Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

For 5 days I've been spending my JFK time re-reading testimonies, trying to reconcile them all together in a sequence.

That's part of the problem. Trying to reconcile memories from, in some cases, a third of a century after the fact isn't a solid approach. Your best approach is to stick with the hard evidence and from there move to the earliest statements. And discard all those "testimonies" that conflict.

That's the only real way to solve this case. Your problem with that approach is readily understood by everyone here. Doing it that way doesn't point to a conspiracy, and you so desperately want a conspiracy you will credit anything that points to one, and discard anything that points away from one.

Hank, what is your opinion on this

http://jfk.deeppoliticsforum.com/JFKSecondAutopsy.pdf

It's a opinion piece by a layman who happens to believe in a conspiracy and has no expertise in the subject matter. If I constantly tell you "It doesn't matter what you think" why would I think any more of some opinions by a different conspiracy theorist with no expertise? It doesn't matter what they think either.

Check out page 45 of the essay The Top Secret Second Autopsy of President John F. Kennedy by Bjørn K. Gjerde, under the section "EVIDENCE OF A SECOND AUTOPSY FROM THE TESTIMONIES".

Do you want to discuss more than page 45?

No?

Ok, on page 45 we find an issue that isn't mentioned by the author. Memories from a third of a century after the event are bound to be hazy and error-ridden. The testimony cited is from 1996 to the ARRB. We've discussed this at least a few dozen times and pointed out the problems with that testimony. Not just the testimony cited on page 45, but all testimony to the ARRB. It is bound to be error-prone and ignoring that to make a case (as the author you cite does) does JFK a great disservice. This is only a small part of why conspiracy 'researchers' have such a poor reputation.

And both O'Neill and Sibert testified they believed the autopsy was over before the embalmers started in any case. But they disagreed on the time it was over in their recollections from more than three decades distance to the assassination.

GUNN: What is your best recollection of the time that you left Bethesda on the night of November 23rd - 22nd/23rd?
SIBERT: I would say it was sometime between 11:00 and midnight. That’s about as near as I can place the time. ...
Q: But it was your impression that the autopsy had been completed?
SIBERT: Yes.
Q: And were people from Gawler’s doing anything with the body at the time that you left?
SIBERT: Not that I can recall. I don’t recall them starting to wheel the body out or anything like that. If we had thought there was any more to go on in the way of an autopsy, why, O’Neill and I wouldn’t have left. It wasn’t necessary that we rush over to the lab. We figured that was the termination of the autopsy.

GUNN: Is it your understanding that you were present through the time that the autopsy was completed?
O’NEILL: Totally and absolutely...
GUNN: Approximately what time, to the best of your recollection, did the autopsy itself conclude?
O’NEILL: Physically, the autopsy concluded somewhere shortly after midnight, I believe it was. In that general area. Now, I don’t- can’t be too much more specific. Maybe 12:15. Maybe 1:00 a.m. But it was over and done with

So even in the small bit quoted, the two FBI agents differ in their recollection. That is neither surprising nor worthy of note. But for some reason you think it's worthy attempting to reconcile. Good luck with that.

What do you think about O'Neil questionable claim that he was present after the autopsy even late enough to see the dressing? That could be totally false and his statements have caused quite the confusion for me.

It's part and parcel of the problem I've been speaking about for a year or more to you. You can't rely on recollections from decades after the fact. You, however, do pick and choose which recollections you want to rely on, as does the author of the piece you cite.

It's been mentioned before that false memories can be implanted in witnesses merely by the way a question is asked. I refer you to pages 26-27 in the same article, and the initial testimony of a man named Vince Madonia to the ARRB.

First interview 06/25/96
When asked by ARRB staff whether he developed any autopsy film himself, after a pause, Madonia said no. When asked whether any of his people developed any autopsy photography, after another pause he said that he was not sure... When asked whether he remembered photographic work related to the JFK autopsy being done after that weekend, during the one month period following the assassination weekend, he said that yes, agents did come back for some more photos which “may have been about the autopsy” during subsequent weeks, during a couple of subsequent visits. Other than the subsequent visits taking place, he could not remember details...

But by the time of his second interview five months later, his recollection has changed and become much more detailed and he remembers far more:
Second interview 11/27/96
Activity at NPC Weekend of Assassination: Remembers 3 full days of photographic activity, which began the evening of the assassination prior to midnight. Federal agents from both the FBI and Secret Service (a total of 2 or 3 people, he estimated) were present these three days to ensure tight control over films, and to prevent unauthorized reproduction. No one went home the night of the assassination - people worked straight through that first night. He believes he saw Robert Knudsen sometime that weekend, but is not sure when. He does remember that some personnel in the White House lab unit developed autopsy photography that weekend, as well as motorcade photography from the time of the assassination until and including arrival at a hospital in Texas (and removal of the President from the limousine); however, he does not remember any details of the President’s wounds from any of this photography the weekend of the assassination. He does remember development of color negatives, and color prints that weekend; he does not remember development of color positive transparencies. He does remember development of 35 mm film and 120 film, as well as a B & W film pack (12 ea 4" X 5") that weekend; he does not remember any other 4" X 5" photography that weekend, such as 4" X 5" color positive transparencies in duplex holders.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how memory works and a familiarity with the results of Elizabeth Loftus' studies would understand anything said at the follow-up interview is completely unreliable.

But your cited author ignores all that, and writes, bizarrely: "Thus, Madonia seems to largely corroborate Ms. Spencer’s and Knudsen’s accounts of the event..."

Nyaah. Madonia recalled stuff he was asked about five months earlier and denied recalling in the earlier interview. That's exactly how false memories work.

Another thing I have learned: Joe Hagan, John Van Hoesen, and Tom Robinson all corroborate eachother in saying they witnessed the autopsy while sitting on the bleachers starting very early around 8 PM, just as Kennedy's head examination was still being done.

Yawn. You cited that before. And you are still citing from the recollections made 33 years or more after the fact. So what?

Joe Hagan even told Harrison Livingstone that the mahogany casket from Gawler's funeral home was delivered to the morgue much later after they arrived, in the "evening".

What's the problem? The casket was delivered much later after they arrived. The autopsy finished about 11:00pm on the 22nd, the embalming team entered the autopsy room sometime thereafter, and according to the contemporaneous evidence, the casket arrived about 2:30am on Saturday morning.

Hagan's statement to Livingstone that this happened in the "evening" isn't a problem. 2:30 in the morning in November in Washington it's still dark out. And Hagan hadn't been to bed yet.

Evening: c : the period from sunset or the evening meal to bedtime
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evening

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Hank,

MJ's just undermining his stupid EOP/silent weapon/2nd head wound theory with this mortician red-herring excursion.

His inability to comprehend basic logic has him quoting from sources wherein the sequence of the autopsy and undertaker business plays into the older, silly theory that the body was altered to cover bullet wounds from the front, and to frame Oswald. MJ has claimed he doesn't believe this, yet by proxy he now does weather he wants to admit it or not.

Bottom line: If MJ doesn't believe the President was shot three times from the front and does not believe the body was altered prior to the autopsy then he is forced to admit that the sequence that night was: Autopsy> Morticians>Humes calls Dallas>>Body is processed and placed in casket> Body to moved out of Bethesda. Morticians began working exactly at 11PM or later is inconsequential since we know when they finished. JFK was never out of sight of RFK, and key Kennedy people.

What we're seeing here is a pathetic display of straw-grasping.

 

[bknight]

Just an attempt to prolong the conversation in an belief he will dig up a factoid that supports his belief. Advising him to quit is honest, but he won't quit because he has too much time invested in purporting an alleged conspiracy.

 

[OKBob]

His inability to comprehend basic logic has him quoting from sources wherein the sequence of the autopsy and undertaker business plays into the older, silly theory that the body was altered to cover bullet wounds from the front, and to frame Oswald.

This inability to grasp, or care about, basic logic and argumentative proprieties is really a constant with conspiracy types. Recently, Robert Harris was confronted on the alt.assassination.jfk list with Jay Utah's refutations of him here a couple of years ago. He responded with the same non-answers to which he treated Jay's responses at the time. No growth.

 

[Axxman300]

This inability to grasp, or care about, basic logic and argumentative proprieties is really a constant with conspiracy types. Recently, Robert Harris was confronted on the alt.assassination.jfk list with Jay Utah's refutations of him here a couple of years ago. He responded with the same non-answers to which he treated Jay's responses at the time. No growth.

I spent over 20 years on the other side of this issue. I understand the game - and it is a game.

The problem is the intellectual breakdown caused when you buy into a line of thinking without looking at the facts, and dismissing half of the information because it comes from "the government". This is why you have JFK CT books where the President was shot because he was going to pull out of Vietnam, was going to reveal the "Truth" about UFOs, because he was a Catholic President who was going to out Free Masons, because he was going to reveal a automobile engine that was powered by water, and so on and so on.

Once someone buys into the JFK CT Holy Trinity: Warren Commission is all lies, there was a second gunman in Dealey Plaza, Oswald was a patsy - it's all downhill from there.

 

[bknight]

I spent over 20 years on the other side of this issue. I understand the game - and it is a game.

The problem is the intellectual breakdown caused when you buy into a line of thinking without looking at the facts, and dismissing half of the information because it comes from "the government". This is why you have JFK CT books where the President was shot because he was going to pull out of Vietnam, was going to reveal the "Truth" about UFOs, because he was a Catholic President who was going to out Free Masons, because he was going to reveal a automobile engine that was powered by water, and so on and so on.

Once someone buys into the JFK CT Holy Trinity: Warren Commission is all lies, there was a second gunman in Dealey Plaza, Oswald was a patsy - it's all downhill from there.

Ahmen: thumbsup:

 

[OKBob]

Once someone buys into the JFK CT Holy Trinity: Warren Commission is all lies, there was a second gunman in Dealey Plaza, Oswald was a patsy - it's all downhill from there.

This is undoubtedly true. But then there are those, like you, who, having bought in, at some point extricate themselves by buying out. What accounts for those who survive CT and those who don't?

Surely it's some combination of education, native ability, and the will to look at both sides of a question and read widely.

By the way, perhaps it's been mentioned here, but Robert Oswald, Lee's, brother, died a few days ago, aged 83. One more non-CT departs the stage.

 

[Axxman300]

This is undoubtedly true. But then there are those, like you, who, having bought in, at some point extricate themselves by buying out. What accounts for those who survive CT and those who don't?

Surely it's some combination of education, native ability, and the will to look at both sides of a question and read widely.

By the way, perhaps it's been mentioned here, but Robert Oswald, Lee's, brother, died a few days ago, aged 83. One more non-CT departs the stage.

For me my extrication came in 1996 when I went to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, and looked out the window next to the sniper's nest, and saw that it was a ridiculously easy shot. I was godsmacked at how stupid I'd been, and did an immediate post mortem:

1 - I had assumed that all of those authors who'd written all of those CT books had done their research. They had not.

2 - I assumed that those authors had been objective. They clearly were not. Most would go on to write other CT books, each more wild than the last. (Jim Mars is the best example of a man who's never met a conspiracy he won't try to sell books with).

3 - My personal standards for factual information were low-to-nonexistent. While I had backed into CT as a child, I'd never bothered to question those who spread these theories anywhere as hard as I'd question those who had opposite beliefs.

4 - A few years later I did a series of ride-alongs with my local police department (everyone should do this at least once BTW), and I learned that there is no such thing as a perfect investigation. I learned that cops are not perfect and can have biases. Even now I have never seen a movie or TV show that accurately portrays police work anywhere close to 65%.

Hardcore CTists are Narcissists who hold on to their beliefs because they get off on conflict. It's not about being right or even telling the truth - it's all about winning over people they feel superior to.

This is the best description of a functional narcissist I've read yet:

http://reachoutrecovery.com/recovery-topics/abuse/10-ways-narcissists-take-control/

The ten ways?

1.Gaslighting
2. Projecting negative feelings on you
3. Creating Word-Salad Conflicts (blowing smoke)
4. Nitpicking and Game-Changing
5. Misrepresenting your thoughts
6. Changing the Subject.
7. Smearing & Stalking
8. Triangulating
9. Preemptive Defense Posturing
10. Bait & Sugarcoating.

The internet has been a boon to CT-Narcissists because they can now wander from message board to message board spouting off their hackeyed theories to gain followers, and to troll normal people.

After Dallas my view that JFK had been killed as part of a conspiracy was no longer supported by the basic facts as I now knew them. There was no way I could tell people there was a conspiracy that I knew did not exist (at least as far as the evidence shows). The biggest change for me is that now I can explain the basics of the assassination using bonafide facts, and the story no longer changes as it did with CT's (CT's always change the narrative, which is now an obvious red flag).

 

[OKBob]

Thanks, Axxman. The common theme in your personal history as you tell it is that you came to think about what you'd read and believed. You reached points in your life where you turned around and questioned what you'd previously accepted. That's not the case with many of these CTs. When they encounter things that run counter to their beliefs, they dig in and cry "paid shill!" or "CIA plant!" Their belief systems are more important than facts, consilience, and logic.

 

[Syameese]

For me my extrication came in 1996 when I went to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, and looked out the window next to the sniper's nest, and saw that it was a ridiculously easy shot.

I was there in 1997 and my reaction was the same. Also, when I was there there was a really tacky (imo) ride people could take in a open limousine that would drive at motorcade pace past the Book Depository - and would play the sound of shots as it reached the scene of the shooting . I was actually looking out the window next to the sniper's nest when it did one of these slow passes and I reckon it would have been harder to miss than hit from that range.

I have just finished listening to "The Kennedy Detail" and Clint Hill makes the point that it wasn't until he actually went to the 6th Floor Museum and saw how easy the shot was that he finally accepted that there was nothing more he could have done that day.

 

[MicahJava]

"Just look at how easy it would be for Sirhan shoot RFK while only standing a few feet away! To hell with your powder burns behind the ear!" -Axxman

 

[MicahJava]

I was actually looking out the window next to the sniper's nest when it did one of these slow passes and I reckon it would have been harder to miss than hit from that range.

What?

 

[MicahJava]

It's continuously difficult for me to track the autopsy timeline in the face of so much contradictory evidence. Doug Horne theorized that the throat wound was discovered by the autopsy doctors at 11:00 - 11:45 PM, which may be close enough to midnight to justify the 11/23/1963 date on Dr. Humes' handwritten note (and, after all, Dr. Perry recalled a second later phone call that Humes never mentioned). Still trying to completely reconcile all of the evidence now that I understand that the Gawler's team Joe Hagan, John Van Hoesen, and Tom Robinson all recalled viewing the autopsy from the very beginning at 8:00 PM.

But, of course, all that is an appendix compared to the fact that so many witness stated the autopsy doctors discussed the original throat wound at the autopsy and even probed it.

The Barnum diary is dated 11/29/1963, it mentions a back wound and possibly that it came from a bullet which exited the throat, and yet the only publicly available information about the existence of a back wound came a few days later in December. You could try saying that Barnum somehow overheard some people in Bethesda discussing the autopsy, but at that point why not accept his story about Dr. Burkley coming in and discussing the autopsy findings among them "around midnight"?

This written record should not exist if it comes from 11/29/1963, and yet it does.

Not that you even need Barnum's written summary of events to acknowledge the other evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's continuously difficult for me to track the autopsy timeline in the face of so much contradictory evidence. Doug Horne theorized that the throat wound was discovered by the autopsy doctors at 11:00 - 11:45 PM, which may be close enough to midnight to justify the 11/23/1963 date on Dr. Humes' handwritten note (and, after all, Dr. Perry recalled a second later phone call that Humes never mentioned). Still trying to completely reconcile all of the evidence now that I understand that the Gawler's team Joe Hagan, John Van Hoesen, and Tom Robinson all recalled viewing the autopsy from the very beginning at 8:00 PM.

But, of course, all that is an appendix compared to the fact that so many witness stated the autopsy doctors discussed the original throat wound at the autopsy and even probed it.

The Barnum diary is dated 11/29/1963, it mentions a back wound and possibly that it came from a bullet which exited the throat, and yet the only publicly available information about the existence of a back wound came a few days later in December. You could try saying that Barnum somehow overheard some people in Bethesda discussing the autopsy, but at that point why not accept his story about Dr. Burkley coming in and discussing the autopsy findings among them?

This written record should not exist if it comes from 11/29/1963, and yet it does.

Not that you even need Barnum's written summary of events to acknowledge the other evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound.

Ok, let's break this post down, and see if we can work out why there is "so much" contradictory evidence...

1) Your first paragraph boils down to: "Unless people make specific notes of time, they won't be able to times accurately", which is not exactly a surprise. You mention a single document, and try to infer timings from a date, which would be the date of the document, not the event. If the autopsy ended at 23:45, the documents would be dated when they were written, which would likely take more than 15 minutes.

2) You discuss the throat wound being examined, probed, and discussed in the autopsy? I have to ask: "So what?" Of course it was examined. It was a wound on the body under examination. Unfortunately the tracheoctomy obscured evidence of it being a bullet wound, but we already know that probing was not a suitable method of tracing the complete path, because the entrance point was also probed. The doctors reached a reasonable conclusion on the evidence to hand, and revised it later when more information was gathered. That they did not behead the president to see if two wounds connected on a single track that had been obscured, is neither unreasonable, or contradictory to the records.

3) You discuss the Barnum diary. Given his role at the autopsy, the contents of the diary is reasonable. He observed more than would have made public, likely including conversations. There is no "somehow" about it. You want his diary to be relevant because he was a witness, so why is it a surprise he witnessed things?
However, even if he was spoken to directly, what does that leave us? Evidence of a conspiracy? Or evidence that he was a layman, offering his understanding of an autopsy performed by others, and described to him in a conversation? That is several layers of separation, for which we have to make allowances for, even if he did so as accurately and honesty as possible.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What?

It was an easy shot. The odds were in favour of a remotely competent marksman.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Just look at how easy it would be for Sirhan shoot RFK while only standing a few feet away! To hell with your powder burns behind the ear!" -Axxman

"Oh wait. RFK was turning to shake hands, exposing his head, ear and all? And the 'powder burn' is not as conclusive of distance as conspiracy theorists describe? My mistake, obviously I have learned the folly of falsely attributed quotes, which will only serve to make me look foolish, and willing to believe any old conspiracy theory. Allow me to apologise profusely for this meaningless side track." -MicahJava

 

[MicahJava]

It was an easy shot. The odds were in favour of a remotely competent marksman.

Even with the iron sights? I maintain that such a shot would be very difficult, partially because the size of Kennedy's head would appear to be smaller than the front sight. People look like ants from the Sixth Floor window. I maintain that this is an important question even though I also tend to assume the 6.5 fragments in evidence were used in the shooting due to the presence of human blood/tissue.

 

[MicahJava]

2) You discuss the throat wound being examined, probed, and discussed in the autopsy? I have to ask: "So what?" Of course it was examined. It was a wound on the body under examination. Unfortunately the tracheoctomy obscured evidence of it being a bullet wound, but we already know that probing was not a suitable method of tracing the complete path, because the entrance point was also probed. The doctors reached a reasonable conclusion on the evidence to hand, and revised it later when more information was gathered. That they did not behead the president to see if two wounds connected on a single track that had been obscured, is neither unreasonable, or contradictory to the records.

Tomtomkent, when I say "probe", I am referring to a malleable rod used for the specific purpose of gunshot wound examinations. If the tracheotomy was probed, then that implies knowledge of the original small bullet wound there.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

For me my extrication came in 1996 when I went to the 6th Floor Museum in Dallas, and looked out the window next to the sniper's nest, and saw that it was a ridiculously easy shot. I was godsmacked at how stupid I'd been, and did an immediate post mortem:

1 - I had assumed that all of those authors who'd written all of those CT books had done their research. They had not.

2 - I assumed that those authors had been objective. They clearly were not. Most would go on to write other CT books, each more wild than the last. (Jim Mars is the best example of a man who's never met a conspiracy he won't try to sell books with).

3 - My personal standards for factual information were low-to-nonexistent. While I had backed into CT as a child, I'd never bothered to question those who spread these theories anywhere as hard as I'd question those who had opposite beliefs.

4 - A few years later I did a series of ride-alongs with my local police department (everyone should do this at least once BTW), and I learned that there is no such thing as a perfect investigation. I learned that cops are not perfect and can have biases. Even now I have never seen a movie or TV show that accurately portrays police work anywhere close to 65%.

Hardcore CTists are Narcissists who hold on to their beliefs because they get off on conflict. It's not about being right or even telling the truth - it's all about winning over people they feel superior to.

This is the best description of a functional narcissist I've read yet:

http://reachoutrecovery.com/recovery-topics/abuse/10-ways-narcissists-take-control/

The ten ways?

1.Gaslighting
2. Projecting negative feelings on you
3. Creating Word-Salad Conflicts (blowing smoke)
4. Nitpicking and Game-Changing
5. Misrepresenting your thoughts
6. Changing the Subject.
7. Smearing & Stalking
8. Triangulating
9. Preemptive Defense Posturing
10. Bait & Sugarcoating.

The internet has been a boon to CT-Narcissists because they can now wander from message board to message board spouting off their hackeyed theories to gain followers, and to troll normal people.

After Dallas my view that JFK had been killed as part of a conspiracy was no longer supported by the basic facts as I now knew them. There was no way I could tell people there was a conspiracy that I knew did not exist (at least as far as the evidence shows). The biggest change for me is that now I can explain the basics of the assassination using bonafide facts, and the story no longer changes as it did with CT's (CT's always change the narrative, which is now an obvious red flag).

This is a great post, and very informative.

Unfortunately, it looks like MJ has taken this as a how-to guide.

6. Changing the Subject.

"Just look at how easy it would be for Sirhan shoot RFK while only standing a few feet away! To hell with your powder burns behind the ear!" -Axxman

 

[MicahJava]

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi

We've been seeing exactly that from MicahJava since he started posting here.

The arguments about when the autopsy ended is just the latest in a long line of failed arguments about minutia by MJ to attempt to prove a grand conspiracy.

Hank

Apparently Hank doesn't think it's strange when Dr. Boswell CHANGED HIS STORY MID-INTERVIEW to the HSCA and didn't acknowledge that "mistake".

We have another possible "slip of the tongue" in Dr. Humes' 2/13/1996 ARRB deposition, as pointed out by Bjørn K. Gjerde:

A. Let me interrupt there. May I?

Q. Sure.


A. My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung.
Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck.

It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn?

Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that. I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

Slashing open the neck? Like if Kennedy's body was still under your control?

This taps into a possible innocent explanation for the formulation of the "early throat wound discovery" lie, as Gary Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham raised in their 2003 essay How Five Investigations Into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got It Wrong:

But why would the surgeons have pled ignorance? Put another way, What demanded they play ignorant while they still had access to the President? A certain answer seems impossible, but a couple of possibilities come to mind. First, had the surgeons had clear knowledge both back and throat wounds, it’s likely they would have felt obligated to trace the track(s) by dissecting the wounds, if only to insure that the tracks were connected. There was apparently considerable doubt during the autopsy that they did connect. For the FBI report states that the autopsists found there was a 45-degree downward track from the inshoot at the back.[57] Had surgical dissection confirmed so steep a path, the team would have then faced explaining the whereabouts of two penetrating bullets from different directions and, of course, the implications.

Moreover, as will be discussed, under oath Pierre Finck testified that an unnamed Army general who was in the morgue, but who was not a doctor, had ordered them not to dissect JFK’s back wound. It is not as if the doctors were looking for excuses not to do surgical dissections, or abiding family concerns. As Finck put it in an interview for JAMA in 1993, “The Kennedy family did not want us to examine [Kennedy’s uninjured] abdominal cavity, but the abdominal cavity was examined.”[58][59] And indeed, JFK was completely disemboweled. Thus, Kennedy’s uninjured organs got a thorough vetting while his injured organs were given a complete pass.[60]

This course might have seemed reasonable to a nervous general. But one imagines it had the potential to make the surgeons nervous about having to later explain their surgical selections under the searching scrutiny of medical peers who hadn’t been in the morgue or the military. By feigning ignorance, the autopsists would have been able to neatly evade two problems: first, the unpleasant task of informing a meddlesome superior officer, the unnamed Army general, that they had no choice but to get scalpel proof of whether Kennedy’s wounds had one author or two; second, having to later answer colleague questions about their peculiar decision making.