On Apr 28, 2:58 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way and the CT
way.
Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would probably say,
"We don't know."
CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill in the
blanks. The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
witnesses have testified repeatedly.
Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
CE1126:
Just my opinion (which just about everyone disagrees with and I could care less), but I believe Specter knew that Burkley had ordered Humes to make several false statements in their autopsy report.
For example, the official story that they didn't know the bullet transited JFK's lower neck/upper back until the next morning (when they supposedly talked to Perry) is so ridiculous that they insulted the intelligence of those who they hoped would believe it....but, alas, there are many who did...and do, scholars included.
I'm not going to argue this theory...been there done that too many times already...anyway, no one here believes anything anyone else says that conflicts with their own theories.
Why would they have needed to? Burkley wasn't one of the treating
physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
If (god forbid) you were shot and killed on a public street, what are
the chances that your GP would be asked to testify at any hearing
related to the murder?
Burkley was the only common denominator between ER and Autopsy. He verified he saw the same wounds and signed the Death Certificate. However, he was neither a ER doctor nor a pathologist. In an interview a few years later Burkley indicated a belief there was more than one shooter, but never explained why. So it is curious he was not asked to testify on the record. A second shooter does not automatically prove conspiracy. The Donahue Theory proves why.
>>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>> Neither were FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill. All three would have
>> undoubtedly blown the single bullet theory to pieces.
>> Burgundy
> How so?
First because the FBI agents SAW that the back wound was below the top of the shoulders. And Burkley said the wound was at T-3 on the death certificate. The SBT requires that the bullet enter ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
> Why would they have needed to? Burkley wasn't one of the treating
> physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
> family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
I like your cover-up thinking, but can you PROVE any of it?
How did he see the back wound?
> If (god forbid) you were shot and killed on a public street, what are
> the chances that your GP would be asked to testify at any hearing
> related to the murder?
Very high if the GP were attending at the moment of death and signed the death certificate. Courts are kinda funny about that sort of stuff you know.
> On Apr 28, 2:58 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
> There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way and the CT
> way.
> Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would probably say,
> "We don't know."
> CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill in the
> blanks. The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
> Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
> > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
> Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
> CE1126:
I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
to call him a witness. He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
didn't match the SB, so necessary to Oswald's lone guilt, so they
simply didn't call him. Problem solved.
I am just continually dumbfounded that this crap is tolerated by
Lners.
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
> Yes, it smells that way.
> Just my opinion (which just about everyone disagrees with and I could care
> less), but I believe Specter knew that Burkley had ordered Humes to make
> several false statements in their autopsy report.
Your conspiracy theory keeps expanding every week. Next week you'll claim that LBJ called up Humes and told him to lie.
> For example, the official story that they didn't know the bullet transited
> JFK's lower neck/upper back until the next morning (when they supposedly
> talked to Perry) is so ridiculous that they insulted the intelligence of
> those who they hoped would believe it....but, alas, there are many who
> did...and do, scholars included.
> I'm not going to argue this theory...been there done that too many times
> already...anyway, no one here believes anything anyone else says that
> conflicts with their own theories.
> On Apr 29, 8:08 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2:58 pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>> There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way and the CT
>> way.
>> Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would probably say,
>> "We don't know."
>> CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill in the
>> blanks. The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
>> Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
>> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
>> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>> Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
>> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
>> CE1126:
> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
> to call him a witness. He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
> Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
> witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
> on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
> the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
> Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
> didn't match the SB, so necessary to Oswald's lone guilt, so they
> simply didn't call him. Problem solved.
You are on the right track, but you have no basis to claim that the hole in the shirt and jacket was at T-3.
The hole in the autopsy photographs is higher than T-3.
So you'd have to become an alterationist. Then I could claim that Burkley wrote "T1" and someone changed it to "T3."
> On Apr 29, 8:08 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 2:58 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
> > There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way and the CT
> > way.
> > Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would probably say,
> > "We don't know."
> > CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill in the
> > blanks. The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
> > What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> > other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> > shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> > wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
> > Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
> > CE1126:
> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
> to call him a witness.
Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based on suspicion.
There's no real evidence there.
Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes and Boswell.
>He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
> Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
> witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
> on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
> the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
> Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
> didn't match the SB, so necessary to Oswald's lone guilt, so they
> simply didn't call him. Problem solved.
Do you really think that the hole in the jacket (gray line
here):
> I am just continually dumbfounded that this crap is tolerated by
> Lners.
And I'm amazed at how much CTs rely on suspicion and "mind
reading."
If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
story there, Thalia?
A couple of thoughts. (1) They had the official autopsy reports and
the testimony of the doctors involved. So, no need for Burkley. (2)
They might have been worried about having NON-assassination medical
information about President Kennedy getting into the record.
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president. He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the Harper Fragment's disposition is quite inconsistent with his performance of solemn duties earlier.
> Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
> CE1126:
If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim. Otherwise, if we look at it from his perspective, he likely would have remained much better off having said nothing at all.
>On Apr 29, 7:30=A0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 8:08=A0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 28, 2:58=A0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way=
> and the CT
>> > way.
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would pro=
>bably say,
>> > "We don't know."
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill=
> in the
>> > blanks. =A0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
>> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0What knowledge could Burkley have had that w=
>as unknown to
>> > other witnesses called by the WC? =A0 Burkley didn't witness the
>> > shooting. =A0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> > wound. =A0He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, bu=
>t failed to
>> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =A0The WC published it as
>> > CE1126:
>> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
>> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
>> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
>> to call him a witness.
> Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based on suspicion.
>There's no real evidence there.
> Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes and Boswell.
Hi Jean,
I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild" explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
Fast forward to Humes' WC testimony. If you read page 367 carefully he all but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/lower neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wound could only have occurred at the instant he was shot and still had a robust heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision nor around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet transited until the infamous Humes-Perry phone call the next AM was a huge fabrication.
There is also a mountain (I won't bore you with a list, but the list is not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about the throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and that the bullet exited the throat.
You may disagree with that premise, but just for argument's sake let's say I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Why would they fabricate such a thing"?
I'm almost certain the answer is tied in with not only why the WC didn't call Burkley in to testify, but also why the back wound location described in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to match the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy photo, not to mention why the description of that wound in the autopsy report was not definitive.
I know, "wow"!
:-)
I believe they were extremely worried that the back wound to throat wound trajectory "seemed to be" totally inconsistent with a shot from six floors up.
As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect position (they didn't realize he'd been leaning forwward) the back wound seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
...and they didn't want to announce that ominous possibility, at least at that time. IOW, they didn't want the nation to think there might have been multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one orchestrated by the Soviets.
That's why they led the FBI to believe the bullet popped out of the back wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wound was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and throat wound all lined up.
And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissue between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really) why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S & O] even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who first noticed it [the back wound]!
If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcement on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the autopsy proper began.
The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed, the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transited until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya, sure.
That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget what day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if not what time that phone call took place.
But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
That's why Specter never asked Greer WHY he didn't give Humes the clothes....Specter knew Humes saw them. And how dumb that would have been for Greer to have them stuffed in his locker at the White House vs. giving them to Humes! What a silly official story. Note that Greer told the HSCA he gave them to SSA Rybka, but did Rybka ever confirm that? :-)
But, IMO, they [HB&F] were clever, not dumb like the CTs and most cowlick entry LNs like to think, so they did the following:
They made sure all the "surviving" (remember the body was gone as well as the photographs) evidence matched...well sort of. That included the clothes, Boswell's face sheet, the death certificate, and even the autopsy report.
That's why the description of the back wound was so inappropriate....the scalpula? The mastoid process? The acromion process? I think any ME would agree those are poor anatomical referrences (my guess is that C7 or T1, for example, would have been better, at least for the vertical location).
And those poor choices for anatomical referrences of course neatly fit the opinion most here have re. Humes' competency, or lack thereof.
But, IMO, they "intentionally" ambiguously described the back wound in their report...so no one could match it easily to the hole in the clothes or where the death certificate and face sheet showed it to be.
I think Humes (and Burkley?) was as clever as most here think he was incompetent.
All that being said, Humes would not have made such decisions on his own...he just didn't have the rank.
Now, Burkley, on the other hand, was a two-star Rear Admiral at the time, and was still the Kennedy family's personal physician.....wielding a lot of power...especially around lower ranking Naval officers like Humes and Boswell, not to mention, Stover. He would have been in the position (whether or not he was being truthful we can't be absolutely certain, but he actually said he was in charge) to make decisions like that.....
......and that's why I think the WC didn't call him to testify....it's too difficult to get more than one participant of a perhaps ill-advised affair to describe what happened exactly the same way.
"If" it happened like that (it's easy to say they shouldn't have done what they did...but we weren't there), maybe they were too paranoid and decided to err on the side of caution...as opposed to telling Hoover and the FBI that night there "just may" have been other shooters?
It's too late now to find out exactly what happened.
John C.
Oh, P.S. for Marsh.....before you try to take this apart, tell us once more about your "no-hits-to-the-back-of-his-head"...and "Humes et al missed seeing ON THE BODY a bullet "entry" wound above his right eye that you were able to detect on copies of the photos" theories before you comment on my theory...so that we get a better idea of how you think and
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
> Why would they have needed to? Burkley wasn't one of the treating
> physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
> family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
> If (god forbid) you were shot and killed on a public street, what are
> the chances that your GP would be asked to testify at any hearing
> related to the murder?
