State of Texas vs Lee Harvey Oswald: Autopsy x rays

[Jim DiEugenio]

On BOR, Len has gone over this in the last two installments.

The first one was with Larry Schnapf, and attorney for our side, and the last one was with Brian Edwards, a former police officer, who turned out to be our best witness.

It was a hung jury, 6-5-1 for conviction. The deliberations were recorded and they were timed out I think at three hours. According to Brian, the tide was turning when time was up and the issue that was turning it was his testimony about it being the wrong rifle.

And I have to say, Brian and Bill Simpich did a neat little job on that issue. In addition to the carbine vs short rifle, the length being wrong, and the lack of any evidence of the rifle being delivered to or picked up by Oswald, they brought in something visually compelling: it was the side mount vs the underneath mount of the sling. In my opinion, there should have been even more time devoted to this key evidentiary point. Its a real good issue for us for the simple reason that its so often overlooked. In fact, if you look back in the literature, none of the early critics bring it up: Epstein, Weisberg, Thompson, Popkin, Lane, Salandria etc. The only one who does is it at all is Meagher, and she only notes it in a footnote. This failure has always puzzled me. Because the evidence is in the volumes themselves.

From my understanding there will be a DVD made of this. So you can watch it yourself.

[Cliff Varnell]

I guess it must be here somewhere, but I haven't seen an outcome for the trial?

They lost an open and shut case!

The most easily proven conspiracy is history...and they lost!

Why?

Because they micro-analyze inferior evidence.

[Jim DiEugenio]

To the rational and objective people still left on this thread and forum:

There are four outcomes to a criminal trial: conviction, acquittal, and a hung jury or mistrial. (If I am wrong in any of this, Dawn should correct me.)

In the first instance, the prosecution won, in the second instance, the defense won, the third instance there was no verdict since the jury was undecided, and in the last some procedure was upset so seriously that the trial was called off and will be done again. In Houston, there was no triumph for either side since it was the third alternative. In other words, if it had been a real trial, Oswald would not have been convicted. The prosecution would have had the option of trying him again. If they chose not to, then the defendant would have been released. But if they did, it would have been good for our side since they would have been much better the second time around.

Attorney Larry Schnapf noted in his fine article that in the whole history of doing this case in mock trials, and there were 8 instances he found, there has been only one acquittal. Two ended in convictions, and the rest were hung juries. So, in the real world, that is the real history of these mock trials.( https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/798)

The last thing in the world the JFK case is is an open and shut case. And no responsible party who knows the case would make such an asinine comment. There is a circumstantial case against Oswald. And in addition to the WR, there have been several books written defending that view: Belin, Johnson, Moore, Posner, Bugliosi etc. Anyone who watched the Livestream or who attended the mock trial would know that this is what the prosecution relied upon. In fact they displayed quotes by Bugliosi and relied upon a writer who wrote a book inspired by Bugliosi.

The idea that the JFK case is a simple case is so silly, its ludicrous. Its something that an axe grinder or provocateur would say. It takes several years to master this case. And in the purest sense, as Harold Weisberg once said, no one can master it. It would take an exceptional polymath to do so since it takes up so many disciplines and so much material. Plus it is necessary to expose so much suborned testimony and flawed evidence. Hands down, the JFK case is one of the most complex murder cases in the annals of crime. That is why Bugliosi spent 2600 pages trying to explicate his case for conviction. To say otherwise is pure bunk.

[Cliff Varnell]

The last thing in the world the JFK case is is an open and shut case.

The case for conspiracy is open and shut.

To say otherwise is The Big Lie.

And no responsible party who knows the case would make such an asinine comment. There is a circumstantial case against Oswald.

So what?

According to the FBI report on the autopsy the back wound was shallow, so it wasn't caused by an MC.

And in addition to the WR, there have been several books written defending that view: Belin, Johnson, Moore, Posner, Bugliosi etc. Anyone who watched the Livestream or who attended the mock trial would know that this is what the prosecution relied upon. In fact they displayed quotes by Bugliosi and relied upon a writer who wrote a book inspired by Bugliosi.

They relied on a picture showing JFK shot in the back of the neck -- and the "defense" didn't challenge that assertion.

True students of JFK's murder don't have any problems destroying LN talking points.

The idea that the JFK case is a simple case is so silly, its ludicrous.

The idea that the case for conspiracy isn't simple is pernicious.

Its something that an axe grinder or provocateur would say.

I started hardcore punk rock, pal, so my street credibility among young folks is supreme.

Cool kids born between 1965 and 1990 (roughly) dig hardcore punk.

They're my peeps.

I can tell you right now -- the only case younger folks are going to buy is the prima facie case for conspiracy.

It takes several years to master this case.

It takes minutes to make the case for conspiracy.

And in the purest sense, as Harold Weisberg once said, no one can master it. It would take an exceptional polymath to do so since it takes up so many disciplines and so much material.

It doesn't take "so much material" to prove conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

Plus it is necessary to expose so much suborned testimony and flawed evidence. Hands down, the JFK case is one of the most complex murder cases in the annals of crime. That is why Bugliosi spent 2600 pages trying to explicate his case for conviction. To say otherwise is pure bunk.

95% of everything said and written about the JFK murder case is pure bullshit.

[Cliff Varnell]

The medical evidence in the JFK murder case is simple to explain.

There are two types of JFK medical material: that which was prepared/maintained/recorded according to proper autopsy protocols.

Then there is evidence which was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocols.

The former we weigh, the latter we dismiss.

Protocol-proper evidence includes: the clothing, Burkley's death certificate signed off as verified, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil and signed off as verified, the neck x-ray, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, and the FBI report on the autopsy.

In the FBI report there was an indication of pre-autopsy surgery to the head -- renders all the head wound/s evidence irrelevant since the possibility of pre-autopsy surgery cannot be discounted.

The evidence not prepared/maintained/recorded according to proper autopsy protocol are: the autopsy photos (which have no chain of possession, to boot), the measurements written in pen on the autopsy face sheet, the description of the back wound location in the final autopsy report.

So we can throw out everything related to the head wound/s and the autopsy photos.

It's long past time to cut to the chase, folks.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Blah, blah blah Cliff.

You have been saying the same thing about this case for years, probably decades. Even people on our side disagree with you, like Pat Speer.

In a court of law, which is what Simpich, Tanenbaum and Schnapf were in, you would have to prove the falsity of the autopsy photos, not simply alteration. That would take time, in fact you would probably have to call for an evidentiary hearing which would take days to prepare for and probably a day to try.

Now, you also agree with Chris Davidson that the Z film is altered, as you said over on EF. So your case would now entail two evidentiary hearings. (I think they are called 402 hearings in California.)

The hearing on the Z film, in my opinion, would take over a week.

So at your mock trial, that would last about three weeks: go for it buddy. Maybe you can raise the money by some of those films you have on You Tube.

[Cliff Varnell]

Blah, blah blah Cliff.

You have been saying the same thing about this case for years, probably decades. Even people on our side disagree with you, like Pat Speer.

Pat can't defend his T3 denial.

I got David Von Pein to agree with me. Unlike you, I didn't engage in fake debates year after year with him.

He claimed JFK's clothing was jacked up 2 inches in the Croft photo.

I pointed out that a normal amount of JFK's shirt collar is visible in that photo, the jacket collar was at the base of his neck -- how could multiple inches of shirt and jacket be jacked up entirely above the top of the back without pushing up at the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

Von Pein conceded the point instantly -- the Croft photo on Elm St. shows no significant bunch up of the clothing.

He wanted to go on about the autopsy photos but I dismissed him -- "No further questions."

In a court of law, which is what Simpich, Tanenbaum and Schnapf were in, you would have to prove the falsity of the autopsy photos, not simply alteration.

Not without a chain of possession. There is no chain of possession and the photos were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

That would take time, in fact you would probably have to call for an evidentiary hearing which would take days to prepare for and probably a day to try.

Burden of proof is on the state that that's JFK in those photos.

Doesn't help them anyway!

Now, you also agree with Chris Davidson that the Z film is altered, as you said over on EF. So your case would now entail two evidentiary hearings. (I think they are called 402 hearings in California.)

I agree that the Zapruder film proves conspiracy no matter whether it was altered or not.

Thank you Chris for citing something other than microanalyses of inferior evidence.

The hearing on the Z film, in my opinion, would take over a week.

I'd argue for the authenticity of Z186 to Z255.

So at your mock trial, that would last about three weeks: go for it buddy. Maybe you can raise the money by some of those films you have on You Tube.

No, my mock trial is based on the FBI report on the autopsy.

You say prosecutors can challenge it -- bring it!

The State of Texas claimed JFK was shot in the back of the neck...You think that's defensible?

[Cliff Varnell]

Blah, blah blah Cliff.

You have been saying the same thing about this case for years, probably decades. Even people on our side disagree with you, like Pat Speer.

What do you find compelling about Pat's claim JFK was shot in the back at T1?

<cue Final Jeopardy>

[Jim DiEugenio]

Cliff:

You aren't a lawyer are you. I am not either, but I have sat through some trials and read up on procedure and been schooled by some good attorneys.

The prosecution would introduce the autopsy photos of the back.

These would have powerful prejudicial value against your case.

You would then have to do what you could to keep them out.

And the way courts operate today, I doubt you could. The HSCA report was written many, many years ago. Forty years of GOP control through the Federalist Society and the likes of Scalia and Rehnquist have altered the criminal system. Plus at a mock trial, those kinds of things are easier to admit.

But that kind of thing is fine for forum talk, which you seem to relish.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

You aren't a lawyer are you. I am not either, but I have sat through some trials and read up on procedure and been schooled by some good attorneys.

The prosecution would introduce the autopsy photos of the back.

Not without a chain of possession.

Besides, the State of Texas used the WC SBT -- shot to the back of the neck. The autopsy photo shows a shot to the top of the back, a couple of inches lower.

On the other hand, the FBI report on the autopsy put the back wound below the shoulders, consistent with the Death Certificate, the holes in the clothes, the autopsy face sheet, the testimonies of SS SA Clint Hill and Glenn Bennett -- all record a wound two inches lower than the one in the autopsy photo.

These would have powerful prejudicial value against your case.

Not at all. Does not help one bit the State's claim JFK was shot in the back of the neck.

[You would then have to do what you could to keep them out.

And the way courts operate today, I doubt you could. The HSCA report was written many, many years ago. Forty years of GOP control through the Federalist Society and the likes of Scalia and Rehnquist have altered the criminal system. Plus at a mock trial, those kinds of things are easier to admit.

But that kind of thing is fine for forum talk, which you seem to relish.

The State opened by claiming Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK thru the back of the neck with a 6.5mm FMJ.

In defense I would present the heavily corroborated FBI report on the autopsy -- shallow wound, destroys the case against Oswald, destroys the SBT.

How is the State going to counter that?

With an autopsy photo showing a wound inches lower than previously claimed?