JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

Okay, that's a bit of progress perhaps. But please don't shift the burden of proof to me regarding what you claim to be damaged cerebellum. You have a steep uphill climb because, notably, you have to refute the autopsy findings, the WC evidence and conclusions, the HSCA analysis and conclusions, and other analyses that found only one wound of entrance in the skull, beveled inward, and one exit wound, beveled outward. If your reply is simply that these multiple findings were lies or errors, please demonstrate, with evidence, how they were lies or errors.

The official autopsy report says that one bullet entered the EOP and exited the top of the head. The WC report depicts this scenario with Kennedy's head leaning sharply downward, but does nothing in the field of photographic evidence to show it could've happened this way besides asking Dr. Humes if frame 312 of the Zapruder Film depicts the head leaning enough. Humes pointed out that he is not a photographic expert, but guessed that the head was leaning over enough. Of course, we know now that it wasn't and such a trajectory would cause severe damage to the cerebellum and would require a sharp bullet deflection. There is no trail of fragments apparent on the X-ray to show such a deflection could've happened.

Do we have a historical basis for believing that the truth could've been malleable to the autopsy participants?

Richard Lipsey's HSCA testimony vividly describes the autopsy doctors discussing a three-hit scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat, and another bullet creating the large head wound tangentially. The FBI agents left the autopsy at 11:45, and we have witness evidence that a the doctors figured out that the tracheotomy incision was originally a bullet hole by this time. So even though the Sibert & O'Neil report notes a two-hit scenario with only one head shot, we have a window of time where everybody doesn't have to be lying about everything.

The official autopsy report is the third version. Humes admitted that the autopsy notes and first draft(s) were burned. He says it was because of Kennedy's blood staining the paper, but the face sheet signed by Burkley also contains blood stains. Throughout this thread, I've pointed out quite a few early media reports which either report that Kennedy's autopsy concluded that he was shot in the head twice, or that the throat wound was a fragment from the(a) head shot. During a Warren Commission meeting which was transcribed, a WC member casually mentioned that "the autopsy" concluded that the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot. What autopsy were they talking about?

I've also been over Dr. Burkley's statements, which indicate that he believed or suspected that there were two head shots. He was neglected form being properly interviewed by the WC and the HSCA. All we have from the HSCA is a brief interview report based on a phone call while he was at a golf club.

This kind of two headshot scenario, with a bullet entering the EOP and the large head wound being tangential, does not appear to be incompatible with with the official autopsy photographs and X-rays, although I should point out that I'm arguing from the perspective of all of it being true and accurate. Some may point to the EOP wound and the lack of cerebellar damage as evidence for a substituted human brain or altered X-rays.

The HSCA findings is totally at odds with the autopsy. They even coerced Humes into testifying that he accepted the cowlick entry theory, when that was a lie.

BTW, as Sherry Fiester (RIP, she died recently from cancer) has pointed out, bone beveling is not taken as a sure way to determine projectile directionality in modern forensics.

 

[MicahJava]

The measurements recorded in the autopsy are accurate.
The photographic record confirms them.
The people who were there confirmed it to the WC.
The xrays confirm it.

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. The cowlick fracture is slightly right of the midline, not 2.5 centimeters to the right. The cowlick fracture is 4-5 inches above where the original autopsy records and participants placed it.

Those "Johnny come latelies" are qualified experts, reading the extant materials. They not agree with the decades later memories of the people who were there, but there is a very good reason we keep accurate records, rather than asking people what they remember. There is a reason that photographs are taken. There is a reason xrays are kept. It is precisely so, that at any point in the future, somebody can read them, and know what happened.

I am sorry that is not convenient for you, or whatever strange fantasy you expect reality to represent, but this is how the truth is established, through objective reasoning and actual evidence.

If you continue to think that makes me a liar, then I am afraid it says far more about you than me.

And I posted a list of experts who thought the cowlick fracture was no obvious entry wound. The idea of expert consensus on the cowlick thing is way overblown.

 

[MicahJava]

How about distribution of forces from the point of impact. Trauma waves, for example, building pressure in the confined space of skull, and spreading outwards. That would do it.

Then please use MS Paint over a Dox Kennedy sketch or a diagram to show what your idea is of a reasonable trajectory from the lower EOP location to the top of the head. And how would this leave (apparently) zero bullet fragments in the occipital lobe?

 

[bknight]

How about distribution of forces from the point of impact. Trauma waves, for example, building pressure in the confined space of skull, and spreading outwards. That would do it.

Ah you beat me to that description of a bullet entering the skull and blowing tissue outwards, including parts of the skull.

EDIT: MicahJava, look at the Zapruder film again, frame 312. JFK's head was already looking down just prior to impact the trajectory fits the impact from a point slightly higher and to the right of the EOP

EDIT to Add: With that trajectory there is no "need" for another head shot. Simple when you accept what was discovered in the autopsy. Two shots: one in the back and one in the head.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. The cowlick fracture is slightly right of the midline, not 2.5 centimeters to the right. The cowlick fracture is 4-5 inches above where the original autopsy records and participants placed it.

You have failed to prove this for a considerable time. The wound is accurately described. You keep insisting it is not, and the burden of proof is on you to show it is not.

You have failed to meet that burden. Consistantly.

And I posted a list of experts who thought the cowlick fracture was no obvious entry wound. The idea of expert consensus on the cowlick thing is way overblown.

I disagree that is what you have managed to show. The issues with your posts have been well noted, and you refuse to answer pertinent and telling questions.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Then please use MS Paint over a Dox Kennedy sketch or a diagram to show what your idea is of a reasonable trajectory from the lower EOP location to the top of the head. And how would this leave (apparently) zero bullet fragments in the occipital lobe?

Why on earth would I waste time drawing pictures of a trajectory from the lower wound you alone believe happened?

Do you know why that trajectory does not work?

Because you are dismissing the existence of the entry wound.

A reasonable person might realise this, and consider this very anomaly strong evidence that the entry wound you keep claiming to be too high, is the more likely entry wound, precisely because it better explains the resultant exit wound.

 

[No Other]

I'm pretty familiar with courts, No Other, being a tenured law professor and a practicing attorney. The WC was very clear that it was not conducting an adversarial process, and that its procedures blended wide-ranging fact-finding with the approach of historical researchers. Again, why should the WC have used an adversarial approach? Please tell us exactly how the WC would have arrived at more of the truth by implementing all the evidentiary exclusions that protect the trial process. Be specific, and don't just preach about the Bill of Rights.

I never said they were conducting an adversarial process and I am aware of why they did not do so. I am not challenging the procedures on the merit if they were legal or not, my contention is that it was run like a Grand Jury and as the old saying goes... "a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich".

Let me address the Bill of Rights and apply it to your position. The 5th amendment is the key element... due process and self-incrimination. I will elaborate further yet with your background you are well aware of the necessity to keep these intact.

Another amendment that I like (I love them all) is the 6th amendment as that will ensure that the process will be applied equitably for the defendant. This would also enforce the laws. A trial should have been directed by the state of Texas and not replaced by a hand-picked commission by the Federal Government, the Feds had no jurisdiction rights over this murder case yet they stole the body from the state of Texas and denied LHO from receiving what was rightfully his... and that was a fair trial.

You ask about arriving with more of the truth by implementing all the evidentiary exclusions that protect the trial process. You know and I know that is a leading question which falls down a steep abyss. What we did have was a one-sided inquest, in short, LHO would have had to prove himself innocent instead of the Prosecution proving guilt. Justice is never served behind closed doors, justice is never served when only one side provides the evidence, justice is never served when a Defendant cannot face his accuser, and justice is never served when testimony is altered.

If we are to be a nation of laws, then we better have them enforced and equally applied.

 

[MicahJava]

Ah you beat me to that description of a bullet entering the skull and blowing tissue outwards, including parts of the skull.

EDIT: MicahJava, look at the Zapruder film again, frame 312. JFK's head was already looking down just prior to impact the trajectory fits the impact from a point slightly higher and to the right of the EOP

EDIT to Add: With that trajectory there is no "need" for another head shot. Simple when you accept what was discovered in the autopsy. Two shots: one in the back and one in the head.

Oh, you just looked at the Z Film and it seems to you like that could work? No. We've been over this.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, you just looked at the Z Film and it seems to you like that could work? No. We've been over this.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/0WBxCkq.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/r2RUoJL.png[/qimg]

No. You would have to draw your lines accurately, choosing the right frame, and a more accurate representation of the wound you keep dismissing.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Another amendment that I like (I love them all) is the 6th amendment as that will ensure that the process will be applied equitably for the defendant. This would also enforce the laws. A trial should have been directed by the state of Texas and not replaced by a hand-picked commission by the Federal Government, the Feds had no jurisdiction rights over this murder case yet they stole the body from the state of Texas and denied LHO from receiving what was rightfully his... and that was a fair trial.

He would have been hampered from facing his prosecutors by being dead.

 

[No Other]

Exactly. And not just side issues. Take only Marina Oswald. Most or all of her testimony regarding LHO, her pretrial statements to authorities, and much of the physical evidence she personally handed over to authorities, would have been subject to challenge and possible exclusion, because in 1963 Texas had the spousal privilege: the right of the defendant not to have his/her spouse testify against him/her.

Marina Oswald is an interesting case; what I find fascinating is that she needed an Interpreter but the Interpreter's words to Marina were never translated back in English for the record. I believe her Interpreter was from the White Russian community in the Dallas area and they were not in favor of any leaning towards the left whatsoever and that is how LHO has been portrayed.

In April 1996 she wrote (Ladies Home Journal Sept 1988)that : "At the time of the assassination of this great president whom I loved, I was misled by the "evidence" presented to me by government authorities and I assisted in the conviction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. From the new information now available, I am now convinced that he was an FBI informant and believe that he did not kill President Kennedy."

This is what you have when you do not have a trial.

What would have resulted? All or much of what Marina testified to, along with the physical evidence she authenticated, under oath, for the WC would have been excluded. Absent any sworn testimony, Marina's evidence would have been elicited, exclusively, through informal questioning by reporters, researchers, and other self-appointed fact-finders. We'd have a mess of unsworn statements by her. Would such material be more credible than what we have from the WC and HSCA?

Well, that is certainly setting up your straw man with a circular argument. If what you say were to become true, then we might as well throw out of Legal System and let some Arbiter make the decision and move on to the next case. As we know, everybody tells the truth under oath, just look to Clay Shaw.

 

[No Other]

He would have been hampered from facing his prosecutors by being dead.

Just a minor inconvenience.

 

[No Other]

Hey, get in line!

There's a few dozen posts of mine (often with a few dozen points in each) that's he's avoided entirely.

This one come to mind: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835551&postcount=3425

Hank

I am not parked on this forum 24/7. I answer the ones that I see, again the strategy of attempting to load me down with questions is a tactic that allows you to put posts up here like this one. You guys answer each others questions, I do not have that luxury...

 

[No Other]

Hey, get in line!

There's a few dozen posts of mine (often with a few dozen points in each) that's he's avoided entirely.

This one come to mind: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835551&postcount=3425

Hank

I went back and looked at your post.

I will not speculate which eliminates all but two.

You mentioned about throwing out Walthers observation because of lack of corroborating witnesses. That could be the case but her observation never became testimony and therefore it does not qualify to be thrown out as it was never thrown in.

As for Frazier's insistence on the 27" package, Frazier during a 6th floor documentary that was shown on the PBS network ( I believe YouTube has it) said he was able to determine that length due to the way the back seat was divide in the upholstery plus he stated in testimony that LHO was able to cup his hand around the bottom of the package and by default due to LHO size and arm length, the package is well under the needed length for the size of rifle that was found.

 

[No Other]

So the FBI makes no assessments, only recommendations, but within the first week of the assassination they announced that Oswald was the lone assassin, do I have that right?

Breathtaking.

Hank

Yes you do have it right and if you feel that was because due process was performed, then we disagree on still another point. The FBI declaring guilt within 24 hours would have been grounds for mistrial or outright dismissal. An Investigative body declaring guilt and/or non-guilt is beyond their scope. The FBI was to be an impartial collector of information but if your Head of the Department says what he did... he would not be able to pass voir dire if he were a juror. If your collective body cannot pass voir dire, then the evidence that they collect could be tainted. A snake rots at the head first...

 

[OKBob]

[snip]it was run like a Grand Jury and as the old saying goes... "a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich". [snip] they . . . denied LHO from receiving what was rightfully his... and that was a fair trial.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The WC did not operate as a sandwich-indicting grand jury. That is a false, inflammatory analogy. You're confusing two incommensurable domains: the criminal trial process and a government fact-finding commission. A criminal trial does not produce any complete truth. It puts in place multiple protections--a very high standard of proof, many evidentiary exclusions, rules against compelled self-incrimination--in order to protect a living defendant. The truth produced by a criminal trial is inevitably a limited truth and sometimes a highly artificial truth, consistent with our great concern for the presumed-innocent defendant. "Let nine guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent man," and so on.

Oswald was deceased, so he personally was unthreatened by the absence of hearsay exclusions, the spousal privilege, and such. Your position seems to be that, despite Oswald's being beyond danger, the American public would somehow have benefited from a process that filtered all the evidence through the many protections of the criminal process. But that is your begged question. You haven't shown why this would have been a better generator of the truth, beyond your offering abstract paeans to the Bill of Rights.

I don't contend that the WC's process produced any perfect truth. (I believe it arrived, generally, at correct conclusions.) But as between a criminal trial's highly sculpted truth and the WC's more liberal fact-finding, I prefer the latter, since Oswald was defunct and facing another court, if any. The WC still had sworn testimony, many lawyers to conduct the process according to their experience, the ABA President to oversee and object to unfair departures from our norms of justice, and so on.

In sum, you are assuming that the WC would have produced more palatable conclusions if it had been conducted with all criminal-process precautions in place. I reject that assumption because the truth produced by the criminal process is as artificial as other forms of truth. But had the WC been conducted in that way, there would have been vast amounts of evidence excluded and left to the fact-gathering of media reporters, academic and informal researchers, and amateur sleuths: a hodgepodge of unsworn testimony and other disorganized, uncorrelated evidence that would not necessarily have served the American public any better, and quite likely would have served it much worse.

 

[OKBob]

Well, that is certainly setting up your straw man with a circular argument. If what you say were to become true, then we might as well throw out of Legal System and let some Arbiter make the decision and move on to the next case. As we know, everybody tells the truth under oath, just look to Clay Shaw.

Sorry, but you keep begging the question. You claim that the "Legal System"--by which you seem to mean the full criminal process with all its protections and precautions--should have been used to uncover the truth regarding the assassination and the deceased Oswald. Why? Oswald was beyond caring. The criminal process is not a transcendent form of truth-telling. It is a limited mechanism that our society has put in place to balance the interests of justice and the rights of living defendants. Again, please offer reasons, not begged questions, for your preference.

 

[carlitos]

Dead people also lack the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Axxman300]

Nothing in that sentence is accurate. Ask the autopsy doctors, they hated that cowlick crap.

Which doctors? The ones who conducted the actual work and signed off on it, and then confirmed the work was their work at least twice? Those guys?

The guys who photographed and X-rayed the entire process?

You're sad arguments are based on 8 or 9 pictures out of over 40 which have never been seen by the general public, making them feeble at best, and generally incompetent by definition. NOBODY can second guess the autopsy without all of the pictures and a medical degree in forensic pathology.

It takes up to 10 years to become a Forensic Pathologist, that's four to five years of extra school and a one-year residency. That's why an ER doctor doesn't have the final word on the cause of death even if he or she has worked on the person for hours trying to save them. The Autopsy is the last word, sometimes it's a rubber-stamp, sometimes hidden faults are found.

Pathology is a cornerstone for moving modern medicine forward because it logs the mistakes, the useless procedures, and reveals the secrets of the human body so that doctors can do a better job next time.

Pathology is a big deal, and what you're trying to do with Google and Woo-sites is embarrassing.

 

[No Other]

That's not true. You contrasted the Warren Commission's proceedings with the adversarial process of a trial, and argued justice and truth came out on the losing end because of the investigatory non-adversarial process the Commission used:

Contrast and I will use your word, is deployed as a reference point. Adversarial is what I am pitting against the Commission not any other form of trial, that is what I meant by solely.

Hank, why don't you ask me for clarification instead of putting your slant on it? Since you pretty well disagree with me on most elements, it can be taken by me that we are apart and this way we can dispense the hyperbole and actually discuss this topic, if that is not agreeable to you, just let me know...

But as I noted, 99.9% of the issues raised by conspiracy theorists would not have been dealt with at the trial. The defense wouldn't be raising the arguments about multiple shooters, for instance, so the whole argument about conspiracy goes away. Whether the Zapruder film was altered wouldn't be an issue, nor would Oswald's Mexico City visit, or the body alteration theory, or shots from the knoll, etc.

How do you know this?

Oswald would be on trial in an adversarial process for shooting the President. Proving a conspiracy that Oswald was part of would not help Oswald at all. He would still be guilty of the assassination. As his lawyer, you'd need to take the gun out of his hands, and limit yourself to those arguments that introduce reasonable doubt on those issues.

I do not see a sound Defense taking the stance you described but that would be speculation on my part and I am staying away from that. I will let you make them.

So a whole host of side issues to Oswald's guilt or innocence would never be dealt with at trial, and would remain unexplored to this day.Hank

Bottom line.... Would LHO be found guilty or not guilty in an adversarial trial environment?