JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[A P Tomlinson]

Lets look at what the doctors said.

Said the large wound was in the back.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this wound.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?
Dr. CLARK - I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound?
Dr. JONES - There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Said the large wound was in the front.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?
Dr. AKIN - I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound
Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury which you noted in the President's head?
Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than that.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?
Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput?
Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe with respect to the head wound?
Dr. SALYER - I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound.

Did not specify.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe the President's condition to be at the time you arrived?
Dr. BASHOUR - The President was lying on the stretcher, the head wound was massive, the blood was dripping from the head, and at that time the President had an endotracheal tube, and his pupils were dilated, his eyes were staring, and they were not reactive, there was no pulsations, his heart sounds were not present, and his extremities were cold.

Mr. SPECTER - During the course of your presence near President Kennedy, did you have any opportunity to observe any wounds on his body?
Dr. CURTIS - After I had completed the cutdown, I went around to the right side of the patient and saw the head wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe there?
Dr. CURTIS - Oh--fragments of bone and a gross injury to the cranial contents, with copious amounts of hemorrhage.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the condition of the President when you entered?
DR. DULANY - Well, at this time his pupils were fixed and dilated and he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed in the head?
Dr. JENKINS - Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all of these other activities were under way. I was busy connecting up an apparatus to respire for the patient, exerting manual pressure on the breathing bag or anesthesia apparatus, trying to feel for a pulse in the neck, and then reaching up and feeling for one in the temporal area, seeing about connecting the cardioscope or directing its being connected, and then turned attention to the wound in the head.
Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to observe any of his wounds?
Dr. WHITE - I saw the wound in his head as he was brought into the trauma room where he was treated.

Other
Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition of the President when you arrived?
Dr. GIESECKE - There was a great deal of blood loss which was apparent when he came in the room--the cart was covered with blood and there was a great deal of blood on the floor. There was--I could see no spontaneous motion on the part of the President. In other words, he made no movement during the time that I was in the room. As I moved around towards the head of the emergency cart with the anesthesia machine and the resuscitative equipment and helped Dr. Jenkins to hook the anesthesia machine up to the President to give him oxygen, I noticed that he had a very large cranial wound, with loss of brain substance, and it seemed that most of the bleeding was coming from the cranial wound.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe specifically as to the nature of the cranial wound ?
Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds on the President?
Dr. HUNT - I actually did not see the wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you at any time see a wound to the head?
Dr. HUNT - No; I didn't see it.
Mr. SPECTER - And was there something obscuring your view from seeing the head wound?
Dr. HUNT - Yes; I could see his face and I could also see that a great deal of blood was running off of the table from his right side and I was on his left side.

I'm a bit confused by this analysis. The ones you have listed as saying the wound was at the front almost all say the occipital parietal, which is the right rear.
Are you saying they were suggesting a Shot from the front? Even Giesecke under "other" refers to the "Occiput" which is... the back of the head. (even if he places it on the wrong side of the head.)

Go check George's post back on page 50 (#742) to see exactly where Dr Peters thought the "occipitalparietal area" is and where he thought the wound was.

[GBinOz]

It's an example of Klein's substituting when they were out of 91TS.

No it isn't. This is a change of order from a supplier by a retailer, not a substitution of a customer's order by a retailer. It's an example of a deliberately deceptive post attempting to prove a nonsense theory. You are suggesting that a rifle advertised in a February publication was out of stock by mid March so Kleins just sent a different rifle.

[GBinOz]

I'm a bit confused by this analysis. The ones you have listed as saying the wound was at the front almost all say the occipital parietal, which is the right rear.
Are you saying they were suggesting a Shot from the front? Even Giesecke under "other" refers to the "Occiput" which is... the back of the head. (even if he places it on the wrong side of the head.)

Go check George's post back on page 50 (#742) to see exactly where Dr Peters thought the "occipitalparietal area" is and where he thought the wound was.

You've heard the saying AP, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B******t. Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've heard the saying AP, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B******t. Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.

Any excuse for a dig at me isn’t it George?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

[GBinOz]

Any excuse for a dig at me isn’t it George?

Herlock, surely you can't claim the sole right to calling out long cut and paste posts. I observed deceptive intent in the post. You prefer labels of childish, dishonest and infantile. If you lash out it is reasonable to expect some push back (unless you are a President, of course). Note that you are not the poster referred to in my post.

[GBinOz]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

If you are so dug in on your opinions why do you bother continuing to post? No, wait....I'm also dug in on my opinions so I can't reasonably suggest that solution. Maybe we can both learn something here my friend.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, surely you can't claim the sole right to calling out long cut and paste posts. I observed deceptive intent in the post. You prefer labels of childish, dishonest and infantile. If you lash out it is reasonable to expect some push back (unless you are a President, of course). Note that you are not the poster referred to in my post.

I commented about Fishy’s cut and pasting because it renders discussion impossible George. When Fiver cut and pasted he was doing it in response to another post to show what was actually said. Even then his posts weren’t as long as the ones pasted by Fishy. This isn’t me trying to tell another poster what to post. It’s purely about this being a discussion forum. A discussion is impossible if absolutely huge chunks are cut and pasted and presented as proof of something. To respond in detail to the points made would take hours for anyone.

What if I had Bugliosi’s book on Kindle for example and just cut and pasted one of the shorter chapters with an “more evidence of guilt” comment, just as Fishy did?There would be no way that you or Fishy or Cobalt or Patrick or anyone could reasonably be expected to respond to such a detailed chunk. Do you think it right that the thread should descend into a “let’s see who can cut and pasted one the most words competition? Why is it Herlock the bad guy as ever when I’m just trying to prevent the thread turning into a pointless cut and paste exercise?

I just did a long post but it wasn’t cut and pasted. It was the result of reading. But I accept that it was too long to allow for any detailed response as it would take someone considerable time to do it.

There was nothing intended as ‘deceptive’ in my post. I was pretty clear in what I meant George. Some of the things that we hear and read in this case is infantile and childish and I’ve listed them before ‘man in the drain’ ‘umbrella man’ ‘Garrison’s army of assassins’ ‘Beverly Oliver’s lies.’ When I see people still defending these aspects of the case can you not understand why it’s so disheartening? Can anyone be less believable than Ricky White and yet Fishy gloatingly proclaims him as part of the solution to the case.

I’ve said before that I didn’t want to get back into the case but failed miserably on that as here I am again. I’ll now re-double my efforts to leave it - especially as everything I seem to say annoys you so much George.

edit….reading your final line….maybe you’re right George. Frustration sets in. But I don’t think that we can get anywhere on small details though. That’s just my opinion. People have been squabbling over them for 60 years. One side will never convince the other I don’t think. Unless something new surfaces.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest George I don’t really see how a JFK assassination thread can exist in this form. It’s too massive a subject. You couldn’t have a single Jack the Ripper thread because there are too many aspects of the case. The assassination is about 1000 times more complex.

[Fiver]

A first fact is that Oswald removed his rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 when Ruth was gone that morning, borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it. The gunsmith trip was necessary because the threads were stripped requiring retapping, best done by a gunsmith. The reason for the scope installation was not for his personal use but because he was preparing the rifle for a conveyance. See the argument and evidence for this at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...op-109-pdf.pdf.

Your source's first "fact" us a lie. Oswald did not know how to drive.

second fact is that the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD on Nov 22, 1963 had been Oswald's, and Oswald was the next-to-last party in possession of that rifle prior to the assassination. (Oswald will not have been the last party in possession of the rifle before the assassination if his intention on Nov 11 to prepare the rifle for a conveyance was accomplished.)

Perhaps you should look at Post #3611 where you claimed that the rifle wasn't Oswald's.

Don't you realize your sources are contradicting each other?

[Fiver]

I'm a bit confused by this analysis.

You should be confused. I made some massive copy-paste errors. Thanks for the correction.

[Fiver]

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch, full stop. ;

I see your source likes to ignore inconvenient facts.

Mr. BALL - Did you notice whether or not Lee had a package that looked like a lunch package that morning?
Mr. FRAZIER - You know like I told you earlier, I say, he didn't take his lunch because I remember right when I got in the car I asked him where was his lunch and he said he was going to buy his lunch that day.
Mr. BALL - He told you that that day, did he?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right. That is right. So, I assumed he was going to buy it, you know, from that catering service man like a lot of the boys do. They don't bring their lunch but they go out and buy their lunch there.

[Fiver]

A sixth fact is that unanimous testimony of those who saw the bag that Oswald carried rules out that that paper bag could have carried the rifle, which is 34" even if disassembled.

This is another provably false statement by your source.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile.

A seventh fact is that Buell Frazier's testimony in particular is so firm and so steadfast that it is either correct or he has been dishonest, but it is not reasonable that he was mistaken by that magnitude of error (of mistaking a 38" bag for a 25-27" length which Frazier has said from day one is accurate to within about an inch on his estimate).

Frazier's testimony is a lot more vague than your source claims, but it is very firm that Oswald did not bring a lunch that day.

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
Mr. BALL - Turn around.
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about the width.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A while ago I asked a general question of all of those on the conspiracy side as to what they believe happened.

Oswald from the TSBD and Grassy Knoll gunman.

Someone else from the TSBD and Grassy Knoll gunman.

Someone from a location other than the TSBD (with no one firing from there) and Grassy Knoll gunman.

I’m a little surprised to note that not a single person on the conspiracy side had proved willing to nail their colours to the mast. Why is that? I don’t understand the reluctance. I’m quite prepared to say what I believe happened - Oswald’s fired three shots from the TSBD and there was no one on the Knoll or anywhere else and there was no conspiracy to kill Kennedy’s. (I don’t think that I can be clearer) So why the reluctance on the other side?

Is it because that by stating a position it will follow that there can then be some very specific questions to answer?

[FISHY1118]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

Of course you are , because it's was a Mauser they took from the TSBD .

What you call fake and forgery are indeed TRUTH and Facts.

Your everybody's lying, were idiots, were mistaken ,were non existant ridiculous argument has been battered to death, and were sick to death of it also.