State of Texas vs Lee Harvey Oswald: Autopsy x rays

[Jim DiEugenio]

This presentation is the one that Dave Mantik was intending to make at the recent mock trial in Houston.

For reasons of time considerations, he did not make it. Which I think was a loss for our side.

So we posted his presentation at K2 and K.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...ull-x-rays

[Peter Lemkin]

Conclusive IMHO of forged X-rays.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I would think so. The combination of the appearance of the 6.5 mm disk shaped fragment and the white patch are pretty strong in my view.

We will have Mike Chesser's visual essay up soon also.

[Jim DiEugenio]

As promised here is Mike Chesser's presentation as was to be done at the Houston mock trial.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...hotographs

[Jim DiEugenio]

Let me add, I really hope everyone looks at Mike's presentation.

He actually goes beyond Mantik in more than one way.

His presentation shows, among other things, that there is altered evidence on the x rays that demonstrates a shot from the front. That is a new development.

IMO, he was not used effectively to counter the claim by the prosecution at the mock trial that there was no evidence of a frontal shot.

Now we have the evidence.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let me add, I really hope everyone looks at Mike's presentation.

He actually goes beyond Mantik in more than one way.

His presentation shows, among other things, that there is altered evidence on the x rays that demonstrates a shot from the front. That is a new development.

IMO, he was not used effectively to counter the claim by the prosecution at the mock trial that there was no evidence of a frontal shot.

Now we have the evidence.

We've ALWAYS had the evidence of a shot to the throat from the front!

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound, which means that the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse could ONLY have been caused by a shot to the throat from the front.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Yawn.

I know this does not matter a bit to you, but that is not what I was talking about. Why don't you look through this before dissing it, you might learn something.

Oh I forgot: Salandria, shirt, Harriman and ice bullet have solved the case. Don't know how I could forget about that after the hundredth time.

[Cliff Varnell]

Yawn.

I know this does not matter a bit to you, but that is not what I was talking about. Why don't you look through this before dissing it, you might learn something.

I'm not dissing "it," I'm dissing your statement:

"IMO, he was not used effectively to counter the claim by the prosecution at the mock trial that there was no evidence of a frontal shot. Now we have the evidence."

So there was no evidence of a frontal shot before now?

Oh I forgot: Salandria, shirt, Harriman and ice bullet have solved the case. Don't know how I could forget about that after the hundredth time.

If you understood any of that you wouldn't make statements like the one in bold above.

I'm surprised CAPA hasn't hired a complexity-fetishist such as yourself, Jim, as I'm sure you could do an even better job of putting the jury to sleep.

[Jim DiEugenio]

This is how important Mike's work is.

Larry Hancock hardly ever writes about the medical evidence in any venue.

But he was so impressed by Mike's presentation at Lancer that this is what he just wrote on his blog:

Finally, I have to say that for the first time in a great many years I am fairly well convinced by Michael Chesser's conference presentation on the enhanced HSCA skull X-rays that there were two shots to JFK's head and that one was most definitely from the front and into the hairline, impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. The presentation also confirmed the degree of post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have become so clear over the years.


This is why I recommend everyone read Mike's fine visual essay. Its important as an unprecedented evolution in this case.

[Cliff Varnell]

Its important as an unprecedented evolution in this case.

But it isn't significant as proof of a shot from the front -- which we've always had.

Let's see, they put the jury to sleep with the provenance of CE399, the acoustics, the NAA -- so the other major rabbit hole is the head wound/s evidence. That'll do the trick!

JFK may have been shot in the head 3 times. There may have been pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

The head wound/s evidence is far inferior to the back/throat wound evidence.

The best place to start in the defense of Lee Harvey Oswald is with the FBI report on the autopsy which tells of a shallow entrance wound in the back below the shoulders, and the autopsists were "at a loss" to explain the absence an exit wound, and no bullet.

Bona fide jury grabber.

The State is going to accuse Lee Harvey Oswald of shooting JFK with a 6.5 FMJ from a Mannlicher-Carcano but the wound in the back was shallow, and they didn't find a bullet.

The wound pattern in the FBI autopsy report is radically inconsistent with a shot from the MC.

The back wound was too low to have been associated with the throat wound, establishing the throat wound as an entrance.

The corroboration for the FBI report of the autopsy includes the physical evidence (clothing defects), at least 15 witness statements, and the properly prepared medical evidence.

This could be presented to a jury in less than an hour.

State has no proof that JFK was shot in the back of the neck as per the SBT -- not in the bogus autopsy report nor bogus autopsy photo which put the back wound at T1, still too low.

They can't replicate the SBT, and cannot challenge the FBI report on the autopsy.