JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

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

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

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

Oswald cannot be a patsy. There's roughly a dozen witnesses who saw him shoot JD Tippit or flee the scene.

A competent Conspiracy had multiple chances to kill Oswald before he spoke to the press. Why would Oswald claiming to be a patsy change their minds?

[Fiver]

At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

Lets look at what Dr Finck said in context.

Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.
Q: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?
A: The first fraction of an inch.

Dr Finck also said:

Q: Is it not better pathological practice to dissect a skin wound area and submit this cross-section to microscopic examination to determine whether or not there was any burn or signed area as a result of a high speed bullet passing through this area as opposed to a naked eye observation?
A: The microscopic examination of a wound is a supplementary examination which I have done many times, but in this case the gross characteristics were sufficient to me to make a positive identification of a wound of entry in the back of the neck. I think I saw microscopic sections. I was in the office of Dr. Humes, but again I don't remember the time of the examination of these microscopic sections.

Q: State Exhibit 69, this one right here. Can you tell me whether that hit any bone in his neck?
A: From the X-rays it was determined that this bullet entering in the back of the neck, coming out in the front of the neck, did not strike major bones.

Q: You were puzzled by what you found in the back, is that right?
A: I was not puzzled by what I found in the back, I was puzzled by having a definite entry in the back, a bruise in the plural region, that is the region of the cavity of the chest, which was bruised, between the entry in the back and the exit in the front, and the three of us, the prosectors, we saw that bruise, and the following day knowing that a small wound had been seen in the front of the neck that made very much sense to me, an entry in the back, a wound in the front and a bruise in between due to the passage of that bullet.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Give up , the jigs up . and soon youll look silly when them files are released"


“The truth is coming .!"


“Let me make it clearer ,What is coming is , the evidence that will show there was indeed a conspiracy within the u.s. government to assassinate there own president with multiple shooters. Period. Full stop"


“The truth will out soon enough."

….


Has everyone on here noticed something?


Certain people have stopped mentioning the recently released files.


I wonder why?


After all…they were going to prove a conspiracy…..weren’t they?


I’ll tell you why..


Because as everyone who knows that President Kennedy was obviously killed by Lee Harvey Oswald knows….the truth is already out. It was out on the day of the murder. The files have produced zilch but no doubt conspiracy theorists are, as we speak, trying to manipulate what has been found into some kind of fantasy. Another Mac Wallace/Roscoe White classic. Perhaps Oswald never existed. Kennedy was a robot. Who knows?



Time for them to wave the white flag, apologise and go home.

[FrankO]

Thanks Mrs Connally for exposing the warren commission lie.

A separate bullet hit John Connally.

Unfortunately, she did nothing of the kind. She told that her husband's wounds were caused by one bullet and he couldn't be hit in both his upper body and wrist if he held his right hand at about shoulder level, which the Zapruder film shows he did until at least frame 279 and then again from frames 320 to 330.

[FrankO]

The right lapel movement is often quoted, although I have yet to see a copy of the film that is clear enough to show it. Looking at the footage of the presidential limo as it turned into Houston St from Main St, it can be seen that the flags on the car indicate a strong wind from the NNW. I think it would have been the wind lifting the lapel rather than a bullet as indicated by this photo of Connally's coat.

I see the shoulder movements as part of the turning process.

Hi George,

Thanks for your reply and the photo.

If by your first sentence you mean that what we see in frame 224 isn’t clearly discernible as a lapel, then I agree. But other than that, it’s very clear that in frame 223 we see his tie and part of his shirt and in frame 224 it’s blocked from view by something that has the same colour as his jacket and very likely is the right lapel of his jacket. What else should it be?

Of course, it may just have been a gust of wind that moved it, but I find it somewhat of a coincidence that it’s precisely in frame 224 that we see it. Furthermore, there’s also the quick lowering of his right shoulder. Within 0.27 seconds he moves it down, as if he’s been poked in the right side.

Taking these things together with the fact that he keeps his right hand holding the hat at shoulder level until at least 279, it seems that he was either hit close to frame 224 or by 2 different shots at some hard to determine later frame. Other than some possible facial expressions, there’s no clear reaction from Connally beyond frame 224 to anything that suggests a bullet strike, but he also has such expressions in frames 224, 225 and 226.

Seeing that, after frame 290, Connally is leaning back onto his wife’s lap, it seems very unlikely to me that any of his wounds could have been caused by a shot after that frame.

Again, I’m not necessarily talking about the single bullet theory, I’m only talking about what is to be seen in the Zapruder film, which is not that it confirms that Connally wasn’t hit before frame 230, which is not that it completely corresponds with Mrs. Connally’s statements nor that the governor doesn’t react before frame 240 or so, as some will have it. He clearly does react, starting at frame 224, at least with his facial expression. Whether anybody wants to see that as a reaction to being hit or not, is another matter. The Zapruder film is the most direct evidence we have to base anything on and that’s the only thing I’m willing to concentrate on.

Nell Connally said that when her husband was hit he reared up like a horse. There is certainly no indication of this in the frames around the 230s. I would estimate that he was hit around frame 295 as he is turning back to the left, but it is difficult to see as the film is showing only the neck and head. I agree that one shot through the abdomen would be unlikely to also hit the back of the wrist, but I see a violent movement around frame 326 that could account for a second shot/wound.

I think the rearing up or recoiling/crumpling is happening after frame 266/267 or so, when he starts leaning back onto his wife’s lap while keeping his eyes almost at the president, and then turning his head to his left by frame 290, so that he’s almost facing Zapruder’s camera. I don’t see anything violent happening at around frame 326. What I see is that the Connally’s start to react to the head shot at frame 316. Mrs. Connally first puts her husband’s head on her lap in front of her and then she ducks towards her husband’s seat. And that whole thing lasts until about frame 346.

The whole single bullet theory falls at the first hurdle. Hume said the back wound did not transit the body. Boswell sketched the back wound at 5 1/2 inches below the shoulder line and Burkley signed off on this location. SS agents Bennett and Hill observed the wound 4" and 6" respectively below the shoulder line. Sibert and O'Neill said the back wound was shallow and considerably below the throat wound. Sibert was quoted as saying about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, "What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." The holes in the coat and shirt indicate about 5 1/2" below the shoulder line. At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch." Gerald Ford moved the wound from the back to the neck as a "clarification" of the SBT.

I’m not willing to go into this too deep, as that would become a day job, which I don’t think it’s worth, but what I am going to say is what Fiver already wrote. I.e. that Humes felt the wound and, before knowing about the throat wound and contusion on the upper lobe of the lung, he thought the bullet had not exited the body and that after finding the bruising of the strap muscles and the top of the right lung and finding out about the bullet wound in the throat, they concluded it had passed through the president and had exited at the front, knicking the tie knot. I’m fine with that.

Regrettably, we are still at odds with our observations and opinions, but there it is.

There it is, indeed, George.

All the best,
Frank