JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not going to get personal, but I imagine others reading this will wonder, as I do, what kind of investigator would deprecate the eyewitness testimony of a secret service agent who saw Kennedy's head as close up as anyone ever could have seen it and testified that he saw a large piece of the back of his skull lying on the back seat and a corresponding gap in the back of the skull?

It shocks me to see someone treating evidence in that way.

PI, I’m trying to keep a lid on my irritation but, do you actually read what you’re writing? Do you think…..I was going to add something but I’ll leave it there……do you think?

How can you talk about how I treat evidence? What about how you treat the evidence of the Zapruder film which shows no rear head wound? Or the Moorman photo which shows no rear head wound? Or the 3 pathologists who saw no rear head wound? Or the Drs, scientists and military rifle experts who all disagree with your assertion about the head movement? Or the evidence of conspiracy theorist forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht who said categorically that the two wounds received by Kennedy could only have come from the rear? Or the evidence of 3 men on the 5th floor who, through an open window, heard e shots from the floor above, from a window so close that the gunman could have passed the rifle down to them?

I could quote pages of evidence and ask why YOU treat it in the way that you do?

Use judgment. A general question. Forget JFK for a minute.

Who would be the best and most reliable of these three witnesses:

1. A man reacting in a second to an incredibly traumatic situation? Who duty and raining kicks in….protect the President and the other VIP’s in the car. Get the car moving to hospital. Even a trained officer would be acting in a bit of a blur in that situation….wondering if another shot was coming.

2. A Doctors who, out of the blue, is summoned to a trauma room to help try and save the Presidents life. By the time that he arrives the President is lying on his back and another Doctor has just completed a tracheotomy. Most of the doctors are young and inexperienced. McClelland had only qualified a year before. His job wasn’t to analyse or measure wounds, it was to try and save the President in 22 minutes of heart-stopping effort. The President’s life is in their fairly inexperienced hands. Until they move the body later the back of Kennedy’s head is hidden and McClelland didn’t see him brought in.

3. A pathologist whose sole job was to determine the cause of death and to analyse the wounds. Yes, in unique circumstances and in an autopsy of many mistakes, but he still had hours with the President lying there on front of him.

Forget conspiracy or non-conspiracy we’re talking about the measured assessment of witnesses with no preconception. Which of the above would be the best placed and best qualified to give an accurate assessment and opinion?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not me , his being treating the evidence that way since the topic began .

Total and utter disrespect for direct contradictory evidence to the warren commission from people who were there ,who were shot ( Connally) Nurse Audrey Bell, who saw the bullet fragments pulled out of him thus making an absolute mockery the magic bullet theory. A member of the WC who wouldn't didn't believe that theory and wouldn't sign to it , LBJ who refuse to believe the MB theory , this list is endless

But here we have a person wants us all to believe the nonsense of the lone gunman theory .

Stupidity

And we turn a blind eye to your total and utter disrespect and repeated and vicious character assassination of three pathologists who’ve never had a single stain on their characters. And the Warren Commissioner - some of the countries most respected men. Look at Earl Warren’s efforts for civil rights and legal freedoms for the people….yet you label him a traitor. Reprehensible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, I’m trying to keep a lid on my irritation but, do you actually read what you’re writing? Do you think…..I was going to add something but I’ll leave it there……do you think?

How can you talk about how I treat evidence? What about how you treat the evidence of the Zapruder film which shows no rear head wound? Or the Moorman photo which shows no rear head wound? Or the 3 pathologists who saw no rear head wound? Or the Drs, scientists and military rifle experts who all disagree with your assertion about the head movement? Or the evidence of conspiracy theorist forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht who said categorically that the two wounds received by Kennedy could only have come from the rear? Or the evidence of 3 men on the 5th floor who, through an open window, heard e shots from the floor above, from a window so close that the gunman could have passed the rifle down to them?

I could quote pages of evidence and ask why YOU treat it in the way that you do?

Use judgment. A general question. Forget JFK for a minute.

Who would be the best and most reliable of these three witnesses:

1. A man reacting in a second to an incredibly traumatic situation? Who duty and raining kicks in….protect the President and the other VIP’s in the car. Get the car moving to hospital. Even a trained officer would be acting in a bit of a blur in that situation….wondering if another shot was coming.

2. A Doctors who, out of the blue, is summoned to a trauma room to help try and save the Presidents life. By the time that he arrives the President is lying on his back and another Doctor has just completed a tracheotomy. Most of the doctors are young and inexperienced. McClelland had only qualified a year before. His job wasn’t to analyse or measure wounds, it was to try and save the President in 22 minutes of heart-stopping effort. The President’s life is in their fairly inexperienced hands. Until they move the body later the back of Kennedy’s head is hidden and McClelland didn’t see him brought in.

3. A pathologist whose sole job was to determine the cause of death and to analyse the wounds. Yes, in unique circumstances and in an autopsy of many mistakes, but he still had hours with the President lying there on front of him.

Forget conspiracy or non-conspiracy we’re talking about the measured assessment of witnesses with no preconception. Which of the above would be the best placed and best qualified to give an accurate assessment and opinion?

I am very glad that you brought the focus of the discussion back to the autopsy because I am still waiting for a substantive response from you to my # 999 about the wound to Kennedy's back having been raised by five inches.

As I pointed out before, Dr Hume himself placed the back wound 15 cm below the neckline and so did witnesses to the autopsy, as I noted, as did the nurse who washed Kennedy's body.

An FBI agent examined the bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket and they were 5 3/4 and 5 3/8 inches below the respective tops of the collars.

Clint Hill testified that the entrance wound was about six inches below the neckline.

There is an abundance of evidence - from eyewitnesses, autopsy eyewitnesses, the autopsy diagram, the official death certificate, and the FBI's forensic examination, that the back wound was more than five inches below the neckline.

According to the Single Bullet Theory, which you say is proven, the same wound was to the back of Kennedy's neck.

Everyone here knows that that is impossible.

As I have pointed out, according to the autopsy, to which you are now referring, the shot that caused that wound entered at a downwards angle of 45-60 degrees
and entered Kennedy's back about six inches below the neckline.

It could not have passed through the front of Kennedy's throat nor hit Connally in the upper back.

Had it exited the front of Kennedy's body, it would have missed Connally altogether.

THAT is the implication of the autopsy findings which you are upholding.

Now what do you say to that?

[FISHY1118]

I am very glad that you brought the focus of the discussion back to the autopsy because I am still waiting for a substantive response from you to my # 999 about the wound to Kennedy's back having been raised by five inches.

As I pointed out before, Dr Hume himself placed the back wound 15 cm below the neckline and so did witnesses to the autopsy, as I noted, as did the nurse who washed Kennedy's body.

An FBI agent examined the bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket and they were 5 3/4 and 5 3/8 inches below the respective tops of the collars.

Clint Hill testified that the entrance wound was about six inches below the neckline.

There is an abundance of evidence - from eyewitnesses, autopsy eyewitnesses, the autopsy diagram, the official death certificate, and the FBI's forensic examination, that the back wound was more than five inches below the neckline.

According to the Single Bullet Theory, which you say is proven, the same wound was to the back of Kennedy's neck.

Everyone here knows that that is impossible.

As I have pointed out, according to the autopsy, to which you are now referring, the shot that caused that wound entered at a downwards angle of 45-60 degrees
and entered Kennedy's back about six inches below the neckline.

It could not have passed through the front of Kennedy's throat nor hit Connally in the upper back.

Had it exited the front of Kennedy's body, it would have missed Connally altogether.

THAT is the implication of the autopsy findings which you are upholding.

Now what do you say to that?

What ever it is it will be nonsense. You can bet on it.

[FISHY1118]

And we turn a blind eye to your total and utter disrespect and repeated and vicious character assassination of three pathologists who’ve never had a single stain on their characters. And the Warren Commissioner - some of the countries most respected men. Look at Earl Warren’s efforts for civil rights and legal freedoms for the people….yet you label him a traitor. Reprehensible.

Earl warren had one job and one job only , that was to make Lee Harvey Oswald the lone gunman who assassinated president Kennedy . Period . As instructed by LBJ.

A Coward more like it, for not wanting to tell the truth what really happened to president Kennedy .

Tha same pathologists that did the autopsy after the SS took the body from Dallas back to Washington?

You know the ones showing the fake head photo of Kennedy's head all in tack?. Yer right

[GBinOz]

"Delusional nonsense. Childish blather. Proven nonsense. I’m tired of listening to babyish crap.

Kennedy was hit by 2 shots from behind’

100% proven. Even Cyril bloody Wecht isn’t that much of a fool to deny it"

"Utter bilge even by conspiracist fantasists standards. You even surprised me by this bottom of the barrel scraping. This was taken after the head shot. No doubt at all. You can even see spray.

Anyone that says that there was a massive, gaping head wound to the back of Kennedy’s head is either blind, a fantasist or a liar. Take your pick."

"End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some."
"
There’s a good chap."

Is this the standard of debate to which this forum has descended? The deceptive, dishonest, half truth about Wecht perpetrated by Bugliosi being constantly and repeatedly presented as a fact. Lies and deceit accompanied by invective diatribes substituting for factual argument? A philosophy and policy that all who disagree must be silenced that would turn Hitler positively green with envy. And always the hyperbole and superlatives used in the expression of intransigent opinions and conjectures.

[Pcdunn]

Utter bilge even by conspiracist fantasists standards. You even surprised me by this bottom of the barrel scraping. This was taken after the head shot. No doubt at all. You can even see spray.

Anyone that says that there was a massive, gaping head wound to the back of Kennedy’s head is either blind, a fantasist or a liar. Take your pick.

You can also see the President has slumped sideways in this photo, not sitting upright and waving to the crowd.

[FISHY1118]

"Delusional nonsense. Childish blather. Proven nonsense. I’m tired of listening to babyish crap.

Kennedy was hit by 2 shots from behind’

100% proven. Even Cyril bloody Wecht isn’t that much of a fool to deny it"

"Utter bilge even by conspiracist fantasists standards. You even surprised me by this bottom of the barrel scraping. This was taken after the head shot. No doubt at all. You can even see spray.

Anyone that says that there was a massive, gaping head wound to the back of Kennedy’s head is either blind, a fantasist or a liar. Take your pick."

"End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some."
"
There’s a good chap."

Is this the standard of debate to which this forum has descended? The deceptive, dishonest, half truth about Wecht perpetrated by Bugliosi being constantly and repeatedly presented as a fact. Lies and deceit accompanied by invective diatribes substituting for factual argument? A philosophy and policy that all who disagree must be silenced that would turn Hitler positively green with envy. And always the hyperbole and superlatives used in the expression of intransigent opinions and conjectures.

You heard it right George , Dr McLellan Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill,

All liars , blind ,and fantasist.

Well done herlock your proven our point beautifully game set and match.

[FISHY1118]

He did say anyone didn't he.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Earl warren had one job and one job only , that was to make Lee Harvey Oswald the lone gunman who assassinated president Kennedy . Period . As instructed by LBJ.

A Coward more like it, for not wanting to tell the truth what really happened to president Kennedy .

Tha same pathologists that did the autopsy after the SS took the body from Dallas back to Washington?

You know the ones showing the fake head photo of Kennedy's head all in tack?. Yer right

So no proof of fakery as I requested. Ok.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You heard it right George , Dr McLellan Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill,

All liars , blind ,and fantasist.

Well done herlock your proven our point beautifully game set and match.

Again, no problem at all Fishy. If McClelland is your benchmark for witnesses I’m happy with that. You simply accept him as a witness without actually addressing what he said.

At 4.45 he not only placed the wound at the side of Kennedy’s head he even placed on the left side rather than the right. A fact that he admitted.

Then he changes him mind completely and placed the wound at the back of the head.

Then, 30 years later, he changes his mind again and admits that his drawing was misleading and that the wound was to the side.

Then, 10 years later, he changes his mind yet again and the wound has again moved to the back of the head.

And you still believe this man, but only the portion of his constant mind-changing that you like?

McClelland, in any police investigation, would be dismissed as a witness and certainly not used in court as a Barrister would have torn him to shreds.

[Doctored Whatsit]

[I][COLOR=#3498db]
"
:"

Is this the standard of debate to which this forum has descended? The deceptive, dishonest, half truth about Wecht perpetrated by Bugliosi being constantly and repeatedly presented as a fact. Lies and deceit accompanied by invective diatribes substituting for factual argument? A philosophy and policy that all who disagree must be silenced that would turn Hitler positively green with envy. And always the hyperbole and superlatives used in the expression of intransigent opinions and conjectures.

There is a strong element of truth in this statement - but it very clearly applies to both sides of the argument.

I have been following this "debate" for some time, but have mostly avoided joining in because, as I said originally, for almost every known "fact" there is an alternative "fact", and if we have an opinion, we just pick the "facts" that suit us, and ignore the rest. We "cherry pick" routinely, for example, "Connally was right there, he knew what he was talking about, and he said that Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and he was hit by the second." OK, he said that, but he and his wife also maintained that there were just three shots, and all from the rear. You pay your money and you take your choice.

Yes, LBJ wanted a nice clean lone gunman decision, and Warren didn't want to upset him or the Kennedy family. Agreed. But almost all of the actual investigation was carried out by a team of young lawyers, several of whom said that they started with a belief that there was a conspiracy, and finished believing that there wasn't! Then we know that much information was withheld ... I could go on and on, but it is pointless.

There is so much "evidence", so much of it contradictory, so much ammunition for both sides, that this debate could continue forever. Frankly, I hope it doesn't. I can see both sides of the argument, have been aware of so many issues since it happened, and have retained an open mind. To commit to any firm decision because of certain evidence, would require me to reject numerous other items of evidence which also seem quite relevant.

Although there are some points that I believe, and some that I reject, I am going to remain siting on the fence - not the picket fence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Delusional nonsense. Childish blather. Proven nonsense. I’m tired of listening to babyish crap.

Kennedy was hit by 2 shots from behind’

100% proven. Even Cyril bloody Wecht isn’t that much of a fool to deny it"

"Utter bilge even by conspiracist fantasists standards. You even surprised me by this bottom of the barrel scraping. This was taken after the head shot. No doubt at all. You can even see spray.

Anyone that says that there was a massive, gaping head wound to the back of Kennedy’s head is either blind, a fantasist or a liar. Take your pick."

"End of argument. Anyone who mentions ‘fake’ isn’t worth listening to.

100000% proof. Shot from behind. Even bloody Cyril Wecht accepts it but it’s not barking mad enough for some."
"
There’s a good chap."

Is this the standard of debate to which this forum has descended? The deceptive, dishonest, half truth about Wecht perpetrated by Bugliosi being constantly and repeatedly presented as a fact. Lies and deceit accompanied by invective diatribes substituting for factual argument? A philosophy and policy that all who disagree must be silenced that would turn Hitler positively green with envy. And always the hyperbole and superlatives used in the expression of intransigent opinions and conjectures.

St. George pipes up with more hypocrisy. Utterly blind to the comments made by Fishy and himself. He accuses me of being insulting whilst calling me a liar. You couldn’t make this nonsense up.

Cyril Wecht said that with the available evidence the three shots came from the rear with no possibility of it being otherwise. He looked at the evidence available evidence, which didn’t include seeing the actual body as the Pathologists did. Certainly he didn’t have the brain to look at but he had the x-rays of the brain and the autopsy photos. And we all know that CT’s like to fantasise about this mysterious, missing brain when we all know that Bobby and Jackie took it for burial. This is why they requested that the Doctors at Bethesda didn’t cut it up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is a strong element of truth in this statement - but it very clearly applies to both sides of the argument.

Exactly……this is the point. I’ve accepted, in black and white, my own faults. I even made a count of them. But sadly George and Fishy are unwilling to do the same.

I have been following this "debate" for some time, but have mostly avoided joining in because, as I said originally, for almost every known "fact" there is an alternative "fact", and if we have an opinion, we just pick the "facts" that suit us, and ignore the rest. We "cherry pick" routinely, for example, "Connally was right there, he knew what he was talking about, and he said that Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and he was hit by the second." OK, he said that, but he and his wife also maintained that there were just three shots, and all from the rear. You pay your money and you take your choice.

Yes, LBJ wanted a nice clean lone gunman decision, and Warren didn't want to upset him or the Kennedy family. Agreed. But almost all of the actual investigation was carried out by a team of young lawyers, several of whom said that they started with a belief that there was a conspiracy, and finished believing that there wasn't! Then we know that much information was withheld ... I could go on and on, but it is pointless.

There is so much "evidence", so much of it contradictory, so much ammunition for both sides, that this debate could continue forever. Frankly, I hope it doesn't. I can see both sides of the argument, have been aware of so many issues since it happened, and have retained an open mind. To commit to any firm decision because of certain evidence, would require me to reject numerous other items of evidence which also seem quite relevant.

Although there are some points that I believe, and some that I reject, I am going to remain siting on the fence - not the picket fence.

A fair post Doc.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am very glad that you brought the focus of the discussion back to the autopsy because I am still waiting for a substantive response from you to my # 999 about the wound to Kennedy's back having been raised by five inches.

As I pointed out before, Dr Hume himself placed the back wound 15 cm below the neckline and so did witnesses to the autopsy, as I noted, as did the nurse who washed Kennedy's body.

An FBI agent examined the bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket and they were 5 3/4 and 5 3/8 inches below the respective tops of the collars.

Clint Hill testified that the entrance wound was about six inches below the neckline.

There is an abundance of evidence - from eyewitnesses, autopsy eyewitnesses, the autopsy diagram, the official death certificate, and the FBI's forensic examination, that the back wound was more than five inches below the neckline.

According to the Single Bullet Theory, which you say is proven, the same wound was to the back of Kennedy's neck.

Everyone here knows that that is impossible.

As I have pointed out, according to the autopsy, to which you are now referring, the shot that caused that wound entered at a downwards angle of 45-60 degrees
and entered Kennedy's back about six inches below the neckline.

It could not have passed through the front of Kennedy's throat nor hit Connally in the upper back.

Had it exited the front of Kennedy's body, it would have missed Connally altogether.

THAT is the implication of the autopsy findings which you are upholding.

Now what do you say to that?

These question can, and have been answered, numerous times PI. I’m experiencing a fair bit of Deja vu here. Just as with George and Fishy you pile on question after question expecting me to jump through hoops with answers but you won’t give meaningful responses to mine.

Ill answer one part even though I don’t feel disposed to. Humes explained his error in placing the bullets entrance wound in the wrong place. When he wrote up the report it was late, he was extremely tired after a long and stressful autopsy, his rough notes didn’t contain a measurement and whilst he was writing the report he didn’t have access to the x-rays. Weave a conspiracy into that if you want to but it would reek of irony when Dr McClelland is quoted - a man who first placed the wound on the left side of the head, then moved it to the back, then further forward on to the side then back to the rear again. And conspiracy theorists believe him more reliable of the two.