David Josephs Wrote:So given we have an AT THE TIME OF DEATH conclusion compared to an old man looking at old photos with a vested interest in supporting the "suicide" conclusion...
What on earth makes you say MacDonnell had a "vested interest" in this case one way or the other? FYI MacDonnell was the expert who testified on behalf of James Earl Ray's defense at his 1974 Habeas Corpus hearing and strongly criticised the official case.
David Josephs Wrote:are the various pieces of circumstantial evidence starting to make you at least question the suicide conclusion?
y'know, just asking... :-)
Cheers
DJ
Afraid not, David. I'm as certain that there was no pre-autopsy alteration as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. So Pitzer couldn't have had any secret film and Dennis David must be wrong.
David Josephs Wrote:So given we have an AT THE TIME OF DEATH conclusion compared to an old man looking at old photos with a vested interest in supporting the "suicide" conclusion...
What on earth makes you say MacDonnell had a "vested interest" in this case one way or the other? FYI MacDonnell was the expert who testified on behalf of James Earl Ray's defense at his 1974 Habeas Corpus hearing and strongly criticised the official case.
David Josephs Wrote:are the various pieces of circumstantial evidence starting to make you at least question the suicide conclusion?
y'know, just asking... :-)
Cheers
DJ
Afraid not, David. I'm as certain that there was no pre-autopsy alteration as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. So Pitzer couldn't have had any secret film and Dennis David must be wrong.
I wil have to revisit why I posted that Martin... I remember having a distinct impression about MacD at the time... for now I will redact that comment until I find what made me feel that way...
Yet Martin, you do not address what I wrote: These FOUR ITEMS that suggest suicide are really not that indicative of suicide at all and can just as easily be accomplished via murder
while the most important remains the conflict between the 40 years later review of the info and the autopsy results at the time...
Can you take a minute and address these critical FOUR POINTS. especially #2... thanks.
=====
With regards to no pre-autopsy alteration.... we talking Pitzer or JFK?
If JFK then we will have to either continue an existing thread or start a new one.... That's a discussion I'd like to have with you.
If Pitzer started the CCTV at 6:45, when he THOUGHT the autopsy was starting... and xfers it to 16mm and shows DD from which he gives his statements and produces the drawings I posted
how does pre-autopsy surgery have ANYTHING to do with when Pitzer turned the CCTV camera on?
Let's take a step back a second Martin... whose xrays were being developed as Jackie and Bobby entered the hospital? Who did Kellerman go see in the morgue at 7pm?
Who was in the casket Greer, Kellerman, Sibert and O'Neill take in at 7:17?
Was there a metal casket at 6:35 delivered via helicopter and black hearse?
Have you read the BE description of the head - the medical description? - at the 8pm showing? and how do you reconcile that with "life saving procedures" at Parkland when at 8pm his entire skull falls apart in their hands?
Copy and past these into a new thread if you like... or since Pitzer's movie would only be damaging if it showing these alterations... we can keep it all here...
One more point on CCTV: With CCTV in review by the military since 1953 and VIDEO TAPE RECORDERS for use with STUDENTS, one would assume that the military had VIDEO CAPABILITIES for their military use well before allowing it to be used on students - that there may have been video recording going on at DP that day is really not so far fetched.
The Television Division was established at the MFSS on 15 December 1966. Closed circuit television as an instructional medium had been evaluated at the School since 1953. After a study of closed circuit techniques from 23 February to 23 May 1963 by the U.S. Army Signal Corps Mobile Television Unit, the Office of the Surgeon General approved a permanent television system in 1966 and allocated $750,000 for the procurement and installation of a permanent closed circuit system for the School. A separate building was erected to accommodate the closed circuit instructional facility, along with four additional classroom buildings, along Patch Road. [size=12](Annual Historical Report, MFSS, CY 1966, p ii)
[/SIZE]Four video tape recorders were authorized for use by the Personnel Management Branch to improve oral communications for students in the Army Medical Service Officer Advanced Course and Hospital Administration Course. The recorders had instant playback capabilities to enable students to self-critique their performances. [size=12](Annual Historical Report, MFSS, CY 1966, p 25) [/SIZE][size=12][/SIZE]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
As I posted earlier, for what it's worth, I am not convinced WBP was murdered. This, of course, is based on what I have read, and not on research done by myself. But, due to my respect of certain researchers and DPF posters, I continue to lean towards suicide. But, even if WBP was murdered, that by itself does not mean it relates to the JFK assassination and/or autopsy. A lot of energy has been spent on this subject, and I have to wonder, as I wander, if maybe any additional energy is worth it unless some very strong evidence of homicide comes forward.
LR Trotter Wrote:As I posted earlier, for what it's worth, I am not convinced WBP was murdered. This, of course, is based on what I have read, and not on research done by myself. But, due to my respect of certain researchers and DPF posters, I continue to lean towards suicide. But, even if WBP was murdered, that by itself does not mean it relates to the JFK assassination and/or autopsy. A lot of energy has been spent on this subject, and I have to wonder, as I wander, if maybe any additional energy is worth it unless some very strong evidence of homicide comes forward.
::
If Pitzer was murdered, it would relate DIRECTLY to what he caught on CCTV... that he showed DD was not known at the time, there would be no reason to have that information.
Let's look at the facts:
- CCTV was available in the Bethesda morgue
- Pitzer's job was to record from CCTV as Bethesda was an instructional facility
- CCTV was fairly new and not eveyone at that time were tech heads who would have even thought about the CCTV feed
- DD says he was shown this film (the FACT is he said it, whether true or not ??)
- the autopsy report and interviews with the autopsy doctors is available and as I posted, contradicts MacD's conclusion from viewing the photos
- many, many, many stories are related about those with proprietary info who are hunted, scared, threatened and killed... MOST of these were ruled suicides in the face of contrary evidence
- no latent prints on the pistol
- no gun residue on his right hand or head
- pistol rests to the LEFT of the body althought fired supposedly from the right side of the head producing a blowback that would, if anything, push the pistol farther right (my speculation)
- glasses come to rest to the right rear of the body (wasn't there a question whether they were even his?)
For those who have not seen it - here is the diagram thanks to Allen E.
Try to say this out loud with a straight face:
"The man in charge of the CCTV at the Bethesda morgue was rumored to have recorded JFK's autopsy, supposedly shows images from this film to a peer who says the wounds depicted consist of a bullet hole to the right temple and a 3" blowout to the right rear of the skull... ALL the evidence from said autopsy contradicts such a conclusion and same are ultimately found to be either altered copies of xrays and/or staged photos depicting a shot from behind blowing out the frontal bone of the skull... a copy of said film was supposedly hidden in the ceiling tiles in the same room he is found dead, under a ladder. No film is ever found, the autopsy finds no evidence of the man self-inflicting the wound or that the muzzle of the pistol was close enough to his head to either leave burn or powder... so we MUST conclude this to be a suicide."
::flyingpig::
A good portion of the reporting of said autopsy and interviews of autopsists is redacted - yet the evidence regarding no powder burns is still there...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5514[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5513[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5512[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Thank you Mr Josephs. Maybe I should have said "I am not convinced WBP was murdered, but I lean towards suicide". That would be more accurate. But, otherwise I stand by my post. However, I do appreciate your response and remain open minded.
David Josephs Wrote:So given we have an AT THE TIME OF DEATH conclusion compared to an old man looking at old photos with a vested interest in supporting the "suicide" conclusion...
What on earth makes you say MacDonnell had a "vested interest" in this case one way or the other? FYI MacDonnell was the expert who testified on behalf of James Earl Ray's defense at his 1974 Habeas Corpus hearing and strongly criticised the official case.
David Josephs Wrote:are the various pieces of circumstantial evidence starting to make you at least question the suicide conclusion?
y'know, just asking... :-)
Cheers
DJ
Afraid not, David. I'm as certain that there was no pre-autopsy alteration as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow. So Pitzer couldn't have had any secret film and Dennis David must be wrong.
I wil have to revisit why I posted that Martin... I remember having a distinct impression about MacD at the time... for now I will redact that comment until I find what made me feel that way...
Yet Martin, you do not address what I wrote: These FOUR ITEMS that suggest suicide are really not that indicative of suicide at all and can just as easily be accomplished via murder
while the most important remains the conflict between the 40 years later review of the info and the autopsy results at the time...
Can you take a minute and address these critical FOUR POINTS. especially #2... thanks.
=====
With regards to no pre-autopsy alteration.... we talking Pitzer or JFK?
If JFK then we will have to either continue an existing thread or start a new one.... That's a discussion I'd like to have with you.
David,
The pictures show that the entry wound WAS a close contact wound - Wecht and MacDonnell agree on this. Apparently the guys who performed the autopsy didn't recognize it as such. The apparent reason for this being that they were not forensic pathologists. According to the 11/2/66 FBI interview of deputy medical examiner for Montgomery County, Dr. John Ball, who was called to the scene to examine the body, "he observed muzzle marks around the wound and powder burns."
That passage I posted from Vincent DiMaio's textbook says that in close contact suicide wounds there may be powder or soot deposition on the hand and, according to Eaglesham:
"William Pitzer's left hand had a heavy deposit of soot on the palm and his right hand had a heavy deposit of soot on the backs of the fingers. This suggests that he held and fired the revolver with his right hand, and steadied it with his left hand held over the barrel. Soot and gunshot residue would thus be propelled into the wound or would be blocked by the palm of the left hand as it escaped from around the barrel, some of which would be deflected over the backs of the fingers of the right hand. The autopsy report states that microscope examination of sections from the margin of the entrance wound 'reveal...prominent collections of a dark brown to black granular material presumably representing nitrates.' This statement is indicative of lack of experience on the part of the autopsy doctors; nitrate is not coloured brown on black -- soot is -- and presence of nitrate in the wound would be indicative of a close-contact shot, at odds with other comments they made."
As to the pre-autopsy on JFK theory, you obviously don't remember but you and I have been down that road before and I've no desire to go back there again right now.
Are you suggesting it is not possible what was offered as EVIDENCE of Pitzer, wasn't Pitzer at all?
How many times in this and related cases is the evidence different when finally re-reviewed, than at the time the evidence was created?
The PICTURES say one thing, while those that actually worked on the body tells another.
If you asked Perry, McClellend or Crenshaw to tell you what the WCR medical evidence says wouldn't it conflict with what they saw that night?...
and yet 30+ years later the analysis of photos trumps the autopsy reports...
Martin - why are you shying away from MacD's 4 points? They were the crux of your proof initially... and when I show you how these 4 points are not only easily produced without suicide but contradicts the original reports, you revert back to the 30 year old photos and current analysis. ??
Finally, was stating the obvious - a suicided person would be set up to look like suicide - just that... too obvious for you to even comment?
What good would forging the Mona Lisa be if you used crayons?
When found with 5 bolt action shots to the body, Marshall's death was STILL ruled suicide...
And then we have Dan Marvin... red-herring?
I'm ready to move on to other things as well Martin... another "suicide" in this case is simply par for the course.
Believe what you will... how many times are you willing to say our USG told the truth about what happens in their midst, when that truth would be detrimental to their credibility? How many lies have been discovered in this case alone, let alone the other tens of thousands of cases where the Military and FBI are involved.
Contrary to what most may think, I do not find demons behind every action... yet do you care to list anything from our USG that was exactly as it appears?
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
If you care to examine the intelligent back and forth between Hay and Josephs. Then note the lack of frustration both have in telling the other something without repeating themselves. Then one can see why interactions with you are fraught with problems.
You're all wet Seamus. If you read David's posts more closely he concluded that the chances of Pitzer committing suicide were about as likely as Oswald being a shooter in the 6th floor window. I think both you and Martin are selectively ignoring that and focusing on superficial style. You couldn't possibly make an emptier response that only illustrates the point I was making. I think, like deniers, what you are saying is you must allow my uncredible arguments.
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Jimi Hendrix may or may not have been murdered. Jim Di has offered no clear opinions. However, in that piece he was portrayed as being a Hendrix conspiracy zealot. After I explain this problem you launch into a tirade about Hendrix. ::headbang:: I actually have to agree with Charles and Greg about you. I am not going to go as overboard as they did. However, I shall be kindly blocking you. I encourage others to do so as well.::
Best of luck.
A woefully deficient response. Jimi Hendrix was 100%, with absolute certainty, no doubt about it, murdered. The forensics prove it beyond a doubt at a courtroom level. Also, the tell-tale signs of covert involvement that DiEugenio correctly discussed in the video I linked also affirm it. If you watch the video you can see there is nothing DiEugenio said that made him look like a "conspiracy zealot". I think you are just saying that because you are trying to belittle me. This is backed by the fact that you speak as if your pronouncements were the final word yet are unable to discuss that you are clearly wrong in your interpretations. I didn't offer any "tirade", I showed that DiEugenio's statement about Hendrix was perfectly reasonable and fit the facts and that you mischaracterized it for rather obvious reasons. Face it Seamus, you tried to get away with using Hendrix as an example of my dubiousness but you took on the wrong person because I'm expert at Hendrix and it blew up on you. Who do you think you're fooling? There comes a point where being the bar room thug for Jim meets its limit and you just reached it. However, if we respect cooler heads this is a good example of the CTKA flaw I was pointing out. Blocking people for saying it speaks more than anything doesn't it?
It's funny that you pretend to represent a CTKA level of analysis but then offer that embarrassing entry above in response to sophisticated matters deserving more intelligent response. I think what is most obvious is you can't back up your accusations of "kooky extreme stuff", nor can you honestly back up your claims towards me in the Hendrix matter. It's pretty clear your bluff that Jim's casual thoughts about the Hendrix case were enough to discredit me was something you also couldn't back up when it came to walking the walk of the CTKA standard you pretend to represent. Pretty pathetic really.
The problem here is some people have excellent research and reference talent like CTKA. Others have talent in the detection and interpretation areas. I think Janney is the latter and is a little weak in certain areas, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about Mary Meyer. And that's the problem I have with the CTKA approach. It risks discrediting somebody by means of source and information challenging rather than allowing the bigger picture. In other words if you can get someone down on mistakes you can defeat their work. But it doesn't always work that way and a person who is good at sensing very subtle evidence that deserves merit is brought down by the very clunky device of Seamus Coogan swinging in like a monkey from a tree and bludgeoning him with the HAY "proof" cudgel. If you look very closely at Lisa's criticism of Janney she avoids some pretty condemning circumstantial evidence. It makes me think she is trying to bring Janney down by his mistakes instead of giving credit to the good evidence.
I think you've shown a good example of the serious problem with CTKA's stand on Pitzer. Seems like you can dish it out but you can't take it. Sorry Seamus, it's a very precarious tightrope and you just fell off it.
There are numerous Subject Forums to discuss your thoughts on these topics... and to go toe-to-toe with Seamus...
To trust the validity of ANYTHING related to the JFK assassination coming from the US Military, expecially when "revised conclusions" are offered on heavily redacted evidence, digs one's own grave imo.
Military Truth - the oxymoron of all time.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I started the recent Pitzer subject. CTKA is relevant because Hay is a welcome guest there with his anti-Pitzer stuff.
Seamus made the mistake of trying to cheaply discredit me via Hendrix. By the way, Jimi's FBI file had serious COINTELPRO trumping and redaction.
One thing I noticed is Martin refuses to recognize there were people in black ops who could easily produce the 'suicide' evidence displayed at the Pitzer death scene. The Dan Marvin story is true and Vanek knows who did it.
:
:
: