JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

The rewritten autopsy report includes measurements and other data that do not exist in the pathologists’ surviving notes and diagrams

A typed report not including every detail from handwritten notes proves that the report is a summary, not an exhaustive list of all points. Your source provides no evidence that the autopsy report contradicts the handwritten notes, nor that the autopsy report contradicts the forensic evidence.

This is smoke and mirrors by your link, not proof of a Conspiracy.

[Fiver]

[*]The photographic record is incomplete. The pathologists and photographers recalled ordering and taking photographs which appear no longer to exist.

Did you miss that your source provides no evidence that any pathologist or reporter claimed there were any missing photos?

And we've already seen your source make claims that are provably false.

This is just more smoke and mirrors from your source.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Frazier testified that when he parked the car Oswald left towards the TSBD before him, and that he (Frazier) was watching some welders working on the railroad track . By the time Oswald reached the TSBD Building, he was at least 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Dougherty was at the back entrance when Oswald arrived, and testified Oswald wasn't carrying anything.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Oswald was living in a furnished room that wouldn't need curtain rods. Simple explanation - Oswald acquired the curtain rods for someone else, went ahead of Frazier and passed on the curtain rods to that someone else and arrived at the TSBD empty handed. Ah-ha I hear you say, why didn't he tell that to the police and why didn't that person come forward. We wouldn't know if he told police as records of the interrogations were not kept, and who would have wanted to involve themselves in a Presidential murder plot. Then there is the JtR cop-out - Randle and Frazier were remembering a different day. Or perhaps they were mistaken, as is contended of all the doctors at Parkland.

What we all must know is that not one witness testified that they saw Oswald carrying a package long enough to conceal a rifle. Indeed they testified that the parcel was too short to conceal rifle.

No, both Frazer and Randles did but you appear to doubt them George because they didn’t get out a tape measure. Their estimates were close enough.

Come on George…are you really suggesting that Oswald went to buy curtain rods for a work mate, passed them on in the car park before he reached the building without Frazer seeing him, he then went inside, and just planted some brown wrapping paper on the 6th floor. There were no curtain rods. It was a rifle. 100%. I’ve never known any human being having so many excuses made for him than Oswald. It’s like people are defending the honour of a parent. Did he ever do or say anything that wasn’t actually something else?

He goes to the Paine’s a day earlier than ever before and without warning - how is that not an alarm bell?

He leaves $175 and his wedding ring - did he suddenly get forgetful or was he hoping to pick up a woman at work and he didn’t want to appear married?

He carrying a long package.

He isn’t carrying a lunch pack, why? Because he’s going to be busy at lunchtime.

He lies, 100% lies about curtain rods.

He won’t talk to his wife about the Kennedy visit.

He lies about owning a gun.

The gun that he has stashed is gone.

He gets to the 6th floor and becomes the only man in Dallas not to know that Kennedy was coming.

This isn’t difficult stuff. The only thing difficult with Oswald George is the constant heavy lifting that has to be done to come up with excuses for his ever suspicious action. Every single thing that he does that day is suspicious. It’s just impossible that he didn’t shoot Kennedy. Impossible.

That said George, I get it that we’ll never agree on this. Put Oswald in front of a jury and they’d have taken 10 minutes. Guilty. I’m sorry but the guy was a lowlife, double-murdering traitor who escaped justice.

[scottnapa]

That seems unlikely.

Clearly you have done research. thanks for the links.
However you do seen to guess quite a bit, if you choose to pass off your guesses as fact. As you have done here.and in previous posts with me. Where you there on the 50th? I was. With a ticket.
The city took over Dealey Plaza for a ceremonial eulogy for JFK. James Tague was excluded from attending as admission was by ticket. That is what i meant when i said Tague was excluded.He could walk around before and after the ceremony, but Dealey Plaza was roped of for the general public Closed off for the duration of speeches unless you had a ticket. So the city of Dallas here weren't going to give Robert Groden a ticket or James Tague a ticket.
He was interviewed. Yes. Tague spent many hours in the hotel where like minded citizens were gathered. Writers were in that hotel Thompson Mellon, Russell, etc. and books were for sale and Tague wanted to show everyone his book That is where I met and l spoke to James Tague.

[GBinOz]

That said George, I get it that we’ll never agree on this.

That's OK. I'm with Jeff on this - if we all agreed we'd have nothing to talk about. The important thing is to keep discussions on a civil basis....well...maybe with the occasional humorous dig.

The reality is that you have zero evidence and zero witnesses to sustain the contention that Oswald carried a parcel long enough to contain a rifle on that day.

[scottnapa]

If there is a Conspiracy, then Dr Hume has to be part of it. Which if the Conspiracy is competent, would mean Hume would never have to rewrite his notes or report, he'd just have to copy down the script that the Conspiracy gave him. Plus, we only know of the rewriting and destruction of the initial copies because Hume said so.

Which is more likely to have made these mistakes - a lone Doctor who hadn't done a forensic autopsy before or a murder Conspiracy of hundreds?

Once again you have an incorrect conclusion and make a false options.This imaginary conspiracy of thousands fantasy is rather a self indulgent domino for you as it is easy to knock that domino down. This non existent conspiracy is not what anyone here is claiming. Every organization has agendas.
The most important person in the world is killed and the everyone wants answers, the SS FBI all want to avoid blame. FBI doesn’t want a conspiracy.
There are a number of conclusions that are reached for CYA reasons. There are true curiosities and mysteries .. again no trial so the FBI can discard the Oswald threatening note in the toilet, The CIA is a different story. I offered the example of Ralph Sigler. MI is part of the larger picture that is not discussed. Did you google him? Maybe not.
As for Humes, this is a military base, he is under orders. They tell him to not probe the back wound He follows orders. Evidence is tainted. Many times in the course of studying the assassination, a person has decide who is telling the truth. Just because Humes followed orders doesn’t mean he let Ruby into the basement.
As we have discussed , the autopsy started when a Oswald was alive. Burning the autopsy report and replacing it with a new one is destruction of evidence that is ONLY possible if Oswald is dead. You remember we had this discussion about evidence not being admissible in court. It took a while but you got there. So I still have hope for you.

[FISHY1118]

If there is a Conspiracy, then Dr Hume has to be part of it. Which if the Conspiracy is competent, would mean Hume would never have to rewrite his notes or report, he'd just have to copy down the script that the Conspiracy gave him. Plus, we only know of the rewriting and destruction of the initial copies because Hume said so.

Which is more likely to have made these mistakes - a lone Doctor who hadn't done a forensic autopsy before or a murder Conspiracy of hundreds?

Your getting "covered up" confused with "conspiracy", when you understand the difference it will make sense to you .

[C. F. Leon]

Your getting "covered up" confused with "conspiracy", when you understand the difference it will make sense to you .

The difference you are making is that a "conspiracy" is BEFORE the event, and "cover-up" is AFTER it?

[FISHY1118]

Connally also claimed he was wounded by the 2nd shot fired. So what's your point?

The second shot according to you then is c399 yes?

If the first shot missed then 399 must have caused Tagues and Connallys wound ? Thats impossible with the pristine condition of c399

Or you must think Tagues wound was the third head shot which I've asked to see the evidence of that with no answer.

[FISHY1118]

Clearly you have done research. thanks for the links.
However you do seen to guess quite a bit, if you choose to pass off your guesses as fact. As you have done here.and in previous posts with me. Where you there on the 50th? I was. With a ticket.
The city took over Dealey Plaza for a ceremonial eulogy for JFK. James Tague was excluded from attending as admission was by ticket. That is what i meant when i said Tague was excluded.He could walk around before and after the ceremony, but Dealey Plaza was roped of for the general public Closed off for the duration of speeches unless you had a ticket. So the city of Dallas here weren't going to give Robert Groden a ticket or James Tague a ticket.
He was interviewed. Yes. Tague spent many hours in the hotel where like minded citizens were gathered. Writers were in that hotel Thompson Mellon, Russell, etc. and books were for sale and Tague wanted to show everyone his book That is where I met and l spoke to James Tague.

I wasn't aware he actually wrote a book , I must read that.

[FISHY1118]

The difference you are making is that a "conspiracy" is BEFORE the event, and "cover-up" is AFTER it?

Let me make it simple 2 or more people could conspire to commit a murder or crime , countless other could be used to cover it up without knowledge of that event ..

[cobalt]

To pick up on a few comments made by HS.

He leaves $175 and his wedding ring - did he suddenly get forgetful or was he hoping to pick up a woman at work and he didn’t want to appear married?

I can't see why Oswald would carry $175 on his person to go to work. The wedding ring could be seen as odd but he could have been making a personal statement to his wife by leaving it.

He isn’t carrying a lunch pack, why? Because he’s going to be busy at lunchtime.

Even assassins have to eat. Lunch break was usually around noon so he had time for a sandwich or two before building the sniper's nest. According to WC testimony from one of the the three back employees on the 5th floor, Oswald usually carried a lunch but sometimes bought his lunch from a mobile van which served the TSBD.

He gets to the 6th floor and becomes the only man in Dallas not to know that Kennedy was coming.

From WC testimony Oswald was on the first floor when he asked about why people were peering out of the windows earlier in the morning. The exact content of this conversation is vague since Jarman or Norman (I forget which) said they conversed for a few minutes although Oswald's contribution was remembered as little more than a disinterested reply. Oswald would certainly have known that JFK was visiting Dallas but not necessarily that the President was passing the TSBD on route.

If Oswald was the malcontent marxist with a grudge described in the WC report, he passed up a big opportunity a month earlier, 25th October I think, when Adlai Stevenson visited Dallas. Stevenson was admittedly more a dove than a hawk on matters Cuba -which is presumably why he was attacked by some Texan burghers- but his visit was surely worth Oswald dusting down the Carcano to get in some shooting practice.
And although Kennedy's comments on Cuba may have riled Oswald, I would have thought McCarthyite supporter and failed presidential candidate Richard Nixon offered a more appealing target. Nixon was in Dallas in a legal capacity on the 21st November, speaking at a hotel within walking distance of the TSBD. In fact this was the hotel which JFK staff had hoped to book for his presidential visit but a commercial group -for whom Nixon worked- declined to cancel their prior arrangement. Thus was the Trade Mart decided upon as the place where JFK would speak at 12.30 on the 22nd November.

[Fiver]

Although all three pathologists testified under oath before several official inquiries, there was only one occasion on which any of their testimony was seriously questioned.

* Humes was asked dozens of questions by the Warren Commission. And questioned again by the HSC. And again by the ARRB.

* Boswell was questioned by the Warren Commission and the ARRB.

* Finck was questioned by the Warren Commission. And the HSCA. And the ARRB.

[Fiver]

In the criminal trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans in 1969, one of the pathologists, Dr Pierre Finck, was cross–examined by an assistant district attorney, Alvin Oser. His testimony, part of which is reproduced below, is remarkable for two reasons:[LIST][*]He states that senior military officers had taken an active part in proceedings, and he implies that they were in charge of the autopsy.[*]He admits, after trying hard to avoid the question, that the pathologists were forbidden to dissect the president’s back and throat wounds and the connecting tissue.

It says something when your source leans heavily on the looney and lying Garrison's persecution of a clearly innocent Clay Shaw.

Finck did not say that "senior military officers had taken an active part" in the autopsy.

Here's the orders Finck mentions.

Q: There were Admirals?
A: Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were specifically told -- as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kinney, the Surgeon General of the Navy -- this is sub ject to verification -- we were specifically told not to discuss the case.
Q: You were told not to discuss the case?
A: -- to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General.

Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.
A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.
Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A: Right.
Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A: I don't recall.
Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.

Q: Also in your autopsy report on the same page, Page 4, I direct your attention to the last paragraph, the last paragraph under "2," where you said in your report, "The second wound presumably of entry," and now you state in Court that you are positive it was of entry.
A: As I recall, it was Admiral Galloway who told us to put that word "presumably."
Q: Admiral Galloway?
A: Yes.
Q: Told you to put that word "presumably"?
A: Yes, but this does not change my opinion that this is a wound of entry.
Q: Is Admiral Galloway a Pathologist, to your knowledge?
A: Admiral Galloway had some training in Pathology. He was the Commanding Officer of the Naval Hospital, as I recall, and at that time, in my mind, this was a wound of entry, it just was suggested to add "presumably" this was.
Q: Did he suggest you add anything else to your report, Colonel?
A: Not that I recall.
Q: Can you give me the name of the General that you said told Dr. Humes not to talk about the autopsy report?
A: This was not a General, it was an Admiral.
Q: All right, excuse me, the Admiral, can you give me the name of the Admiral?
A: Who stated that we were not to discuss the autopsy findings?
Q: Yes.
A: This was in the autopsy room on the 22nd and 23rd of November, 1963.
Q: What was his name?
A: Well, there were several people in charge. There were several Admirals, and, as I recall, the Adjutant General of the Navy.
Q: Do you have a name, Colonel?
A: It was Admiral Kinney, K-i-n-n-e-y, as I recall.Q: Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of the autopsy, as you testified about?
A: Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several people, as I have stated before, I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been pertaining to operations other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by "operations," I mean the over-all supervision.
Q: Which includes your report. Does it not?
A: Sir?
Q: Which includes your report. Does it not?
A: No.
Q: It does not?
A: I would not say so, because the report I signed was signed by two other pathologists and at no time did this Army General say that he would have anything to do with signing this autopsy report.

Q: Dr. Finck, did anyone give you any orders as to what opinion you should render in this report?
A: No.
Q: Would you have accepted any orders as to what opinion, professional opinion, you should render?
A: No.

So they were specifically told to examine the head wound, which would be really bad for a Conspiracy if the fatal head shot came from the front. And they were told to examine the chest cavity, which would be really bad for a Conspiracy if the neck wound came from the front.

No one ordered them to not examine the tracheotomy in the front of the neck and they did examine it. No one told them not to try to probe the bullet track - they did, but the channel had closed up.

[Fiver]

Dissecting the wounds was a basic procedure, and would almost certainly have determined whether the president’s non–fatal injuries had been caused by one or more bullets, and from which direction or directions the bullet or bullets had come.;

Your source appears not to have read the actual testimony.

Direction that the shots were fired from was based on examination of skin around the wounds and cratering of the bones. Dissection of the wound channel would not have told direction of impact.