one even heard the bolt operating and the shells hitting the floor. If you like witness testimony, there is at least some testimony that supports shots from the sniper's nest from a gunman who fits Oswald's general description.
That's how they managed to "narrow down the number of scenarios".
And you should be able to do likewise. If they left out evidence that you think is relevant, take the evidence that the WC didn't use and see what comes of it. They did anything and everything possible to quash the truth. And it was the farthest thing from a "real" investigation as could ever be conducted.
Notice, though, that their investigation produced a report and 26 supporting volumes of evidence. They show us in their report "here are our conclusions, and here is the evidence we think supports them." That is all objectivity asks. Show us your work so that we can see if you went astray anywhere.
It saddens me to think that all the paper they wasted printing copies of that massive fiction could have been used for lining bird cages.
They have an explanation on the table, though. What have the conspiracy theorists done to explain the tragic events of that day?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 22, 2006 23:36:27 GMT -4
Very good. Finally. A question of substance rather than speculation about what I am, what I want, what I think, or advice on what I should do...Substance here will consists of ideas on how you think the evidence provided by an exhumation will help you refine your scenarios to the point that you can explain what happened. The autopsy states that there is a 7 x 4 mm oval wound situated on the upper right posterior thorax , just above the upper border of the scapula....
...Depending on the position of head and shoulders when these measurements were made, the location of this wound could be anywhere from the right base of the neck to a couple inches down on the back.It wouldn't really be that far down. The "above the scapula" description confines it to pretty close to the base of the neck, vertically speaking. Further, the photograph of the back shows nothing ovoid.
It shows a couple of irregular spots, none of which can be readily identified as wounds due to the poor quality of the photographs,...Then let's look at a better quality photograph. This one may be a generation or two closer to the originals than many have seen. As a general description, the wound is ovoid. WARNING: We are discussing autopsy photos here. The links you will be clicking on may be quite graphic and may just well put you off having lunch: Back woundIn addition to the black-and-white photos that are generally available, there are color photos of this wound. The Clark Panel and the HSCA had no problem seeing the abrasion collar and understanding that they were looking at an entrance wound. (The abrasion collar is in the 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock position anatomically speaking. That is, 12 o'clock points up to the neck and head. Perhaps the abrasion collar has made the shape different than what you are expecting.) and none of which are not in the position described in the protocol (based upon head being in a normal erect position with shoulders in their normal position). Be careful interpreting the back photo. The camera is positioned near the head of the table and is looking somewhat anatomically "down" on the shoulders. As a result the wound appears a bit lower than it probably is. The skin that you see, in other words, between the neck crease and the wound is not necessarily all (anatomically) vertical. Many have tried to measure this distance using the adjacent ruler, but that doesn't take into account the 3-dimensional nature (the slopes and curves, etc.) of the body. It also seems rather strange that on the descriptive sheet, the point of this wound is decidedly down on the back, far below where the anatomical description would place it (wherever the movable landmarks it was referenced to actually were when the measurements were taken), and the description, and the position it was placed on the drawings put out by the Warren Commission conflict with the description of Dr. Burkley, who saw it, and wrote that it was at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra...which is several inches lower on the back (and strangely, just about where Dr. Boswell placed it on his descriptive sheet).Boswell's markings on the face sheet are just that: markings. The markings are schematic, meaning they are not necessarily drawn to scale or to perfectly accurate location. Keep in mind these are doctors we are talking about, and we know what their handwriting is like. To make the drawing published in the Warren Commission Report, Humes verbally described the wounds to an artist several months after the autopsy. We shouldn't be surprised to find discrepancies. Dr. Burkley did mark the wound as being at the level of T3, but he was even in less of position to accurately locate wounds than the pathologists were. If the bullet entered at T3, there would be a lot more damage to the lung than a bruise at the apex. You cannot make too much of variances like this from witnesses. Real investigators are not going to be swayed by conflicts from witnesses. But again, all I expect pertaining to the back wound is it's exact location. That is material.So, even though you have the supra-scapular, lung, strap muscle, X-ray air shadow, and tracheal evidence, you think we are stuck until we know the exact location of the puncture in the skin? What sort of scenario depends on such precise measurements? In the meantime, wouldn't you like to see what information can gained from the photographs? I think somebody should be able to build a 3D model of the body from the autopsy photos available. A good 3D analysis can locate the wound. (Fortunately, too, there are distinctive blood smears around this region that are visible in photographs taken at different angles.) Plus, you wouldn't have to worry about the location changing due to deterioration of the body. All we know was that the wound couldn't be probed, and no attempts were made to probe it with a metallic of other type of probe commonly used in plotting bullet paths (this coming from the prosectors themselves).Yes, wounds sometimes cannot be probed unless the body is positioned into the one it was in at the time of the injury. Some pathologists prefer not to probe the body for fear of creating false wound tracks. I would like to see:
1) Verification of the entrance wound and the concommitant beveling of the inner aspect of the skull (of which photographs were made but have never been seen)at the location described by Dr. Humes (2.5 cm laterally and and to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance).These photographs were seen. John Stringer, the photographer, took a total of four photos of the inner aspect of the skull. Two of them, the so-called F8 and F9 photographs are floating around the public. Two other ones in the archives are in color. Stringer really needed to take an establishing photo from a farther distance so that the features could be better interpreted. As it was, he was trying to get as close as possible (not easy with the big view camera) to the inner aspect of the entry. That said, those that have seen the originals say they are less cropped and easier to orient. They can see the cheek and shoulder, for example. 2) The exact positioning of the three fragments of of skull bone "whied to measure approximately 2.5 to 3.0 cm. in diameter."
Where was this fragment placed in the skull?
This is crucial information. If it's occipital bone, we have a problem (do we have an entrance and an exit in this region, or just an exit?).To this, they would probably say you want to exhume the body to fish for conspiracy evidence. You cannot just speculate that someone might not really be a woman and demand to see in her pants. You have the autopsy photos of the back of the head (both F3 and the color one) as well as the X-rays. None of these give us reason to think much occipital bone is missing. It is heavily fractured, though. If it's parietal bone, there's a certain problem as well, as it's somewhat strange to see a bullet enter from above and to the right, entering low on the back of the skull and moving in a downward trajectory, then exit by making a right turn and traveling up and out the right side of the head.Be aware that Kennedy's head was tilted downward at the time. The red line here represents a line from the sniper's nest through the head. The bullet fragmented on impact, and the fragments fanned out. The bottom graphic here shows the angle between the TSBD trajectory and the path to the windshield and chrome damage: I would expect a clear analysis of the entry or entries, and exit, or exits present in this skull. This information is not presented in the autopsy protocol with any clarity whatsoever.You can look at the Clark Panel Report and at the HSCA's work. Witnesses to the autopsy sate that this flap chaged orientation as the head was moved, and when the head was lying prone on the table, it was closed and one couldn't see anything in that area of the head. in other words, it closed back up. This, supposedly is the massive exit wound.You are speculating about witness testimony, bystander testimony at that. That is not going to convince anyone that the body needs to be exhumed. Yet, described by the autopsists are un-located fragments of bone, placed back in the head, which contained part of a large circular wound "presumably of exit". So, where was that exit located?"...chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions." These things represent the most important evidence I would expect to see revealed by an exhumation. These items would shed alot of light on the conflict, and very likely would show once and for all whether Oswald's rifle did all this damage, or if it couldn't have, or if it did some of the damage, but not all of it.Considering the explosive nature of the wound, the large defect, and the extensive fracturing beyond the defect, how will precisely determining the margins help you locate the shooter? I find this to be a most unprofessional synopsis in a case of such importance.Well, looking over your post, I see you not being able to see the oval shape of the entry wound in the thorax in the photos published in books and floating around the Internet. I see you not being able to measure the back wound photo properly. I see you trying to use diagrams and drawings beyond the accuracy they were meant to portray. I see you trying to give equal weight to witness testimony and the physical evidence. I see you not understanding what the F8 and F9 photos are photos of. I see you misunderstand the bullet trajectory from the TSBD through the head. In light of all that, how is your proposal more professional than the autopsy report? But, to answer your questions, these things are what I would expect to find, and thus settle the issues once and for all.It is not clear what scenario would emerge from your proposed study of the exhumed body. Mostly, you just list a bunch of loose ends in the autopsy report, but it is not clear what sort of case you might build by tidying them up.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 23, 2006 3:08:34 GMT -4
Nonsense. It was examined and photographed at the supplemental autopsy. The brain ended up in the possession of Bobby Kennedy. When the family had JFK's body dug up and re-interred in 1967, there were pictures taken of Bobby next to the grave being dug with a steel bucket/container. That may be the brain.
The autopsy photographs purported to be of the President’s brain from the National Archives, are in fact not of his brain. What appear to be photographs of another person's brain were given to the ARRB
Well, even if we say the brain was not "stolen", at best it "went missing" and RFK, as you say, "may have" buried it. But he never said that he did. In 1968, congressional legislation mandated that these materials be turned over to the National Archives; but the brain (and a few other items) were not among the returned materials. Bobby never mentioned that he withheld these items.
That slicing is called an autopsy. Since the pathologists are supposedly so inept and shoddy, is it reasonable to think they were competent enough to alter a body to support a given scenario?
But they weren't competent in altering the body, that's the point. The throat wound depicted in the photos was described by Dr. Crenshaw in "Conspiracy of Silence" as "the work of a butcher".
That's one of the problems with with witness testimony, but Brennan did give his general description minutes after the assassination.
But Brennan failed to make a positive id on Oswald out of a police lineup on November 22. Brennan was sure that the man he saw in the window was wearing a light-colored regular shirt or jacket, while Oswald wore a rust brown shirt that day. That was what he told the police and said during the police lineup - that the shooter, unlike LHO still wearing the same darker clothes, had worn light colored clothes. That "little" discrepancy was left out of the WCR. Brennan also said the shooter was standing in the window when the shots were fired, which was an impossiblity. He only "switched" his testimony after weeks of FBI "clarification". Some "star" witness!!
And you should be able to do likewise. If they left out evidence that you think is relevant, take the evidence that the WC didn't use and see what comes of it.
But unlike the WC, don't leave out evidence because it doesn't fit with a pre-determined conclusion? That's a much better method, can we agree?
Notice, though, that their investigation produced a report and 26 supporting volumes of evidence.
And that means 26 volumes of scrap paper if it misleads, omits and distorts the evidence and testimony, especially in regards to the most important facts of the case. A large volume of written material does not indicate the material will have a correspondingly high level of merit and quality. In fact, like many such reports, the minutia outweighs any relevant contents of the report to such a high degree as to make the document a tedious exercise in futility.
They show us in their report "here are our conclusions, and here is the evidence we think supports them." That is all objectivity asks.
I maintain that they show us in their report "here are our pre-determined conclusions, and here is the unsubstantiated, altered, and otherwise best possible manipulation of evidence we could think of doing to support them." Objectivity is the last word that comes to my mind to describe the WCR.
Show us your work so that we can see if you went astray anywhere.
I don't think or purport to have the ability to create the definitive "Magnum Opus" of JFK investigatory reports. But there are working points that can much better be explained and supported by alternatives to the WCR. Perhaps establishing the best explanation for what happened is by first progressing forward point by point, and cross-referencing and corroborating these points towards the best, even if likely never to be definitive, explanation and conclusion.
They have an explanation on the table, though. What have the conspiracy theorists done to explain the tragic events of that day?
I find that there are already more thorough, valid explanations of the event, such as Garrison's original investigation, than the WCR. The problem is that there were roadblocks set up at every turn that prevented him, with his limited resources, from ultimately pursuing suspects and identifying the actual perpetrators and accessories to the crime (of which there were several).
The most obvious fact that points to a conspiracy is that Pres. Johnson ordered so many documents sealed from the public until the year 2039. Even after redressing this through an Act of Congress in 1992, the entire body of evidence won't be released until 2017, while small portions are allowed to be released along the way. The only explanation for this that makes any sense is that there were people within the Gov't in 1963 who were involved, and are being protected. By 2017, a full 54 years after the crime, all of those guilty will either be dead or very old men - who, by the time an actual investigation and hearing is concluded, will also long have since kicked the bucket before seeing the inside of a prison cell.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 24, 2006 1:20:42 GMT -4
The autopsy photographs purported to be of the President’s brain from the National Archives, are in fact not of his brain. What appear to be photographs of another person's brain were given to the ARRB
It is amazing how that story has been evolving as it makes the rounds of the conspiracy theorists.
The Assassinations Record Review Board interviewed one of the Bethesda photographers, John Stringer, in 1996, 32 years after the autopsy. He was helping them identify the photographs, telling them what he remembers, explaining the film notches, and so on. When they brought out the brain photos, they were on film that came in what are sometimes called "press packs". These are film packs that contain 12 sheets of film. He didn't remember using a film pack to shoot the brain photos, nor did he remember using Ansco film. Since the brain photos contain no identification tags in them, like all the other autopsy photos do not, he could not testify on the record that they were photos he took. It doesn't mean he didn't take them, it just means there is nothing about them that he could swear to.
In 1966, only 3 years after the autopsy when it was fresher in everyone's minds, Stringer, along with the 3 pathologists, reviewed and inventoried the autopsy photographic evidence. At that time they remembered using a film pack and signed off on the photos. There are 7 black-and-white photos of the brain, meaning there should be 5 sheets left from the film pack. The following is from the 1966 inventory, and it is a comment about the 5 unexposed sheets from the film pack. (JTS is John T. Stringer's initials.)
Well, even if we say the brain was not "stolen", at best it "went missing" and RFK, as you say, "may have" buried it. But he never said that he did. In 1968, congressional legislation mandated that these materials be turned over to the National Archives; but the brain (and a few other items) were not among the returned materials. Bobby never mentioned that he withheld these items.
The HSCA investigated the brain. The trail runs cold with Bobby Kennedy. The material was turned over to the Archives, but the brain and tissue samples seem to have been considered as still in control of the Kennedy family.
Brennan was sure that the man he saw in the window was wearing a light-colored regular shirt or jacket, while Oswald wore a rust brown shirt that day.
Not necessarily. He may have put that shirt on later when he went home. Mrs. Reid, the TSBD employee who saw him in the office after the shooting said to the Warren Commission, "What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers.".
Brennan also said the shooter was standing in the window when the shots were fired, which was an impossiblity.
Yes, it was an impossibility, but, presumably, he was not aware how low the windows were to the floor and assumed the shooter was standing.
He only "switched" his testimony after weeks of FBI "clarification". Some "star" witness!!
Well, you guys like witnesses. I don't really consider witness testimony evidence. But it sometimes can serve as a guide to the physical evidence.
But unlike the WC, don't leave out evidence because it doesn't fit with a pre-determined conclusion? That's a much better method, can we agree?
Conspiracy theorists do nothing but leave out evidence that doesn't agree with their pre-determined conclusions. My responses to you are purely me checking the primary sources to see what you have left out or distorted.
And that means 26 volumes of scrap paper if it misleads, omits and distorts the evidence and testimony, especially in regards to the most important facts of the case.
You want to dismiss all that work with the wave of your hand. It is not going to go away just because it is inconvenient to you.
In fact, like many such reports, the minutia outweighs any relevant contents of the report to such a high degree as to make the document a tedious exercise in futility.
Have you ever read the Warren Commission Report?
I find that there are already more thorough, valid explanations of the event, such as Garrison's original investigation, than the WCR. The problem is that there were roadblocks set up at every turn that prevented him, with his limited resources, from ultimately pursuing suspects and identifying the actual perpetrators and accessories to the crime (of which there were several).
So, in other words, the conspiracy theorists have done nothing but "stand on the sidelines and carp on the work of others," to quote Cary Zeitlin.
|
|
|
Post by EdmondDantes on Mar 24, 2006 11:16:33 GMT -4
We must clear up some things about Howard Brennan. As usual with CTs we don't get the whole story. Here is his sworn statement from 11/22/63: Notice that on that day the only reference to his position was to say he was "sitting." It was said that he "failed" to identify Oswald in the line up. Not true. Truth is he chose not to identify Oswald even though he did recognize him as the shooter. Here is what Mr. Brennan says: Since he changed his clothes, it may be possible that Mr. Brennan said the clothes were different. Here is the entire report: karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/the_deed/brennan/brennan_book.html#_ftn9
|
|
|
Post by mid on Mar 25, 2006 18:43:17 GMT -4
Substance here will consists of ideas on how you think the evidence provided by an exhumation will help you refine your scenarios to the point that you can explain what happened
The reference was to your question. You push it back on me...to this silly idea that I must clearly explain what happened as a result of evidence we might gain from a competent forensic examination. No one will care about my explanation, and this forum is never going to do that one way or the other. What will be of interest is the explanation of the professionals who may one day do this examination.
It wouldn't really be that far down. The "above the scapula" description confines it to pretty close to the base of the neck, vertically speaking.
Unfortunately, no, it does not. There is a range of several inches there that is material in trajectory analysis. The movability of the references can make a difference in the actual location. The location should be precicely referenced to fixed landmarks. That was the point. If the wound is in the base of the neck, there's a bit of a downward trajectory through the throat. If it's where Dr. Burkley documented it to be, or even where that hole seems to be on the photos, the trajectory is much flatter through the neck (if it went through the neck), which eliminates the 6th floor window as its origin. At any rate, no one knows.
Now, you've shown a blow up of a photo which appears to show an ovoid entry. There is no argument that this is an entry. Never was.
This ovoid is rather obviously axial, almost completely, in orientation. It is not 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock (more like 3 to 9). I think its rather apparent that if this is the case, we might not be talking about a high to low entry angle at all.
But the fact is, we're seeing an entry in the back that is lower that it would seem reasonable to plot a downward trajectory through the throat. The head in this photo is also bent back, making the entry wound look higher than it would if the head were in its normal position.
Be careful interpreting the back photo. The camera is positioned near the head of the table and is looking somewhat anatomically "down" on the shoulders. As a result the wound appears a bit lower than it probably is. The skin that you see, in other words, between the neck crease and the wound is not necessarily all (anatomically) vertical. Many have tried to measure this distance using the adjacent ruler, but that doesn't take into account the 3-dimensional nature (the slopes and curves, etc.) of the body.
On the contrary. The photo likely shows this wound higher in appearance than it would appear if the head were in normal anatomical position. But again, we'd need to see more photos, reference photos of the body to orient ourselves to all of the cropped, and / or unidentified, un-referenced photos that have been made public anyway.
Boswell's markings on the face sheet are just that: markings. The markings are schematic, meaning they are not necessarily drawn to scale or to perfectly accurate location. Keep in mind these are doctors we are talking about, and we know what their handwriting is like.
To make the drawing published in the Warren Commission Report, Humes verbally described the wounds to an artist several months after the autopsy. We shouldn't be surprised to find discrepancies.
Dr. Burkley did mark the wound as being at the level of T3, but he was even in less of position to accurately locate wounds than the pathologists were. If the bullet entered at T3, there would be a lot more damage to the lung than a bruise at the apex.
You cannot make too much of variances like this from witnesses. Real investigators are not going to be swayed by conflicts from witnesses.
I disagree. Real investigators should be able to see the obvious conflicts and should wish to know more.
I am well aware that Boswell's drawings and notes are made in doctor-script (an abberation, especially given the level of education they're given), but one would expect at least a modicum of accuracy in placing a mark on a piece of paper...especially when one is looking directly at the body. But that's not a big deal. Dr. Burkley was standing right there, was a physician, and knew the position of T3 as well as anyone in the room.
The idea of an artist making drawings based on Dr. Humes' descriptions, in the absence of documented photos of the wounds, and coming up with completely contradictory pictures of things is ridiculous. Yes, we should be surprized to find discrepancies between these published drawings and the findings of a pathologist who performed the autopsy, especially when he gave descriptions to the artist, and most assuredly saw what was made as a result of his descriptions.
So, even though you have the supra-scapular, lung, strap muscle, X-ray air shadow, and tracheal evidence, you think we are stuck until we know the exact location of the puncture in the skin? What sort of scenario depends on such precise measurements?
In the meantime, wouldn't you like to see what information can gained from the photographs? I think somebody should be able to build a 3D model of the body from the autopsy photos available. A good 3D analysis can locate the wound. (Fortunately, too, there are distinctive blood smears around this region that are visible in photographs taken at different angles.) Plus, you wouldn't have to worry about the location changing due to deterioration of the body.
The question is, do we actually have good evidence? A reminder. There isn't any "tracheal evidence" that was documented as the result of the autopsy. There was no dissection of the neck...another one of those forensic abberations that present in this case. I want to see confirmation of what's stated in the protocol, and any possible variances from that report and actual findings...if any.
I am not interested in 3D computerized analysis from the extant photos. The extant photos are unidentified, of poor quality, many are crops of larger pictures, and none are properly identified. Besides, computerized analysis has produced several really cute things in association with the JFK case. To wit, that computerized analysis of Dealy Plaza and "proof" that the shots all came from the TSBD (a couple of frames of which you seem to have used here). That analysis shows things that are completely different from the autopsy report, does a great deal to "prove" the magic bullet theory, and convinced alot of people...despite the fact that there's nothing presented to substantiate that even the reference measurements used to construct the model were precisely correct. Maybe it is correct, maybe not, but it definitely poses problems, again against the medical evidence.
These photographs were seen. John Stringer, the photographer, took a total of four photos of the inner aspect of the skull. Two of them, the so-called F8 and F9 photographs are floating around the public. Two other ones in the archives are in color.
F8 is an external shot. It shows no internal beveling of anything. It cannot be easily oriented at all, although it would appear to show the rear of the head with the scalp reflected, and obvious occipital and parietal bone missing.
You have the autopsy photos of the back of the head (both F3 and the color one) as well as the X-rays. None of these give us reason to think much occipital bone is missing. It is heavily fractured, though.
Which is precicely the problem. F3 and F5 show a completely intact back of the head, despite the fact that a dozen witnesses described scalp missing back there, and a massive area of occipital bone missing under intact scalp (confirmed by F8, oddly enough...if one can believe it to be what it appears to be). Even the mortician who prepapred the body in that morgue described the missing back scalp, which he didn't cover with anything because it would be lying on the pillow in the coffin. If one cannot see the obvious conflicts between eyewitness testimony and these pictures and x-rays (allegedly taken prior to the start of the autopsy, and which show all that occipital and parietal bone in place (contrary to the description of missing bone made by the autopsists) and an apparent absence of right frontal bone), and then wishes to buy the whole scenario established by the WC hook, line, and sinker, then something's amiss in one's reasoning skills.
Be aware that Kennedy's head was tilted downward at the time. The red line here represents a line from the sniper's nest through the head.
Yes, it was tilted downward, a little. And, it went forward rapidly just prior to the rapid backward jerk.
The problem with this computerized analysis is that it confirms the Warren Commission's scenario perfectly. That wouldn't be a problem if everything else led to that same conclusion. But that conflicts with the autopsists description of wounds. This animation shows an upper back of the head entry wound, which the autopsists adamantly insisted was not there in every single testimony they gave to anyone.
This in itself is enough to need more forensic examination. "What in hades is going on?" should have been any official's reaction to this obvious conflict. The fact that it doesn't appear to be smells bad.
Witnesses to the autopsy sate that this flap chaged orientation as the head was moved, and when the head was lying prone on the table, it was closed and one couldn't see anything in that area of the head. in other words, it closed back up. This, supposedly is the massive exit wound.
You are speculating about witness testimony, bystander testimony at that. That is not going to convince anyone that the body needs to be exhumed.[/b]
Speculating? "Bystanders"? We are talking about medical corpsmen who were present, assisting, and whom had all seen many an autopsy. This is their testimony. It is not speculation. This is what they say and they were standing right there watching the most important autopsy of the 20th century. This should convince any reasonable person that there are medical-legal questions to be answered that are not by the official story, for whatever reason.
Yet, described by the autopsists are un-located fragments of bone, placed back in the head, which contained part of a large circular wound "presumably of exit". So, where was that exit located?
"...chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."[/b]
No. You missed the question. That description describes the large defect in the skull (which again , is not confirmed by x-rays). It does not in any way describe where the large circular exit wound which exhibited beveling of the external table was located.
Considering the explosive nature of the wound, the large defect, and the extensive fracturing beyond the defect, how will precisely determining the margins help you locate the shooter?
The margins of the defect will not determine this. I never asked for a description of the margins of the defect. The precise location of the entry, and exit wound(s) will. These locations are not in any way properly documented or described, save an entry hole located slightly above and approximately 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance.
Well, looking over your post, I see you not being able to see the oval shape of the entry wound in the thorax in the photos published in books and floating around the Internet. I see you not being able to measure the back wound photo properly. I see you trying to use diagrams and drawings beyond the accuracy they were meant to portray. I see you trying to give equal weight to witness testimony and the physical evidence. I see you not understanding what the F8 and F9 photos are photos of. I see you misunderstand the bullet trajectory from the TSBD through the head.
In light of all that, how is your proposal more professional than the autopsy report?
It is not clear what scenario would emerge from your proposed study of the exhumed body. Mostly, you just list a bunch of loose ends in the autopsy report, but it is not clear what sort of case you might build by tidying them up.
I see an ovoid wound in your enlargement, which you have described as being in a different orientation than is obvious from the blow up. The back wound was not measured properly by the autopsists, and it's location is obviously not where the Warren Commission placed it. What you don't seem to see is that the photos are inadequate, un-referenced, and are almost laughable as forensic documentation. No one could measure the location of the wound given the photos that are available. One could, however, rather easily determine that this wound is not in the base of the neck, as portrayed by the Warren Commission.
What you do not realize is that the drawings were intended to portray what actually happened. They do not seem to jibe with the medical evidence in the official version of things, let alone with the medical evidence provided by almost every single witness to the wounds. And you yourself are using these Meyers creations, which do nothing but fit the WCs proposals precisely...again, in contrast to the pathologist's own description of the head entry wound in the lower part of the skull.
I give weight to witness testimony, and I give it some consideration when it contrasts to what you call "physical evidence". That is only reasonable.
And, you obviously do not know what F8 is showing, as you referred to it as one of Stringer's photos of the inside of the skull (which I had said hadn't been seen by the general public, and which you said had been seen).
I do not mis-understand the bullet trajectory through the head from the TSBD. I do not accept that in light of the fact that it conflicts with the pathologist's description of where the rear entry wound was. That formerly mentioned bullet trajectory is simply the Warren Commissions version...established by moving this entrance wound up about 4 inches on the head from where it was described by Dr. Humes (who never agreed with that and said so in all his testimonies).
My proposal is not intended to be "professional". My desire would be to have a professional examination done, and a clear forensic description made of what is actual present in that body, especially as pertains to that skull.
I think is is absolutely clear what could emerge from a competent forensic examination. Tying up the obvious loose ends in the most important murder case of the 20th century would seem to be somewhat important, and would also seem to be something that should've been done in the first place. It is an abberation that it was not, which is clear.
There shouldn't be "loose ends". __________________________________________
My point is this:
You accept the official line as evidence...clear evidence of what has happened. I accept that an investigation was done, but feel it was shoddy, especially from a medical-legal standpoint. The conflicts are obvious. You may wish to minimize the fact that every medical witness to the wounds of President Kennedy, including his wife and Secret Service agent Clint Hill, as well as many of the medical corpsmen who attended the autopsy and directly observed what was going on, all describe Occiptal damage, contrary to x-rays and photographs taken at the autopsy.
You may wish to accept that the autopsy photographs and x-rays, which conflict in certain areas to the descriptions of the autopsists themselves, and to the aformentioned witnesses, and which conflict with each other in respect to bone absence in the skull.
You may wish to accept an ill-written and unclear (in several key respects)autopsy protocol produced by a man who was not a forensic pathologist, and who came up with his bullet path through the neck after the autopsy was over and he spoke to a Dallas physician the next day.
And you may wish to accept that the Warren Commission moved a bullet entry wound 4" up on the head from where the autopsists placed it in their report (a postion they never wavered from) and thus fostered their position that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin (leaving the single bullet theory aside, of course), shooting the "fatal bullet" from the 6th floor window of the TSBD.
I do not. I think it is the height of folly to accept what's been presented in light of the obvious lapses, ommissions, and conflicts that present themselves. I cannot tell what happened from what's available. The un-professionalism exhibited here is obvious, and the conflicts merit further study. As it's been 43 years, there really is only one way to make a real determination and resolve the conflicts. That I propose.
You may wish to minimize these ideas, and adhere to the story line in spite of the reasonable questions that are present. Fine.
In the absence of exhumation and competent assessment, I'm afraid that the case will remain closed...as the lid on that coffin in Arlington is closed. Open that, and we re-open the case. Keep it closed, and I think the words of G. Robert Blakey (Chief Counsel of the HSCA) and Richard S. Billings (Editorial Directory for the HSCA) are applicable...(quoting Chaucer in the last words of their book about the HSCA proceedings):
"Murder will out."
It shouldn't. But unless that lid gets cracked open, it may.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 27, 2006 1:23:49 GMT -4
Mid, I didn't get time to address all of your post. I have addressed here the portions relating to the posterior wound in the thorax (informally called "the back wound"). THE LOCATION OF THE POSTERIOR WOUND IN THE THORAX It wouldn't really be that far down. The "above the scapula" description confines it to pretty close to the base of the neck, vertically speaking.
Unfortunately, no, it does not. There is a range of several inches there that is material in trajectory analysis.There is not a range of "several inches." The bullet had to pass above the apex of the lung to bruise it and not puncture it. The lung is nestled in the safety of the rib cage. The apex of the lung is typically at the level of T1 to T2 on most people. The HSCA radiologists noted that T1 appeared to be fractured. The air shadow on the X-ray was also at the level of T1. The autopsy report said the wound was supra-scapular. The evidence indicates that the bullet had to pass above the rib cage. It could not have been several inches down the back, and certainly not at the level of T3. Keep in mind that it is not me you have to convince to get the body exhumed, but the panel of medical experts that the Kennedy family will hire and that you will have to stand before. which eliminates the 6th floor window as its origin.It is not possible to determine trajectories that accurately. The resolution of the Zapruder film is limited, and you cannot tell exactly how Kennedy and Connally's bodies are positioned underneath their clothes. Take Dale Myers' 3D measurement of the Zapruder film, for example. It plots a line from Connally's back wound rearward through JFK's throat wound. The line intersects the 6th floor window, but the error cone is so large back there that it encompasses part of the Dal-Tex building: Dale Myers SBT Error ConeKeep in mind too that the skin comprising back wound was removed during the primary autopsy and studied later at the supplemental autopsy. That part will no longer be on the body. What remains is not necessarily going to be in the same position or relation either due to decomposition of the body. For what it is worth, and I offer this as a possible idea how some of the information you want might be extracted from the photographs, I noticed that some of the blood stains on JFK were visible in different photographs and that provided a new way to appreciate how high the wound was in back. I present here some of that analysis I posted to a newsgroup several years ago: Some distinctive bloodstains are on JFK's right shoulder. These are visible in several of the autopsy photographs. One stain is exactly at the vertical level of the posterior wound. The position of this stain can give you a better sense of how high the wound was. This graphic shows the stain marked with an arrow. Notice that the top edge of the stain is level with the posterior wound. And notice that this is higher than the trach incision in the throat: Blood stain 1 (Warning: Autopsy photo)In the following graphic, I numbered the various bloodstains. The stain marked above is number 1 here. The number 2 stain also happens to be at the same level of the back wound and closer to it: Blood stain 3 (Warning: Autopsy photo)THE ENTRY WOUND CHARACTERISTICS Now, you've shown a blow up of a photo which appears to show an ovoid entry. There is no argument that this is an entry. Never was.I was responding to your remark about the back photograph that, "It shows a couple of irregular spots, none of which can be readily identified as wounds due to the poor quality of the photographs..." I wanted to show how the Clark Panel and HSCA experts determined it was an entry wound. I also wanted to point out those panels had access to the original photographic materials, which are more complete and of much better clarity than the photos you see in assassination books. This ovoid is rather obviously axial, almost completely, in orientation. It is not 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock (more like 3 to 9). I think its rather apparent that if this is the case, we might not be talking about a high to low entry angle at all.Mid, I am not sure here if you understand what the abrasion collar is and its significance. The long axis of the ovoid is 3 o'clock to 9 o'clock, but surrounding part of its circumference is the abrasion collar, which extends, roughly, from 1 o'clock to 7 o'clock (with 12 o'clock pointing up to the neck and head). Here is the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel: The position of the abrasion collar suggests that the bullet did enter the skin somewhat upward and from the right, but keep in mind that entry is relative not to the body, but to the slope of the skin at the entry point. The upper back is not vertical, but slopes. The bullet entered relative to those slopes. On the issue of the back wound and its location, I don't see how any medical panel is going to agree with you that the body needs to be exhumed. Your inability to determine the location wound track is not shared by the Clark Panel nor the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. You promise to precisely determine the track, but you don't demonstrate how such precision can be effectively used to rule out the sniper's nest as a shooting position. I am afraid that your proposal would be seen simply as an excuse to fish for conspiracy evidence. To illustrate what I mean by that, consider the case of Oswald's exhumation. Conspiracy theorists said, in effect, "We don't know with absolute certainty who is in Oswald's grave. Why, if we dug up his grave and found an imposter in it, that would be a shocking discovery of the utmost importance in this most-important of cases! We are obligated to exhume the body and resolve this uncertainty!" You cannot argue that since the Warren Commission's case is not airtight, that you just might find some evidence that proves a conspiracy if you exhumed JFK. You might as well argue that the evidence is so shoddy and useless in this case that you just might find an alien from outer space in his grave and that the possibility of such a momentous discovery obligates us to dig up the grave.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 27, 2006 1:58:50 GMT -4
Keep in mind too that the skin comprising back wound was removed during the primary autopsy and studied later at the supplemental autopsy. That part will no longer be on the body. What remains is not necessarily going to be in the same position or relation either due to decomposition of the body.
The human corpse is almost completely decomposed in a buried coffin within a year. All that remains at that point is the skeleton, teeth, and traces of tissue and hair. We are talking about a corpse that has been buried for over 40 years - all that would remain now are basically dry, brittle bones.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 27, 2006 23:24:25 GMT -4
Here is the second installment of my comments on Mid's post. THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFLICITING WITNESS TESTIMONY Real investigators should be able to see the obvious conflicts and should wish to know more.Investigators evaluate the merit of the evidence. Conflicting witness testimony is not going to trump the physical evidence, especially if they can integrate that physical evidence into a coherent account that has some predictive power, that is, an account that not only explains existing evidence for them, but any new evidence that comes to light. Conflicting witness testimony likely won't add up to anything coherent. The conflicts will persist, however, even once they know more. Humes and Boswell, for example, told the ARRB that they disagreed with Burkley. They thought that the back wound was higher than T3, perhaps at the level of one of the cervical vertebrae. If an exhumation finds the wound at C7 or T1, then Burkley's T3 will still be in conflict with it. It will always be in conflict until somebody figures out a way to re-animate Burkley and convince him to amend the death certificate. I am well aware that Boswell's drawings and notes are made in doctor-script (an abberation, especially given the level of education they're given), but one would expect at least a modicum of accuracy in placing a mark on a piece of paper...especially when one is looking directly at the body.The body outlines are general figures pre-printed on the face sheets. They are not necessarily going to match the shape of the body on the table. High accuracy, if it is ever achieved, will be purely accidental. The problem here is not with the doctors, but with non-doctors who want to use face sheet drawings to do trajectory analysis. But that's not a big deal. Dr. Burkley was standing right there, was a physician, and knew the position of T3 as well as anyone in the room.Burkley's actual words on the death certificate were, "at about the level of the third thoracic vertebrae." That does not read like the words of a precision measurement. To accurately locate T3, Burkley would have had to palpate along the spine for it. There is no evidence that he done so. Humes saw the Death Certificate for the first time when the ARRB showed it to him: The idea of an artist making drawings based on Dr. Humes' descriptions, in the absence of documented photos of the wounds, and coming up with completely contradictory pictures of things is ridiculous.I agree. The Commission should have seen the photos and X-rays as soon as possible. But, the photos are available now. We no longer have to rely on the Rydberg drawing. Yes, we should be surprized to find discrepancies between these published drawings and the findings of a pathologist who performed the autopsy, especially when he gave descriptions to the artist, and most assuredly saw what was made as a result of his descriptions.Humes did see the drawings and he had to apologize over and over and explain that they were just schematic and not fully accurate. The question is, do we actually have good evidence?Yes, and plenty of it. You cannot appreciate it because you refuse to investigate the case with the purpose of explaining what happened. You limit yourself to criticizing the evidence when you should be raising your level knowledge so that you can extract more usable information from it and fitting that into a working hypothesis. A reminder. There isn't any "tracheal evidence" that was documented as the result of the autopsy.That's true, but we can still get some use out of this evidence. The Parkland doctors said they cut through a small circular wound in the throat. Some of the autopsy photos show margins consistent with such a small hole in the trach incision. There is some physical evidence, then, to back up their report that the trachea was torn. This evidence has some weight to it. Investigators can factor this into their accounts, along with the holes in the shirt in front immediately below the collar. (And the nick in the tie! I like that nick in the tie!) There was no dissection of the neck...another one of those forensic abberations that present in this case. I want to see confirmation of what's stated in the protocol, and any possible variances from that report and actual findings...if any.You first have to convince forensic pathologists that they cannot determine the track based on the existing evidence. As non-optimal as the autopsy was, the Clark Panel and the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel were both were able to find the evidence adequate enough to conclude that a bullet traversed the neck in a fairly narrowly confined region above the scapula. Your inability to determine the track carries no weight here. I am not interested in 3D computerized analysis from the extant photos. The extant photos are unidentified, of poor quality, many are crops of larger pictures, and none are properly identified.Identification would have consisted of what, some numbers scribbled on a card? It doesn't seem like you would find that convincing. Anyway, the HSCA's experts on this particular issue of identification had no problem determining that it was JFK in the photos based on various metrics. Again, maybe the problem is not with the autopsy, but with the skills of the armchair pathologists. Besides, computerized analysis has produced several really cute things in association with the JFK case.If you shun computer analysis, then how do you plan to get any use out of your precise wound track measurements you hope to make with the exhumed body? To wit, that computerized analysis of Dealy Plaza and "proof" that the shots all came from the TSBD (a couple of frames of which you seem to have used here).I didn't ask if you wanted to use Myers analyses to squeeze as much information as possible out of the autopsy photos, I was speaking of computer or other photogrammetric analysis in general. One way to acquire more evidence about an event is to revisit the existince evidence with new tools and new techniques. The skill and technology of the investigator is part of what makes evidence evidence. Skin cells become evidence of identification to those who possess the requisite knowledge and equipment. HEAD WOUND EVIDENCE F8 is an external shot.The focus of F8 and F9 are the inner aspect of the wound. (One thing you will notice in the photos, by the way, is that they include the ruler only when they are photographing entry wounds.) My point here was that contrary to your claim, these photos are not missing. They exist. Most people have a problem orienting these photos. Here is my rough attempt with F9 (which is taken from almost the same angle as F8, but with different lighting and/or exposure). It is not quite right, but it illustrates the general orientation. Chad Zimmerman was allowed to see the autopsy photos and X-rays not too long ago and he confirmed that the color photos, which are less cropped, clearly show the cheek and shoulder roughly like I have it here: Very approximate F9 orientationThe following is not fully accurate either because the camera should be positioned more to the right side of the table than at the head of it, and I don't know the focal length of the lens, but it illustrates the type of view camera Stringer used, how it may have been positioned at the table, and how the 3D body projects onto the 2D film: Even more approximate camera setupIt shows no internal beveling of anything.The HSCA disagrees. They viewed the photos in stereo pairs. As for myself, I don't know what to look for in regards to beveling. I agree that F8 and friends are too difficult to interpret. Even the pathologists couldn't decipher it. You can see the entry wound rather well, but the camera is just in too close to put it in any sort of context. (For what it is worth, Zimmerman claims that it appears that you can see the blue stripe of the towel through the entrance wound in one of the color photos. In the other color photo, the wound is either filled with over covered over by a film of blood.) It cannot be easily oriented at all, although it would appear to show the rear of the head with the scalp reflected, and obvious occipital and parietal bone missing.It is not easy to orient, and that being the case, it is not "obvious" if occipital bone is missing. There may be some missing, however. F8 was taken after the brain was removed. Which is precicely the problem. F3 and F5 show a completely intact back of the head, despite the fact that a dozen witnesses described scalp missing back there,Dozens of witnesses do not describe scalp missing back there. Anyway, dozens of witnesses were not in a position, nor had the role, of determining the margins of the scalp and skull wounds. and a massive area of occipital bone missing under intact scalpThe scalp obscures the occipital bone in F3 and F5. We cannot see if it is missing or not (and again, these were taken after the brain was removed). Even the mortician who prepapred the body in that morgue described the missing back scalp, which he didn't cover with anything because it would be lying on the pillow in the coffin. If oblished by the WC hook, line, and sinker, then something's amiss in one's reasoning skills.Here is the mortician's drawing. Is it your belief that this accurately depicts the skull wound, that it was, in his words, "between the ears"? If you are going to answer "I don't know", then you shouldn't be asking me to assign any weight to the mortician's recollections. Mortician Tom Robinson's Drawing
|
|
|
Post by mid on Mar 28, 2006 21:06:33 GMT -4
I suppose we could argue about this until the cows come home, and beyond. You wish to adhere to the official story, and would wish to argue with me about obvious points of contention.
I wish to have some clarity on the obvious inconsistencies. That's all. I am not inclined to "believe" anything. I am also not inclined to accept anything without being able to clearly substantiate things, and that I cannot in this case.
For instance. You wish to give a detailed delineation of why the shoulder wound was an entry. I know it was. I am curious as to why an autopsist would describes it's location in nebulous terms, as was done in this autopsy--contrary to any forensic protocol in existance, then, or now. That to me is strange. Dr. Burkley's approximate estimation of where it was, and it's apparent location on the photo, both of which are not in conformance to the Warren Commission's placement of this wound, is enough to make me want to locate it precicely.
But the head wounds are the truly strange inconsistencies. You seem to ignore the poor quality of these photos that are available. They should be graphically clear. You're even telling me that F8 is an interior photo, when it's been described by several autopsy witnesses as an exterior photo, and obviously is, since scalp cannot be reflected from the interior of a skull, and it appears that scalp is certainly reflected in this photo. The fact is that it's unidentified (meaning that "A63-272" should have been on an object in each an every photo (typically, the ident tags are attached to the ruler, or placed in the margin of the photo where a ruler isn't used)) is not insignificant. It is unprofessional. These photos are a travesty largely, and the fact that there is debate about what they depict is enough of a reason to call things into question.
The x-rays don't depict anything that is described by anyone. They depict air in the frontal area of the right skull of the subject, and fragments of bone in place all accross the parietal and occipital regions, where missing bone was described in the protocol. And these x-rays were supposedly taken before the actual invasion of the autopsy began. How is that possible when the bone used to fill the large defect wasn't received in Bethesda for several hours after the dissection began?
I do know what to look for as pertains to internal or external beveling. If F8 is an internal shot, I see it. However, I cannot justify F8 as being an internal aspect photograph. If it's an external shot, I see obvious external beveling. The fact that the photo is not orientable is the problem.
And as to Mr. Hagen, his drawing is an apporximation of the back of the head, which he verbally described as missing a segment of scalp which he did not fill in with a hair piece because it was to lay on the pillow of the coffin and would not be seen. How much more clear does it have to be as to where this missing scalp was?
The fact is, you wish to justify the existing evidence. I merely want clarity in the evidence so I can see clearly what is what. That, I cannot do, and many a forensic pathologist cannot do. The fact that the pathologists who actually performed the autopsy cannot decipher some of the photos themselves points to the travesty of the photos and their quality. That they were disappointed at some of them, and couldn't make sense of them is absolutely incomprehensible.
If you shun computer analysis, then how do you plan to get any use out of your precise wound track measurements you hope to make with the exhumed body?
You ask this question again and again, and I answer it. You don't seem to listen.
Determine the entry, or entries. Determine the exit, or exits. Then, one can make a fair approximation of the track of a bullet, or bullets. One entry is clearly defined in the autopsy protocol. The exit is definitively not located in that protocol. Do I have to quote the nebulous description of this fragment of bone that contains part of a margin of an approximately circular wound of exit...and is not located whatsoever (and which you mis-interpret as being "chiefly parietal and somewhat occipital"...which was not a description of this wound at all, but rather a description of the large defect where this fragment fit into)?
The inconsistencies and omissions in this case are almost laughable, save that they're so seriously inept.
I am well aware that people are attempting to take existing evidence and draw further information from it. I question the existing evidence because of it's lack of clarity and its open-endedness.
The fact remains, until we have competent forensics to confirm the autopsy conclusions (which are definitely unclear), to fill in the many holes that exist in it, or to paint a different picture, we will not know what happened definitively on 11-22-63, at least as pertains to the wounds in the head of John Kennedy (after 43 years, the shoulder wound may be indeterminable).
When that data is available, professionals can make a determination. And again, it is not my job to do so, or explain what happened, any more than it is yours.
It is a job for professionals, who long ago should've been enlisted to clear the air on this ineptly investigated forensic case.
Until that is done, all arguement about it is quite frankly, just moving air about. It does nothing. Until it is actually done in a professional manner, as I quoted:
Murder will out.
I can't say anything more about it...because there's not enough good information available. That still lies in a grave for some unconscionable reason.
And arguing about it, in the absence of good evidence, does nothing really...especially if one wishes to argue about the obvious inconsistencies of hallf-baked autopsy which omitted alot of pertinent information, and which flies in the face of both the Warren Commission (vis-a vis the placement of the wounds), and the testimony of eye witnesses including the President's Wife, Secret Service agent Clint Hill (who both described the back of the man's head as missing), and the doctors at Parkland, including the Chief of Neurosurgery, who described the opening in the occiput and the cerebellar tissue oozing from it...(such damage to the cerebellum not being described in the official reports).
Arguing about that seems rather silly. Not acknowledging that more needs to be known is somewhat incomprehensible.
To each his (or her) own.
Finis...until an exhumation is done. At which time, nothing more will have to be said anyway! Professionals will say it, and it will be documented in a manner that is comprehensible.
The funny thing is, Dr. Rose could've done such a competent exam in Dallas (as he should've...since he was the only official legally responsible for doing it) on 11-22-63 in a matter of a few hours.
The fact that he couldn't is enough of a reason to revist everything.
Case closed, until the coffin is opened.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Mar 30, 2006 19:21:36 GMT -4
This is the third and last installment of my responses to your one big post!
This in itself is enough to need more forensic examination. "What in hades is going on?" should have been any official's reaction to this obvious conflict. The fact that it doesn't appear to be smells bad.
Such an investigation did happen: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel reviewed the matter (as did the Clark Panel a decade earlier). They concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were the stronger evidence and that the pathologists were mistaken about the entry being near the EOP. You yourself keep stressing how shoddy their work was. You shouldn't find it surprising that a more careful look at the evidence results in a revision of the conclusions. The "conflict" has little value.
This is what they say and they were standing right there watching the most important autopsy of the 20th century. This should convince any reasonable person that there are medical-legal questions to be answered that are not by the official story, for whatever reason.
You have stated several times that the autopsy was shoddy and unprofessional. You have stressed that it is not suitable for assessing the true state of JFK's wounds. You have dismissed the photographic and X-ray evidence insisting that they are of too low in quality to be useful. Here, however, you suggest that merely standing there watching an important autopsy is enough to accurately assess and report complex head wounds years or decades after the fact.
That description describes the large defect in the skull (which again , is not confirmed by x-rays). It does not in any way describe where the large circular exit wound which exhibited beveling of the external table was located.
OK. I know what you are referring to now. The "large circular" remark threw me. Re-read the report. The beveling was noted in the fragment, not in the skull:
I see an ovoid wound in your enlargement, which you have described as being in a different orientation than is obvious from the blow up.
I was referring to the abrasion collar location around the wound.
The back wound was not measured properly by the autopsists, and it's location is obviously not where the Warren Commission placed it.
The Warren Commission placed it "near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck." The base of the neck is C7/T1. Their description is correct.
What you don't seem to see is that the photos are inadequate, un-referenced, and are almost laughable as forensic documentation.
They are inadequate only to those not skilled in analyzing photographs, especially those not skilled in interpreting autopsy photographs. You have not seen the original photos, but only the bootlegs published in conspiracy books. Chad Zimmerman noted how poor the cropped bootlegs were in comparison to the originals.
As for the photos being unreferenced, the pathologists and photographer did formally inventory them in 1966. They identified and numbered the photos at that time by marking the envelopes they were in (this is where the numbering we use today for the photos comes from).
From a historical point of view, the photos are of immense value. They dispassionately record the state of the body at the time of the autopsy. They remain relatively stable, while memories fade and bodies decompose.
No one could measure the location of the wound given the photos that are available.
Do you know what photogrammetry is? I ask because if you are going to stand before a panel of experts and argue your case for exhumation, I guarantee they will ask this question.
One could, however, rather easily determine that this wound is not in the base of the neck, as portrayed by the Warren Commission.
You keep doing this. You say the photos and other evidence is inadequate, but when you think you you see something at odds with the Warren Commission in them, then all of a sudden they are adequate enough.
What you do not realize is that the drawings were intended to portray what actually happened. They do not seem to jibe with the medical evidence in the official version of things, let alone with the medical evidence provided by almost every single witness to the wounds.
So, the autopsy was shoddy and unprofessional, but the drawings were not?
And you yourself are using these Meyers creations, which do nothing but fit the WCs proposals precisely...again, in contrast to the pathologist's own description of the head entry wound in the lower part of the skull.
Myers relied on the photographic evidence to locate the entry wound. That was the whole purpose of his study: to use computer technology to integrate and compare the photographic evidence to see what information can be gleaned from it.
I give weight to witness testimony, and I give it some consideration when it contrasts to what you call "physical evidence". That is only reasonable.
Here is the challenge, and the entire investigative community awaits you: Show how giving equal weight to physical evidence and witness testimony leads to scenarios that better explain what happened. If witness testimony serves you so well, you should not shy away from developing a coherent account of the assassination from it. You should relish the opportunity to put a better explanation on the table by factoring in all the witness testimony.
My proposal is not intended to be "professional". My desire would be to have a professional examination done, and a clear forensic description made of what is actual present in that body, especially as pertains to that skull.
But that is not your proposal. Your proposal consists of throwing out just about all of the existing evidence and forcing the investigators to make their case just on the body.
I think is is absolutely clear what could emerge from a competent forensic examination. Tying up the obvious loose ends in the most important murder case of the 20th century would seem to be somewhat important,
If the exhumed body shows the entry wound in the head up in the cowlick region, then you would still have the loose ends. Witness testimony would still be in conflict with it.
and would also seem to be something that should've been done in the first place. It is an abberation that it was not, which is clear.
And they shouldn't have burned down the Library of Alexandria. Welcome to historical research.
There shouldn't be "loose ends".
Almost all investigations of large size and scope have loose ends. If there they didn't, defense lawyers would not be able to mount defenses for their clients in court. The job of the investigator is to sort through the complex morass of evidence and extract the coherent picture entangled within it. Training and experiences equips him to know the kinds of evidence that most reliably produce viable results.
My point is this:
You accept the official line as evidence...clear evidence of what has happened.
I accept it as the evidence that is available in this case. Regardless of how it originated or what it is, it is the evidence available in this case. Evidence is evidence of something. I am interested in what scenario or scenarios can be developed from it.
Think about what it would mean if CE399 was planted. That would mean that very bullet was produced and handled by a real, flesh-and-blood, card-carrying conspirator. Analyzing CE399 would put the analyst one-handshake away from the conspiracy, so to speak. The same goes for the rest of the evidence. If you have doubts about it genuinely supporting Oswald as the lone assassin, then you should have great confidence in it supporting a specific act of conspiracy that did happen.
I accept that an investigation was done, but feel it was shoddy, especially from a medical-legal standpoint. The conflicts are obvious. You may wish to minimize the fact that every medical witness to the wounds of President Kennedy, including his wife and Secret Service agent Clint Hill, as well as many of the medical corpsmen who attended the autopsy and directly observed what was going on, all describe Occiptal damage, contrary to x-rays and photographs taken at the autopsy.
Witness testimony will be in conflict with the physical evidence when the witness is not accurate. Locating injuries is an act of measurement. Often, these witnesses consider the issue of injury location when they are first asked about it well after the incident. Memory often provides a poor ruler to measure with.
Testimony will also be in conflict when the conspiracy theorist interprets the witness testimony so that it appears to be in conflict with physical evidence. Take the above claims about Jacqueline Kennedy and Clint Hill, for example. They don't use the word "occipital" in their testimonies to the Warren Commission. Jackie uses the word "back" and Hill the word "rear", but it is not evident from their testimony that they knew where the occipital bone was on the skull and that they studied the skull to determine which of the major bones had portions missing. Yet, you tell us here that they "all describe occipital damage."
Because people can be inaccurate, sloppy, or downright mistaken, mere conflict between testimony and physical evidence is not enough cause to dismiss the physical evidence.
You may wish to accept that the autopsy photographs and x-rays, which conflict in certain areas to the descriptions of the autopsists themselves, and to the aformentioned witnesses, and which conflict with each other in respect to bone absence in the skull.
Photographic and X-ray emulsions are in one sense simple recorders of an event. They register the patterned electromagnetic radiation that projects onto their surfaces. We understand the process fairly well. We also gave a pretty good idea how photographic emulsions deteriorate over time. Photographs and X-rays are physical connections to the events they depict.
We do not have the same luxury with witness testimony. We often have little idea how a witness "recorded" an event. How well a witness does depends on both his skill and on how attentive he was to the details we are interested in. Memory fades and is altered over time in unpredictable ways.
It is not always improper to assign more probative value to the physical evidence than to the witness testimony that appears to be at odds with it.
You may wish to accept an ill-written and unclear (in several key respects)autopsy protocol produced by a man who was not a forensic pathologist, and who came up with his bullet path through the neck after the autopsy was over and he spoke to a Dallas physician the next day.
Well, since I don't accept the EOP entrance, obviously, I don't fully accept the autopsy report. The photographic evidence is pretty clear that the entry was higher on the head. The other physical evidence strongly supports the neck traversal.
And you may wish to accept that the Warren Commission moved a bullet entry wound 4" up on the head from where the autopsists placed it in their report (a postion they never wavered from) and thus fostered their position that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin (leaving the single bullet theory aside, of course), shooting the "fatal bullet" from the 6th floor what I propose.
The Warren Commission Report doesn't mention the location of the head entry wound other than to say it was on back of the head. They draw their conclusions about the head wound based on the fact the entry was in the rear and on the reconstructions that duplicated the explosive results.
The Warren Commission shows here how you can approach the evidence generally--the entry wound was in the rear of the head--and draw a general conclusion--the shooter was to the rear of the victim. Investigators don't have to throw their hands up in despair just because the evidence is imprecise. Sure, the shooter could have been just about anywhere to the rear of the victim, but the evidence at least narrows possibilities, which is the purpose of investigation.
You may wish to minimize these ideas, and adhere to the story line in spite of the reasonable questions that are present. Fine.
Your questions lead nowhere. You give me no reason to think something other than Oswald inflicted the wounds on Kennedy and Connally.
In the absence of exhumation and competent assessment, I'm afraid that the case will remain closed...as the lid on that coffin in Arlington is closed.
Look at what you have done. You have eliminated just about all of the evidence available in the case from consideration. You have left the investigators with just a decomposed body. They are not going to able figure out what happened that day in Dallas from just that single item of evidence. They can only make sense of the body by placing what they discover into a wider context of evidence. You have denied them that opportunity from the outset.
|
|
|
Post by mid on Mar 30, 2006 21:39:50 GMT -4
. [Your questions lead nowhere. You give me no reason to think something other than Oswald inflicted the wounds on Kennedy and Connally. You have eliminated just about all of the evidence available in the case from consideration. You have left the investigators with just a decomposed body. They are not going to able figure out what happened that day in Dallas from just that single item of evidence. They can only make sense of the body by placing what they discover into a wider context of evidence. You have denied them that opportunity from the outset. No. I have not eliminated anything. I am, in the presence of irrefutable conflict, interested in confirming that which exists, or, in denying it, or, establishing something in between. In other words, the truth, which may or may not exist in what we have now. Yes, they will be able to figure out what happened...not from the decomposed body, but through the skull, which still exists and will clearly show the skull wounds...exactly where they are, which we simply do not know and cannot confirm from the existing documentation and photographic / x-ray records that exist. We will see what's real, and what's not. That's all. My job is not, and has never been to make you think that someone other than Oswald killed JFK. What is has clearly been is to get the obvious inconsistencies in the existing evidence clarified so that this clarified evidence can tell us all what actually happened. This, we can not possibly know, unless we wish to accept, as you seem to, the existing evidence and the inconsistencies that are obvious in it. That's the bottom line.
|
|