State of Texas vs Lee Harvey Oswald: Autopsy x rays

[Jim DiEugenio]

At times Cliff, I really wonder about you. Its like you are oblivious to everything else that has happened in this case for about fifty years. And so, you utter phrases like, "demolish" and "heavily corroborated" etc.

The other side would do what they have always done, and what they have been doing to you for years e.g. Craig Lamson. But you ignore, even when he showed you were wrong about the length of the shirts.

They would argue through things like that and the Todd Vaughn Croft photo etc etc etc.

In a mock trial, 54 years later, you are not going to get a chain of possession on the photos since the guys who took them have passed on. So good luck with that one.

But it is your usual forum patter. For most of us who have been watching you vs Speer, Lamson etc: Yawn.

[Jim DiEugenio]

By the way, let me add, one of the things that is so interesting about Mike Chesser's work is that brings up an aspect of the questions about the brain validity that I did not recall.

Boswell said that the flax, a tight drum surface attachment that keeps the brain in place was terribly damaged for a long length on the top of the skull, an area which shows extensive fracturing and disruption in the bone above it.

He then adds that from his experience, which is over 30 years as a neurologist, this strikes him as being so far out that he cannot imagine that kind of disruption above, yet for the delicate tissues of the brain to have remained intact.

This whole brain issue is now becoming more and more salient as being one of the most phony parts of the official story. Its a real shame, that like many things in this case, it has taken so long for our side to get to it. The first time I recall it being broached was by Horne in the nineties.

In other words, it took over three decades to address.

[Cliff Varnell]

At times Cliff, I really wonder about you.

How odd, I don't spend any time wondering about you.

Its like you are oblivious to everything else that has happened in this case for about fifty years.

And you are ignorant of the rudimentary facts of JFK's murder.

Otherwise, you wouldn't claim that JFK was first shot in the back (?!), or claim that there hasn't always been hard physical evidence of a shot to the throat from the front.

And so, you utter phrases like, "demolish" and "heavily corroborated" etc.

The last line: "...and hole of short depth with no point of exit, no bullet located in the body"
demolishes the case against Oswald, demolishes the SBT.The State has no rebuttal. YOU can't provide a rebuttal.

The location of the back wound is heavily corroborated by physical evidence, properly prepared documentary evidence, and consensus witness testimony.


16 witnesses to the low back wound.


1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician observed the body at Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."


2) The autopsy face sheet diagram prepared by Dr. J. Thornton Boswell shows a wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes (4 inches below the bottom of the collars).

The diagram was filled out in pencil and signed off as "verified," also in pencil, also in accordance to proper autopsy protocol. The "14cm from the mastoid" notation was made in pen, which is a violation of proper autopsy protocol. Boswell signed off on three different "posterior" wound locations.


3) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)


4) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to David Lifton:


(quote on)
I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.
(quote off)


5) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit:


(quote on)
Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it.
(quote off)


The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

6) SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound "in the soft part of that shoulder," consistent with the testimony of Boyers.


7) SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound in the backwas "the hole that was in his shoulder." Kellerman expanded on this for the HSCA witha diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3.


8) FBI SA Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that Humes gave was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:
[URL="http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif"]http://www.jfklancer.../md/oneill1.gif

[/URL]

9) FBI SA James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:
[URL="http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif"]http://www.jfklancer.../md/sibert1.gif

[/URL]

10) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth, pg 721).


11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).


12) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared tobe an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's High Treason 2, pg 206). This consistent with T3.


13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit (KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3.


14) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the afternoon of 11/22/63:


(quote on)
I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.
(quote off)


4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.


15) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:


(quote on)
...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.
(quote off)


6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.


16) In his notes mortician Tom Robinson wrote: "And wound 5-6 inches below the shoulder".

As I say, "heavily corroborated."

.

The other side would do what they have always done, and what they have been doing to you for years e.g. Craig Lamson. stopped engaging with Lamson 5 years ago

Craig Lamson?

Yeah, I remember you taking his side. He'd go -- "Varnell doesn't know how the sun works!" and you'd go -- "Good one!"

I stopped engaging with Lamson 5 years ago after he admitted that a normal amount of JFK's shirt collar is visible in all the Elm St. photos.

That was all that I was after -- the admission that would demolish his case.

But you ignore, even when he showed you were wrong about the length of the shirts.

You mis-remember. I admitted I was wrong about the total amount of available slack in an entire shirt -- 3 - 4 inches.

When I said it was 3/4 of an inch I was conflating how much slack there is at any particular point on the shirt (given casual movement) with the total amount of slack in the entire shirt.

Casual movement causes ONLY fractions of an inch of fabric to ease -- that's an axiom of clothing design.

You're the last person to scold anyone for failing to admit they were wrong, by the way.

They would argue through things like that and the Todd Vaughn Croft photo etc etc etc.

You went around and around with David Von Pein for how many years? Decades? Hypocrite much?

In a mock trial, 54 years later, you are not going to get a chain of possession on the photos since the guys who took them have passed on.

That's not where the problem lies, Master Jim, it's with the woman who is on record as developing the extant photos, Saundra Kay Spencer, who denied to the ARRB that she developed the extant autopsy photos.

(quote on)

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what
you have already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy
pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in - you know, down in Dallas or something,
because they were not the ones that I had worked on.

(quote off)

So good luck with that one.

Good luck to the State if they're going to produce a photo with a wound at the top of the back right after they entered a drawing of JFK shot in the back of the neck.

The FBI report on the autopsy is gold.

But it is your usual forum patter.

Contentless dismissals, insults, suggestions of perfidy...I truly relish an intellectual challenge but you can't argue your case to save your life.

For most of us who have been watching you vs Speer, Lamson etc: Yawn.

How do you think people felt when you went around and around with David Von Pein?

I got DVP to concede my point right off the bat -- he readily admitted there was no significant elevation of JFK's clothing on Elm St.

Something you and your friend Lamson cannot admit.

[Cliff Varnell]

By the way, let me add, one of the things that is so interesting about Mike Chesser's work is that brings up an aspect of the questions about the brain validity that I did not recall.

Boswell said that the flax, a tight drum surface attachment that keeps the brain in place was terribly damaged for a long length on the top of the skull, an area which shows extensive fracturing and disruption in the bone above it.

He then adds that from his experience, which is over 30 years as a neurologist, this strikes him as being so far out that he cannot imagine that kind of disruption above, yet for the delicate tissues of the brain to have remained intact.

This whole brain issue is now becoming more and more salient as being one of the most phony parts of the official story. Its a real shame, that like many things in this case, it has taken so long for our side to get to it. The first time I recall it being broached was by Horne in the nineties.

In other words, it took over three decades to address.

Chesser's work advances our understanding of the cover-up.

It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know about the murder.

[Cliff Varnell]

At times Cliff, I really wonder about you. Its like you are oblivious to everything else that has happened in this case for about fifty years.

The view of the Vincent Salandria School is that two major issues were settled on June 28, 1966 when Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence. Up to that point Fonzi was a conspiracy agnostic, but after Specter melted down over the shirt evidence Fonzi recognized the obvious -- the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featur...views.html

Think of it as the first Mock Trial. Fonzi the agnostic interviewed Vincent Salandria who pointed out the too-low location of the clothing defects. Fonzi put the issue to Specter and the great legal mind had a nervous breakdown.

That encounter settled two issues for true students of JFK's murder: bullet holes too low, meaning the throat wound had to be an entrance.

Master James, looks like you and your friends in the Master Class never got the memo.

[Dawn Meredith]

At times Cliff, I really wonder about you. Its like you are oblivious to everything else that has happened in this case for about fifty years.

Master James, looks like you and your friends in the Master Class never got the memo.

Can't you debate your point without resorting to name calling. (Above posts especially). ::peaceflag::

[Cliff Varnell]

Dawn, what standing does a FBI report (entered by the defense) enjoy in a Texas court of law?

What about the consensus witness statements of 4 Secret Service agents and 2 FBI special agents?

On what basis could the prosecution impeach this evidence?

[Lauren Johnson]

Dawn, when all the dust settles on this, I would be intrigued as to how you would have defended the case. A two day time limit is pretty severe in a case of this complexity.

[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 wrote today:

(quote on, emphasis added)

This is stuff I discovered years ago, and discussed in my 2014 presentation at Bethesda, which represented the final nail in the single-bullet theory. (If the first nail was Fonzi's discussion with Specter--where Specter couldn't get the clothing to rise--the last nail, IMO, was my presentation in Bethesda, where WC counsel Burt Griffin stormed out of the room when I proved that Arlen Specter called the wound a back wound until he was shown a picture of the wound proving it was on the back and too low to support the single-bullet theory, whereupon he started calling it a "back-of-the-neck" wound.

(quote off)

On one hand Pat acknowledges the prima facie case for conspiracy -- wielding it wickedly well with Burt Griffin -- but then he always claims JFK was shot in the back at T1, requiring multiple inches of clothing to rise.

I guess the cognitive dissoance made Pat giddy about himself, but debunking the sbt is no big deal -- that JFK was shot in the throat from the front is a major deal, a fact Pat obfuscates.

[Jim DiEugenio]

What 2014 presentation at Bethesda?

You mean the AARC conference?