Dr Burkley - seriously Lners? - alt.assassination.jfk

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.assassination.jfk
Message from discussion Dr Burkley - seriously Lners?
Path: pr3ni4468pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!panix!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Dr Burkley - seriously Lners?
Date: 4 May 2012 17:57:09 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 419
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <4fa445c5@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <c670f5fb-5c4b-4e19-987d-41e057f3199f@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com> <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d964b@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <jnrm2r02eup@drn.newsguy.com> <10719a1f-d4b4-4dce-bd6a-d212f69b36a6@z6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 21:57:09 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <10719a1f-d4b4-4dce-bd6a-d212f69b36a6@z6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 5/3/2012 7:39 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On May 2, 4:33 pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com>  wrote:
>> In article<700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 30, 4:27=A0pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com>  wrote:
>>>> In article<e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.c=
>>> om>,
>>>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>>>> On Apr 29, 7:30=3DA0pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au>  wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 29, 8:08=3DA0am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2:58=3DA0pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au>  wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 There are two ways to answer thi=
>>> s -- the LN way=3D
>>>>> and the CT
>>>>>>> way.
>>
>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Since the answer is unknown, mos=
>>> t LNs would pro=3D
>>>>> bably say,
>>>>>>> "We don't know."
>>
>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 CTs seem to let suspicion and mi=
>>> nd-reading fill=3D
>>>>> in the
>>>>>>> blanks. =3DA0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afr=
>>> aid
>>>>>>> Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>>>>>>>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0What knowledge could Burkle=
>>> y have had that w=3D
>>>>> as unknown to
>>>>>>> other witnesses called by the WC? =3DA0 Burkley didn't witness the
>>>>>>> shooting. =3DA0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>>>>>>> wound. =3DA0He was present during part of the autopsy, but other aut=
>>> opsy
>>>>>>> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>>>>>>> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-pag=
>>> e on 11/27/63, bu=3D
>>>>> t failed to
>>>>>>> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =3DA0The WC published it a=
>>> s
>>>>>>> CE1126:
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol=
>>> ...
>>
>>>>>>> Jean
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based on suspicio=
>>> n.
>>>>> There's no real evidence there.
>>
>>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 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 al=
>>> l
>>>> but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/lowe=
>>> r
>>>> 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 robus=
>>> t
>>>> 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 hug=
>>> e
>>>> fabrication.
>>
>>> Hi, John,
>>
>>>             I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surprise to
>>> you, I'm sure).
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> ..I didn't know how to take you not replying [until now] to my rather
>> [check that, how about "extremely"] controversial explanation/theory for
>> why Burkley didn't testify before the WC......I was worried you didn't
>> even want to dignify it with a response. Note that if others had done
>> that, it wouldn't have bothered me, but you...I was concerned. Now, I'm
>> Ok.
>
>           John, I think that the last time we spoke I mentioned that I try
> to stay out of the medical threads and other technical areas. It's nothing
> personal.
>
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> As far as you disagreeing with me, of course I'm not surprised. Had you
>> agreed you would have joined a group of two [out of how many
>> researchers...hundreds?] who believe what I posited is feasible...and one
>> is myself. But the other one is extremely well respected in the JFK
>> research community, but I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name...hi
>> P....., hope you're doing well. (I think he still does read most of my
>> posts...no word yet from M....? Disappointing, but not surprised).
>>
>>>> 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 sa=
>>> y
>>>> 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 describe=
>>> d
>>>> 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 wa=
>>> s
>>>> 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 floor=
>>> s
>>>> 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 bee=
>>> n
>>>> 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.
>>
>>>           I just don't buy it, John, sorry.  How would Humes have
>>> concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
>>
>> My bad. Evidently they didn't conceal the use of metal probes from S&  O
>> [Sibert's ARRB 9-11-77 interview, p. 111]. But, again, what they did
>> conceal from S&  O was the fact they knew the bullet transited. IOW, Humes
>> told them that the probes didn't prove that the bullet penetrated any more
>> than an inch or so. In my defense, S&  O's report doesn't mention any metal probes....go
>> figure.
>
>              The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn once said this about S&  O:
>
>        QUOTE:
>>>>>
>       "The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we
> understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will
> call is the profound underscore *profound* unreliabillity of eyewitness
> testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else
> that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35-year-old
> eyewitness testimony.
>
>       "I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in
> phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the
> autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and
> they are profoundly unreliable.
>
>       "There were two, the two, there were two FBI agents who were present
> at the autopsy. They basically, I will exaggerate this, they were with
> each other all night long and they came out and they wrote a report about
> what they had seen. I took the depositions of these two people, 35 years
> later. Their stories just were not the same story.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
>>
>>> I don't recall any mention of
>>> "metal probes" until years later,
>>
>> Humes mentions probes [2WCH361], but sticks to the story those probes
>> didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
>> of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
>> go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
>> creating a false passage.
>>
>> But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
>> out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
>> evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
>> to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
>> afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
>>
>> My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
>> the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
>> probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
>
>            I think they were genuinely puzzled, John.  I just don't see
> any plausible way around that.
>
>>
>>> and no photos of them, right?
>>
>> Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
>> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
>> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
>> not.
>
>              I'd bet on "misremembering."
>
>>
>> But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
>> and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
>> interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
>> his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
>> bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
>> to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
>>
>> And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
>> them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
>> common sense tell us they did.
>
>          Not if they were afraid of creating a false passage.
>
>>
>>> I don't
>>> think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
>>> general way.
>>
>> I don't think all of you are giving Humes enough credit....respectfully
>> (in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
>> (supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
>> cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
>> in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
>> etc., or (CT's) not seeing "other" bullet entry wounds in his head, etc.).
>>
>> If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
>> to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
>> the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
>> the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
>
>             It wasn't his job to determine that.  Or to misrepresent
> the evidence based on speculation.
>

It is the autopsy doctor's job to measure and document the bullet wounds, 
including the angles, entrances and exits.

Have you ever seen how Dr. Henry Lee recreates crime scenes to figure out 
where the shots came from.

>>
>> IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
>> have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
>> to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
>> that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
>>
>> I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
>> of caution.
>>
>> I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
>> the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
>> until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
>> initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
>> evidence, etc. etc.
>>
>> Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
>> I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
>> it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
>> rank than Humes to lie.
>
>            Ah, so Humes et al. were *ordered* to lie?  When do you
> suppose that conversation took place?
>

4:55 PM EST 11/23/63.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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 tissu=
>>> e
>>>> 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 announcemen=
>>> t
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> They're in on it, too?
>>
>> They had no choice..as I previously asserted Kellerman wasn't leaving the
>> President's side...not like S&  O did off and on.
>>
>> Also, Greer must have known Humes' ruse...I'm convinced he showed Humes
>> the clothes.
>>
>> Come on Jean, you surely must be skeptical of the official story that
>> Greer had them put in his WH locker by Rybka vs. giving them to
>> Humes...remember Rbyka never acknowledged having the clothes, period.
>>
>> And
>> why on earth would Greer not give Humes the clothes? To serure
>> evidence?...but then have them put in his WH locker vs. giving them right
>> away to the FBI who was collecting and documenting evidence (the Sec Svc
>> knew that, re. Kellerman)?
>
>            You're asking me to read Greer's mind, John.  Can't do it.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
>>>> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transite=
>>> d
>>>> 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 wha=
>>> t
>>>> 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 no=
>>> t
>>>> 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).
>>> Not necessarily.  The FBI report on the autopsy implied
>>> that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
>>> wound.
>>
>> :-)  Jean, that's because they assumed (per Humes' deception, IMO) the
>> bullet that entered the back didn't transit. Heck, O'Neill and I knew each
>> other (his wife worked with my sister) and communicated several
>> times......and he believed (in spite of what I argued to him about the
>> validity of the SBT) until his death that a fragment from the head shot
>> exited the throat.
>
>            The clothes didn't make it "obvious the bullet exited the
> throat," because the FBI didn't conclude the bullet transited even after
> examining the clothes at the FBI Lab.
>

Do you have that memo? Can you upload it here?
If not an exit, what did they say happened?
Exactly when did the FBI examine the clothes?

>>
>>> Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
>>
>> That puts you in the overwhelming majority of all LNs and CTs (about
>> 99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
>> wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
>> reassurance.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
>> explanation in a civil manner, you could.
>>
>> Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
>
>            That's fine, John.  Let's go with "agree to disagree."
>
>                                                         Jean
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
