Discrediting Secret Service complicity in the elimination of JFK…

[Paul Rigby]

[quote=Mark Stapleton]How could Greer have shot JFK without Nellie Connally or Jackie seeing it?

The first shot would naturally have come as a complete surprise, as none of the occupants would have had the slightest inkling of the SS detail's intentions. Thereafter, I have no doubt the two wives understood perfectly well what had happened.

Your absence of doubt has zero probative value. What you've shown us so far would make a nice treatment for a novel. But you may be a few decades too late: Charles McCarry's The Tears of Autumn offers more "evidence" for a Ngo-family sponsored retaliatory hit than you provide for the Greer fiction. What else you got?



So it follows that they must have discussed Greer's act both privately and for the record? Whatever you're smoking, I'll take a carton.





Again none of this -- none of it -- supports any particular conclusion regarding the origin(s) of the shot(s). All we can say for certain is that the WC was bending over backwards to obscure those origins. What else you got?



As above.



For reasons that remain unclear, the SS agents in the car failed to protect JFK. Your wholly illogical leap to interpreting Mrs. Kennedy's words to be an indictment of Greer as the killer is as typical for you as it is patently unwarranted.



Uh-oh ... Maybe you have a point after all. Tell me if I'm wrong: Mrs. Kennedy wrote the note to impose upon Greer the supreme punishment:

IRONY!



As we say in the hood, "No shit, Sherlock!" This offers zero probative value in terms of your crumbled hypothesis. What else you got?



Which tells us nothing other than the SS was upholding its investigative and, in certain instances, conspiratorial responsibilities. But using your "logic," I claim that they were attempting to determine if any of the limo occupants had seen the mini-Martians who took out the president by firing a phaser from an air conditioning vent.

As for Connally, it's worth taking a look at who provided his bodyguard during his 1980 run for the presidency. It sure as heck wasn't the SS, for, as a relative of his explained on a Houston radio station at the time, he didn't trust them!

And why should he, given their performance in Dallas? He likely was aware that certain SS agents were complicit in the assassination. That being said, once again there is zero probative value here for your hypothesis. What else you got?

** [Father] Huber told at least one pressman as he left the hospital that there was a wound above Kennedy's left eye. He thus shared the verdict of most of the Parkland doctors who treated or had occasion to observe the President: the head entrance wound was in the left temple.

That's Father Huber, not Doctor Huber. But fine; as I asked on another post, please go into detail on your "most of the Parkland doctors ... " bit. Name names, specialties, and positions of observation of those making the claim ... and those testifying to a right temple entrance wound.

And while you're at it, explain how a left temple entrance wound, absent additional data relative to proximity, automatically indicates, to the exclusion of all other scenarios, an in-car firing position.

What else you got?

Wow, a big, angry post - and decidedly uncharacteristic. You've proved my earlier point, CD, about what this subject does to the otherwise poised and rational.

So, where to begin? Well, the entrance wound in the head is useful place to begin. Either you're unfamiliar with the following - in which case why the intemperate insistence that I'm wrong? - or else you chose to pretend otherwise: which is it?

Left temple entry:

1) Elm St eyewitness:

Norman Similas: “I could see a hole in the President's left temple...,” Jack Bell, “10 Feet from the President,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5, citing Toronto Star.

2) Parkland medical staff:

a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.]

b) Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.]

c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4.

d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.)

3) Parkland non-medical staff:

Father Oscar Huber: “terrible wound” over Kennedy's left eye [AP despatch, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, 24 November 1963]*

4) Bethesda: Drs. Humes & Boswell:

“The autopsy documents also provide some cryptic indications of damage to the left side of the head. The notorious face-sheet on which Dr. J. Thornton Boswell committed his unfortunate 'diagram error' consists of front and back outlines of a male figure. On the front figure, the autopsy surgeons entered the tracheotomy incision (6.5 cm), the four cut-downs made in the Parkland emergency room for administration of infusions (2 cms. Each), and a small circle at the right eye, with the marginal notation '0.8 cm,' apparently representing damage produced by the two bullet fragments that lodged there. Dr. Humes testified that the fragments measured 7 by 2 mm and 3 by 1 mm respectively (2H354). Although he said nothing about the damage at the left eye, the diagram shows a small dot at that site, labeled '0.4 cm' (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.45). Neither Arlen Specter, who conducted the questioning of the autopsy surgeons, nor the Commission members and lawyers present asked any questions about this indication on the diagram of damage at the left eye.

Turning back to the male outline of the figure – the one Dr. Boswell did not realize would become a public document even though it had to be assumed at the time of the autopsy that findings would become evidence at the trial of the accused assassin – we find a small circle at the back of the head about equidistant from the ears and level with the top of the ears. Apparently this represents the small entrance wound which the autopsy surgeons and the Warren Commission say entered the back of the head and exploded out through the right side, carrying large large segments of the skull. but an arrow at the wound on the diagram points to the front and leftand not to the front and right.

A forensic pathologist who was asked to interpret this feature said that it signified that a missile had entered the back of the head traveling to the left and front. As if in confirmation, an autopsy diagram of the skull (CE 397, Vol XVII, p.46) shows a large rectangle marked '3 cm' at the site of the left eye, with a ragged lateral margin, seemingly to indicate fracture or missing bone.

The autopsy surgeons were not questioned about any of the three diagram indications of bullet damage at the left eye or left temple. Nevertheless, when Dr. Jenkins testified that he thought there was a wound in the left temporal area, Arlen Specter replied, 'The autopsy report disclosed no such developments,'” Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY, Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), pp.161-2.