JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[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.

[Fiver]

Those in charge of the autopsy would surely have been aware that President Kennedy’s wounds may have been caused by more than one gunman, and that dissecting the wounds was likely to resolve the question one way or the other. Their refusal to allow the dissection can only reasonably be interpreted as a fear of discovering definitive evidence of conspiracy.

Your source is presenting speculation as fact and ignoring the actual evidence.

Q: Well, did you form a firm opinion as to the path of the bullet which you say entered the President's back?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: How did you form that opinion?
A: There was a wound with regular edges, they were inverted, and they had the characteristics of a wound of entry.
Q: Is that a firm opinion?
A: It is a firm opinion that the wound in the back of the neck was a wound of entry, without a dissection.

Q: Now, Doctor, will you describe to the Jury the nature of this wound which you found on President Kennedy's head and the location of, which you have pointed out on my head?
A: This wound had slightly irregular edges in contrast to the first wound I described in the back of the neck, and I would like to explain at this time the reason for that. The tissue underlying the skin, I have described in the back of the neck is soft tissue, and when the bullet strikes the skin in such an area it does not meet the resistance it meets when there is bone underneath, and this explains the difference in character of those two wounds of entry. The wound in the back of the head showed irregular edges because there was bone close to the scalp corresponding to that scalp wound in the back of the head I just demonstrated, there was a hole in the bone, in the skull of President Kennedy, and I examined it, that hole, from outside the skull and from inside the skull. When examining from outside the skull, I did not see a crater, I saw a hole but there was no crater around it. When I looked at that wound from inside the skull, I saw a definite crater, C-R-A-T-E-R, and this is a certain factor to identify positively the direction of a projectile going through a flat bone such as the skull. To take a practical example, I have seen similar craters in wood, when a bullet goes through and through a pane of wood, and in glass, and it is the difference of the examination between the outer surface and the inner surface that allows the examiner to determine the direction of the bullet. Police officers do that all the time when they examine panes of wood or panes of glass, and I have done so myself. It is an accepted fact.

[Fiver]

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.

Lets look at a fuller account.

Mr. BALL - Now, do you remember that you gave a statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to a man by the name of Ellington, or a Mr. Anderton, the day after---the 23d of November?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---I talked to so many of them--it is kind of hard to remember.
Mr. BALL - And there is a statement that they took when they talked to you and in it you said, "I recall vaguely, having seen Lee Oswald when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I did---that morning.
Mr. BALL - That seems to be dated the 22d day of November 1963.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - The full statement is, "I am employed by the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, as an order filler, and reside at 1827 South Marsalis Street, Dallas, Tex." Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - "I started to work today, 11-22-63, at about 7 a.m. o'clock".
Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

So Dougherty was confident that Oswald had nothing in his hands, but he only saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye.

[FrankO]

The single bullet theory does require Connally to be turned to the right, and he does do so, but after Kennedy has been shot.



As Kennedy emerges from behind the sign he is showing signs of having been shot. Connally's head is turned to the right but his body is facing nearly directly forward.

The Zapruder film shows exactly what Connally said happened. He heard the shot and turned to the right to try to see Kennedy. When he completed his right turn he was showing no sign of physical distress. He said that he was turning back to the left when a shot hit him. This is shown on the Zapruder film, that shot occurring just before (about frame 295, or 0.7 seconds) the Kennedy head shot.

Hi George,

I just want to say one thing here.

The Zapruder film indeed shows exactly what happened. When Connally emerges from behind the sign, not only his head is turned to his right, but also his upper body. His right shoulder is just higher than his left shoulder. I’m not saying he’s perfectly facing Zapruder’s camera, but he’s at least some way there. In frame 223 his tie is almost neatly in the middle of the white of his shirt.

In the following frames he turns his head & body forward, lowering his right shoulder. In frame 224 Connally’s facial expression changes somewhat and his right lapel flips outward. It seems as if he squints there and in frame 225 he seems to open his mouth, or at least, there’s a bigger shadow where his mouth is.

From frame 226 until frame 235 he lowers his right shoulder even more and brings his right arm & hat up and down. That’s 0.55 seconds.

And from frame 238 he starts to turn to his right. In frame 244 he, again, seems to open his mouth and at around frame 265 he reaches the farthest point.

He remains in that position until about frame 289, when he starts facing the side of the car while leaning back into the lap of his wife.

Kennedy starts reacting while he’s still behind the sign, maybe around frame 222/223, and keeps reacting until frame 251, in which he starts lowering his arms. By the time Connally has reached his farthest point turning right, Kennedy is already sloping towards Jacky.

I think there’s no denying that the two men reacted almost simultaneously. Each of us can make of that what he or she wants, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

We have Frazer, Randle’s and Oswald himself. It doesn’t get much stronger. That the Frazers estimates of length might have been slightly debatable is irrelevant George. They were simply estimating. What they both 100% saw was a long package. Far bigger than his lunchpack. Oswald accepted this but when he was put on the stop he came up with the least believable explanation ever. Add that to the rifle missing from the garage and there can be no other explanation.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I just want to say one thing here.

The Zapruder film indeed shows exactly what happened. When Connally emerges from behind the sign, not only his head is turned to his right, but also his upper body. His right shoulder is just higher than his left shoulder. I’m not saying he’s perfectly facing Zapruder’s camera, but he’s at least some way there. In frame 223 his tie is almost neatly in the middle of the white of his shirt.

In the following frames he turns his head & body forward, lowering his right shoulder. In frame 224 Connally’s facial expression changes somewhat and his right lapel flips outward. It seems as if he squints there and in frame 225 he seems to open his mouth, or at least, there’s a bigger shadow where his mouth is.

From frame 226 until frame 235 he lowers his right shoulder even more and brings his right arm & hat up and down. That’s 0.55 seconds.

And from frame 238 he starts to turn to his right. In frame 244 he, again, seems to open his mouth and at around frame 265 he reaches the farthest point.

He remains in that position until about frame 289, when he starts facing the side of the car while leaning back into the lap of his wife.

Kennedy starts reacting while he’s still behind the sign, maybe around frame 222/223, and keeps reacting until frame 251, in which he starts lowering his arms. By the time Connally has reached his farthest point turning right, Kennedy is already sloping towards Jacky.

I think there’s no denying that the two men reacted almost simultaneously. Each of us can make of that what he or she wants, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I agree that the two men are reacting, but I believe that Kennedy is reacting to being shot and Connally to hearing the shot. Why was Connally turning to look at Kennedy? If he heard a shot he was already hit. Connally didn't say that he turned to the right and was shot. He said he turned to the right and had turned back to the left when he felt the shot to his chest. He was also sure that he was shot by a later bullet than the one that hit Kennedy. A man who has been shot through the chest, and the wrist if you believe Specter, doesn't calmly turn around to see what is happening behind him. The pain in his face is clearly visible starting around frame 295, a big contrast to the calm of his face before that. The movements in his head and body and shoulders are simply a function of his turning around in a car seat.

That's how I see it.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets look at a fuller account.

Mr. BALL - Now, do you remember that you gave a statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to a man by the name of Ellington, or a Mr. Anderton, the day after---the 23d of November?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---I talked to so many of them--it is kind of hard to remember.
Mr. BALL - And there is a statement that they took when they talked to you and in it you said, "I recall vaguely, having seen Lee Oswald when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I did---that morning.
Mr. BALL - That seems to be dated the 22d day of November 1963.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - The full statement is, "I am employed by the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, as an order filler, and reside at 1827 South Marsalis Street, Dallas, Tex." Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - "I started to work today, 11-22-63, at about 7 a.m. o'clock".
Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

So Dougherty was confident that Oswald had nothing in his hands, but he only saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye.

Exactly. Dougherty saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye and was paying him no attention. He didn’t notice him carrying anything. “I didn’t notice anything, if he did.”

As opposed to Frazer who not only saw him at close quarters he also spent time with him. His sister saw him clearly too. All that we have is that they obviously had to estimate the actual length of the package.

If someone had said that they had seen a horse walking down Elm Street and they said that it was around 16 hands high and someone else said that it was only around 12 hands high would we assume that there was no horse because of this discrepancy or would we agree on one thing - that there had been a horse walking down Elm Street? That Oswald was carrying a large package cannot be doubted. That it didn’t contain curtain rods cannot be doubted.

[GBinOz]

We have Frazer, Randle’s and Oswald himself. It doesn’t get much stronger. That the Frazers estimates of length might have been slightly debatable is irrelevant George. They were simply estimating. What they both 100% saw was a long package. Far bigger than his lunchpack. Oswald accepted this but when he was put on the stop he came up with the least believable explanation ever. Add that to the rifle missing from the garage and there can be no other explanation.

Frazier's estimate was about 24", give or take an inch. However observing the package fitting with one end under the armpit and the other being cupped in the hand doesn't depend on an estimate. Can you do this experiment with an object of 24 inches and 34.5 inches and report the result?

Bigger than a lunch pack doesn't exclude smaller than a rifle, and that is what the witnesses stated. I don't quite understand the boldened statement. Frazier said he asked Oswald what was in the package when they got in the car. Oswald said "curtain rods", and Frazier replied that he remembered Oswald previously mentioning that. What do you mean "put on the stop"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

I just want to say one thing here.

The Zapruder film indeed shows exactly what happened. When Connally emerges from behind the sign, not only his head is turned to his right, but also his upper body. His right shoulder is just higher than his left shoulder. I’m not saying he’s perfectly facing Zapruder’s camera, but he’s at least some way there. In frame 223 his tie is almost neatly in the middle of the white of his shirt.

In the following frames he turns his head & body forward, lowering his right shoulder. In frame 224 Connally’s facial expression changes somewhat and his right lapel flips outward. It seems as if he squints there and in frame 225 he seems to open his mouth, or at least, there’s a bigger shadow where his mouth is.

From frame 226 until frame 235 he lowers his right shoulder even more and brings his right arm & hat up and down. That’s 0.55 seconds.

And from frame 238 he starts to turn to his right. In frame 244 he, again, seems to open his mouth and at around frame 265 he reaches the farthest point.

He remains in that position until about frame 289, when he starts facing the side of the car while leaning back into the lap of his wife.

Kennedy starts reacting while he’s still behind the sign, maybe around frame 222/223, and keeps reacting until frame 251, in which he starts lowering his arms. By the time Connally has reached his farthest point turning right, Kennedy is already sloping towards Jacky.

I think there’s no denying that the two men reacted almost simultaneously. Each of us can make of that what he or she wants, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

This is what the footage tells us. There is just no way that two shots can be assumed. Then when we see that the one shot hitting both men lined up perfectly I can’t see a problem. It stemmed from Garrison’s witch hunt as many things do. No one had lined up the shots correctly until much later on by which time this ‘Magic Bullet’ theory had become an accepted part of the language. We now know that it’s nonsense of course and that the same bullet hit two the two men. And ironically no conspiracy supporter can account for their ‘Vanishing Bullet’ theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Frazier's estimate was about 24", give or take an inch. However observing the package fitting with one end under the armpit and the other being cupped in the hand doesn't depend on an estimate. Can you do this experiment with an object of 34.5 inches and report the result?

Bigger than a lunch pack doesn't exclude smaller than a rifle, and that is what the witnesses stated. I don't quite understand the boldened statement. Frazier said he asked Oswald what was in the package when they got in the car. Oswald said "curtain rods", and Frazier replied that he remembered Oswald mentioned that the time before. What do you mean "put on the stop"?

On the ‘stop’ was a typo George. It should have read ‘on the spot.’ I accept your point that Oswald had already used the lie to Frazer about the ‘rods’ and that he hadn’t come up with it on the spot in police interviews. It would make sense though that Oswald would have expected a question from Frazer about the package so he needed a lie for him of course.

Buell Wesley Frazier: He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.

This doesn’t mean that it was in his armpit George. If one end was cradled in his hand and the rest of the rifle was held under his arm the other end could have been behind his shoulder out of sight of Frazer.

He had a large package. It was a rifle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To pick up on a few comments made by HS.

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.

Too much heavy lifting again to try and defend a man who is so guilty that you can taste and smell it. Why did he bring such a large sum at all? He’d never done it before? Marina said that she had to plead for even the smallest sum even for the kids. Combined with the ring this can only mean one thing. This ‘innocent’ man knew that he wasn’t coming back and that he wouldn’t be seeing Marina and the kids for a considerable time.

Are you suggesting that a conspiracy went down to this kind of micro-level Cobalt? How can every single thing that Oswald said or did be a distortion of the truth. It’s remarkable. Every single thing has been given an alternative explanation by CT’s. It’s just impossible. Oswald makes OJ look innocent.

[GBinOz]

This doesn’t mean that it was in his armpit George. If one end was cradled in his hand and the rest of the rifle was held under his arm the other end could have been behind his shoulder out of sight of Frazer.

He had a large package. It was a rifle.

Now then Herlock. Adjusting testimony to suit a purpose just isn't cricket. It's like giving a batsman out before he comes out of the pavilion.

See post 3151 for the relevant testimony. If you conduct the experiment you'll find that an object 24" long will fit under the armpit while cupped in the hand, but an object 34.5 inches long definitely will not. You've probably seen the copyrighted photo of the alleged bag shown here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/bag.htm

Not something that would be out of sight behind a shoulder.