JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

At the time of the autopsy Hume probed the back wound and found it to be shallow, as confirmed by Finck, and was puzzled as to the lack of the presence of a projectile. After briefly considering an "ice" projectile, he postulated that the projectile must have fallen out as a result of the resuscitative measures utilised at Parkland. After speaking to Perry he burned his notes and rewrote the history of the autopsy to accommodate a neck wound instead of a back wound.

Now lets look at what Dr Finck said.

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the question of likelihood of Governor Connally having been wounded in the back and chest with the same bullet which passed through President Kennedy in 385, what reduction would there be, if any, in the velocity, considering the relative positions of the two men in the automobile as reflected in photograph, Exhibit 398?
Colonel FINCK - Of course, to reach precise figures we would need experiments and similar circumstances with the same type ammunition at the same distance through two human cadavers, which I did not do.
On the basis that if we assume that this is one bullet going through President Kennedy's body and also through Governor Connally's body, the reduction of velocity would be of some extent after passing through President Kennedy's body, but not having hit bones, the reduction in velocity, after going through President Kennedy's body, would be minimal.
Mr. SPECTER - Would there be sufficient force then to inflict the wound which Dr. Humes described from the Parkland Hospital records as having been inflicted on Governor Connally's back and chest?
Colonel FINCK - There would be enough energy to go through the body of the Governor.
Mr. SPECTER - In expressing your opinion on that subject, Doctor Finck, have you taken into account the assumptions on distance, that we are dealing here with a weapon that has a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of slightly in excess of 2,000, and that the vehicle carrying these two individuals was approximately 150, about 150 feet away from the site of origin of the missile?
Colonel FINCK - At this range, a bullet of this velocity loses very little velocity, and keeps upon impact a large amount of kinetic energy.
Mr. SPECTER - You heard the whole of Doctor Humes' testimony, did you not?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add to what he said?
Colonel FINCK - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Or would you like to modify his testimony in any way?
Colonel FINCK - No.

[Patrick Differ]

That's a wildly inaccurate summary of Dr Humes Warren Commission testimony.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned.
I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER - And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, have you since discounted that possibility, Doctor Humes?
Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have.

Commander HUMES - We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C" which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound.

Humes did in fact only probe the back with his finger. He did not perform a disection to see if there was a path from the back and exit out the neck. It never happened. When asked why not he said it was just his decision at the time. He also said he was feeling pressure to complete the autopsy.

Humes did in fact consider that the heart massage at Parkland may have dislodged this bullet.

Let's be clear here. Humes is giving his opinion from a question from Specter and that's it. He didn't prove anything. And who does Humes mean by We?

[Patrick Differ]

Humes was described by the House Committee after citing the Bethesda Autopsys many failures, as like sending a 7 year old violin student to try out for the New York Symphony. And they were not talking child prodigy.

That is a harsh rebuke. No doubt the Autopsy caused as many problems as it may have solved.

I took another look at the events of that day and the Press briefings from Parkland Doctors were interesting. They were asked about entrance and exit and the descriptions they used were not just inconclusive but open for interpretation. In other words it could have been either.

If there was a need to silence Oswald and steer the outcome to him as a lone gunman, the Press briefings are a place one might look.

When Oswald said he was a Patsy, after the Press Briefing, was his fate sealed?

Did it happen this way? I dont honestly know. Just thoughts that came to me while reviewing data yesterday.

[GBinOz]

That's a wildly inaccurate summary of Dr Humes Warren Commission testimony.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned.
I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER - And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, have you since discounted that possibility, Doctor Humes?
Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have.

Commander HUMES - We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C" which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound.

"If the first look at the apple shows that it's rotten, why bite into it hoping that some of it is edible?"

After your two deliberately deceptive posts, I am taking no further looks at your apples.

[Fiver]

Another deceptive post that fails to mention that the above is from Humes deposition to the ARRB in Feb 1996. At the time of the autopsy Hume probed the back wound and found it to be shallow, as confirmed by Finck, and was puzzled as to the lack of the presence of a projectile. After briefly considering an "ice" projectile, he postulated that the projectile must have fallen out as a result of the resuscitative measures utilised at Parkland. After speaking to Perry he burned his notes and rewrote the history of the autopsy to accommodate a neck wound instead of a back wound.

That's a wildly inaccurate summary of Dr Humes Warren Commission testimony.

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned.
I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER - And what theory did you think possible, at that juncture, to explain the passing of the bullet back out the point of entry; or had you been provided with the fact that external heart massage had been performed on the President?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; we had, and we considered the possibility that some of the physical maneuvering performed by the doctors might have in some way caused this event to take place.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, have you since discounted that possibility, Doctor Humes?
Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have.

Commander HUMES - We concluded that this missile depicted in 385 "C" which entered the President's body traversed the President's body and made its exit through the wound observed by the physicians at Parkland Hospital and later extended as a tracheotomy wound.

[GBinOz]

Hi Patrick

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=1&tab=toc

Sections 39 and 41

Hey Iron Willpower, didn't you promise to never again darken the portals of this thread?

Carry on my friend.

[GBinOz]

That is definitely not what Dr Humes said.

"A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck.

It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn?"

Another deceptive post that fails to mention that the above is from Humes deposition to the ARRB in Feb 1996. At the time of the autopsy Hume probed the back wound and found it to be shallow, as confirmed by Finck, and was puzzled as to the lack of the presence of a projectile. After briefly considering an "ice" projectile, he postulated that the projectile must have fallen out as a result of the resuscitative measures utilised at Parkland. After speaking to Perry he burned his notes and rewrote the history of the autopsy to accommodate a neck wound instead of a back wound.

There is an interesting video (only 2 minutes long) of an interview with Arlen Specter who says that he based his SBT on drawings of the wounds, not photographs. His final quotation is very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS3zrdkoCdY&ab_channel=SCGATOR2001

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock- the focus of my post wasn't McClelland it was the Appeals Document. It has morphed into McClelland. The request for All xrays and photos was in January of 1969. That is over 5 years later?. Where is the exhaustive analysis of the xrays and photos documented? Would love to see those explanations and expert analysis. I dont believe the WC has anything more than the Connally wrist?

Hi Patrick

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=1&tab=toc

Sections 39 and 41

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Herlock- the focus of my post wasn't McClelland it was the Appeals Document. It has morphed into McClelland. The request for All xrays and photos was in January of 1969. That is over 5 years later?. Where is the exhaustive analysis of the xrays and photos documented? Would love to see those explanations and expert analysis. I dont believe the WC has anything more than the Connally wrist?

[Patrick Differ]

McClelland was there in the heat of the moment, surrounded by Secret Service, FBI and Mrs Kennedy trying to save a mortally wounded President. Mrs Kennedy told Clark that she knew he was dead. Of course he was, his head was blown off.

And getting to the truth of who and unfortunately how that happened only counts when some detail is obviously taken as some reason to no longer attempt to get at the truth. Wherever that leads. It would be like deciding that the First of Ten Commandments is wrong so why look at the next Nine?

So in the turmoil and in real time ( supported by Frame 313 ) it was actually the right temple and not the left. Oh sorry his head was in my hands. McClelland is obviously not a credible witness, eventhough he is an MD and was actually there.

Actually I found Dr Fromans testimony even more compelling as he gets into the Anatomical reasons why the single bullet theory was impossible. But that's in the next nine Commandments.

Anyway moving on I am surprised that the witness who was closest to Kennedy other than the Connallys and the Motorcycle Cop , Mrs Moorman, who took the Polaroid shots of Kennedy right after the head shot and is captured in the Zapruder film, is not mentioned or maybe I missed it. It wasn't the Badge Man controversy ( a candidate for A.I.) but rather the shots she heard and what she said.

Moorman said she heard one shot followed by a pause. Then she heard pow pow in succession. She then said there were other shots. Unfortunately Moorman sprained her ankle and had to reschedule her deposition. She NEVER heard from them again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr. Robert McClelland is an absolute favourite of conspiracy theorists (along with anyone others at Parkland who mistakenly estimated the location of Kennedy’s head wound. According to CT’s it’s impossible for them to have been mistaken - although it’s considered ‘proven’ that those who located it correctly were mistaken…strange?) Let’s take a closer look at Dr. McClelland.

The first point worth mentioning is that Dr. McClelland was a conspiracy theorist who we know, at least at some point, believed that the Mafia killed Kennedy. This fact has to be born in mind due the possibility of confirmation bias and an ensuing refusal to admit even the possibility of error.

The next is more important. He believes that the fatal head shot came from the Grassy Knoll (not a medical opinion) and that the bullet blew out the back of Kennedy’s head. But…and this is a BUT…he doesn’t believe that the Autopsy photos were faked and he doesn’t believe that the Autopsy Pathologists were dishonest…work that one out!

Let’s make the conspiracy theorists happy and quote from Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi (don’t worry, it uses McClelland’s actual words)”

“ When I spoke over the telephone to Dr. McClelland in late September and early October of 2002, McClelland, a respected Dallas surgeon whom no one accuses of trying to deliberately mislead anyone, only of being completely wrong in what he thought he saw (the most honest people in the world can think they saw the darnedest things), said he was positive the president had a "massive hole to the back of his head."

He said at the time of his observation he was holding a metal retractor that was pulling the skin away from the president's trachea so Drs. Perry and Carrico could perform their tracheotomy. "I had nothing else to do or to distract me so I fixated on this large, gaping hole to the back of the president's head for ten to twelve minutes."

When I wondered how he could see the large hole when the president was always lying on his back, he said the wound was so large that he nevertheless could see "most of it." If what he said was true, I asked, how is it possible that on the Zapruder film itself, the explosion is clearly to the right frontal portion of the president's head with a large amount of brain matter spraying out, and the back of his head appears to be completely intact?

Dr. McClelland gave an answer that deserves some type of an award for inventiveness: "What the explanation for this is, I just don't know, but what I believe happened is that the spray of brain matter and blood was kind of like a bloodscreen, similar to a smokescreen, that precluded a clear view of the occipital area."

If, I pursued the matter, the exit wound was to the back of the president's head, where was the entrance wound for this bullet? McClelland, who believes the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll, said he believed the president was struck "around the hairline near the middle of his forehead."

If that was so, I asked, how was it that seventeen pathologists, including

Dr. Wecht, all agreed that the president was only struck twice, both times from the rear, and none of them—from photographs, X-rays, and personal observation (by the three autopsy surgeons)—saw any entrance wound to the president's forehead?

Again, McClelland, who acknowledged, "I'm not a pathologist and I've never conducted an autopsy," said, "I don't know the answer to your question."But he remained sincerely inventive in his imagination. "What I believe happened is that none of the pathologists saw the entrance wound because it became a part of the destruction to the whole right side and top of the president's head. In other words, it was no longer a separate hole that could be identified."

(Of course, none of the autopsy photographs show any such massive injury to the president's forehead extending to the right side of his head, and none is referred to in the autopsy report, nor in the reports of the Clark Panel and Rockefeller Commission. As the HSCA said, "There is no evidence that the president was struck by a bullet entering the front of his head.")

"So you do acknowledge," I said, "the explosion to the right front part of the president's head?" "Oh, yes," the doctor said, "but that's not where the bullet exited. It exited in the occipital region of his head, leaving a hole so big I could put my fist in it."

When I pointed out to the doctor again that not only didn't the Zapruder film show any large hole to the back of the president's head but autopsy photographs never showed any large hole there either, he said that although it was pure "supposition" on his part, at the time the photographs were taken, someone "could have pulled a flap of the president's skin, attached to the base of his neck, forward," thereby covering the large defect. When I asked him if he saw any such loose flap of skin at Parkland, he acknowledged, "I did not."

It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this."

Since there was no bullet wound to the left side of the president's body, and since the conspiracy theorists allege that Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll to his right front, conspiracy author Robert Groden solves the problem and avoids having his star witness, Dr. McClelland, look very confused and non-credible simply by changing McClelland's words "left temple" to "right temple" in his book, The Killing of a President.

When I called Dr. McClelland the following evening to discuss further one of the points he had made, he quickly told me he was glad I had called because "since we hung up last night, I've had some second thoughts about the exact location of the exit wound."

Unlike the many conspiracy theorists who have exploited Dr. McClelland's obvious errors to their benefit, he told me, "I don't question the integrity of all the pathologists who disagree with me" (he wasn't so kind to his colleague, Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "Chuck had a lot of problems and fabricated a lot of things"), saying, for instance, that he and the three autopsy surgeons were "obviously looking at the same head and the same wound," but that the area on the head where they placed the wound differed because of "the different positions from which we viewed it and also because of the different interpretations of what we saw, which is normal."

But he made a major concession in an effort to reconcile his position with theirs. "I have to say that the sketch I first drew for Josiah Thompson's book a few years after the assassination was misleading. Since last night, I've been thinking that I placed the large hole in the president's head farther back than it really was, maybe. It may have been a bit more forward."

When I asked him where he now put it, he said, "Partially in the occipital region and partly in the right back part of the parietal bone" (which I told him was actually consistent with the original position he took in his Warren Commission testimony), but he still insisted that this large exit wound was not to the right frontal area of the president's skull as concluded by all the pathologists.

Dr. McClelland told me he believes there were two gunmen, Oswald and someone else, and further believes that "the CIA and FBI, mostly the CIA, were behind the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and they brought in the Mafia, who carried out the killing."

He said he didn't know but suspects that "the Warren Commission covered up the conspiracy." On that note, I thanked the good doctor for his time and bid him a good night. ”

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______


So let me just restate an all-time conspiracy theory CLASSIC coming from one of their absolute star witnesses: “What the explanation for this is, I just don't know, but what I believe happened is that the spray of brain matter and blood was kind of like a bloodscreen, similar to a smokescreen, that precluded a clear view of the occipital area."


A bloodscreen…A BLOODSCREEN…and this guy gets put up as proof of conspiracy! Give me a break.

………


So….could those that placed the wound to the rear of the head have been mistaken? That group of largely interns of limited experience. The group who 5 minutes earlier were eating lunch or performing everyday tasks but then found themselves trying to save the Presidents life. People in the most extreme pressure situation of their short lives. None of whom were pathologists. None of whom were focused on anything other than trying to resuscitate the President. None of whom could see much, if any, of the back of Kennedy’s head because he was lying on it and they never turned over the body. With a head that was covered in blood and gore and matted hair which would have run downward with gravity and so gathered at the area around the back of Kennedy’s head.

According to conspiracy theorist they couldn’t have been mistaken. The CT’s weren’t there but Dr. Carrico, one of the main Parkland Doctor’s was, and when he was asked if they could have been mistaken (including himself) said “Absolutely.” Why is Carrico wrong but conspiracy theorists are right? Why are those who testimony ‘support’ a front of the head shot perfectly correct and yet those that don’t (admittedly fewer but still a significant number) are assumed to have been wrong? I guess it’s like O’Connor. One man out of 32 says that the President’s brain was gone and he’s the one that gets believed.


The autopsy was clearly entirely genuine (certainly imperfect though) . The x-rays and photographs couldn’t have received greater authentication as being genuine. The Zapruder film (which conspiracy theorists are quite happy to use when it suits them [head movement] ignores the clear absence of a rear head wound.

Something like 5 or 6 Parkland doctors, 3 pathologists, confirmed later by 14 others pathologists (including conspiracy theorist Cyril Wecht) x-ray photographs scientifically confirmed as genuine, x-rays scientifically confirmed as genuine and a moving film of the head shot scientifically confirmed as unaltered versus a few largely inexperienced doctors, in a high stress situation, commenting on a part of the head that they weren’t looking at and that was largely obscured added to a few Dealey Plaza witnesses who were more keen on ducking for their lives.

It’s a joke that anyone could even suggest the latter. But they do.

[Fiver]

Fiver did you not see the Admission Note signed by Dr McClelland in his own handwriting in the Appeal submittal?

I stopped when I git to the part where it claims that Dr McClelland said "the cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from gunshot wound of the left temple. (Whereas the Warren Report specifies the right side.)"

If JFK was shot in the left temple then every witness from Parkland, including Dr. McClelland, lied to the Warren Commission.

If the first look at the apple shows that it's rotten, why bite into it hoping that some of it is edible?

[Fiver]

Dr. Clark was mentioned here and he describes Kennedys head wound as tangential. He goes in great detail to say it was not a pass through as the WC sketch from Bethesda shows.

Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time?
Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe at this time in somewhat greater detail the consequences of a tangential wound as contrasted with another type of a striking?
Dr. CLARK - Let me begin by saying that the damage suffered by an organ when struck by a bullet or other missile---
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that I interrupted the deposition for about 2 minutes to ascertain what our afternoon schedule would be here because the regular administration office ordinarily closes at 12 o'clock, which was just about 15 minutes ago, and then we resumed the deposition of Dr. Clark as he was discussing the concept of tangential and other types of striking. Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow.
Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding.
Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring back to the press conference, did you define a tangential wound at that time?
Dr. CLARK - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And what else did you state at the press conference at 2:30 on November 22?
Dr. CLARK - I stated that the President had lost considerable blood, that one of the contributing causes of death was this massive blood loss, that I was unable to state how many wounds the President had sustained or from what angle they could have come. I finally remember stating that the President's wound was obviously a massive one and was insurvivable.

[Patrick Differ]

Dr. Clark was mentioned here and he describes Kennedys head wound as tangential. He goes in great detail to say it was not a pass through as the WC sketch from Bethesda shows.

[Fiver]

There are clearly 2 factions on this post. One that is willing to believe what a government tells it, and the other that has doubt and believes truth and justice has not been served.

The government is not a monolithic hivemind. It is composed of multiple organizations with different goals, at times competing goals. Those organizations are composed of individuals with personal goals. That's before we consider that any large enough organization will have competing internal factions. One side of the debate accepts this.

Humans have imperfect memories and perception. People can misspeak, mistype, and miswrite. Contradictions are not proof of lying. Contradictions are not proof of a conspiracy. One side of the debate accepts this.

Forging x-rays, ballistics, and photographic evidence that will fool forensic techniques that hadn't been invented yet is impossible. One side of the debate accepts this.

Conspiracies exist. Sane conspiracies require credible motives that outweigh the risks of failure. Smart conspiracies minimize the people involved. Smart conspiracies don't require the help of rival organizations. One side of the debate accepts this.

Oswald as a patsy is a non-starter. There are over a dozen witnesses of the Tippet shooting, none of whom were part of the government. It would require the Dallas Police Department to set up and murder one of their own members. None of the civilians or police involved would gain anything from Tippit's murder.

So if there was a conspiracy, Oswald would be part of it. I won't rule out that Oswald had a few of supporters that chickened out or failed, but so far no evidence has been shown that they exist.