If they can exhume the Gipper, why not JFK?
John Blubaugh
won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
speculation?
JB
yeuhd
Anthony Marsh
> It's entirely up to JFK's daughter Caroline.
>
>
Not sure that is technically true, but are you assuming that when she
dies no one else has the right to decide? What about Teddy?
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Apparently it is not difficult to have a relative's body exhumed. Why
> won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
> speculation?
>
>
> JB
Unfortunately, it wouldn't end the "speculation." We have people here
that live for nothing else. Remember when they dug up Oswald, the medical
team said it was absolutely, positively, no-doubt-about-it Oswald? But as
soon as he was back in the ground, the CTs were saying it wasn't Oswald.
Go figure.
JGL
Gerry Simone (O)
Don't think she wants to rock the boat.
Can what's left of the bones prove anything now?
"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192064981.8...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
HistorianDetective
On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Apparently it is not difficult to have a relative's body exhumed. Why
> won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
> speculation?
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_gipper_s_body_...
>
> JB
Only the Kennedy Family can answer your question. To be a bit precise,
Ted and Caroline have control over this matter, outside of a COURT
ORDER. Perhaps they interpret the 'REST IN PEACE' part a bit different
than you. Perhaps they interpret this as a piece of history, their own
personal history, and don't interpret this 40+ year old event as being
an OPEN CASE.
You've posted about exhumation before and seem to be forgetting about
the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS' part of our Constitution; the IMPORTANT PART.
And I'll be honest, I am most concerned with my individual rights as a
private citizen. When JFK died, he relinquished the office and became
a PRIVATE CITIZEN once again. For many reasons, I like being a private
citizen and strive to protect my individual rights against public and
government intrusions .
My question to you is...
Exactly what obligation do you think Ted and Caroline have to statisfy
a personal need of others, such as yourself?
Just Curious,
GS
yeuhd
What about him? He's not JFK's next of kin (and let's not forget that
JFK has two other living sibilngs, Eunice Shriver and Jean Smith).
Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is JFK's daughter and next of kin, and
she's an adult. After Caroline dies, her three children (one of whom
is already an adult) will be JFK's next of kin.
Anthony Marsh
> It's a touchy situation, both personally and politically.
>
> Don't think she wants to rock the boat.
>
> Can what's left of the bones prove anything now?
>
Yes. They tried to reconstruct the skull for the funeral.
T-1 has a hairline fracture.
Scientist can examine the bones of people from thousands of years ago
and find how they were murdered.
John Blubaugh
wrote:
> It's a touchy situation, both personally and politically.
>
> Don't think she wants to rock the boat.
>
> Can what's left of the bones prove anything now?
>
I would think that it would show what were entrance wounds and what
were exit wounds at the very least.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> JB,
>
> On Oct 10, 11:58 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Apparently it is not difficult to have a relative's body exhumed. Why
>> won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
>> speculation?
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_gipper_s_body_...
>>
>> JB
>
>
>
> Only the Kennedy Family can answer your question. To be a bit precise,
If it is a legal fact, then we do not need to depend on the Kennedy
Family to answer it.
> Ted and Caroline have control over this matter, outside of a COURT
> ORDER. Perhaps they interpret the 'REST IN PEACE' part a bit different
You really think anyone could get a court order against the family wishes?
> than you. Perhaps they interpret this as a piece of history, their own
> personal history, and don't interpret this 40+ year old event as being
> an OPEN CASE.
>
I hate to tell you this, but historical cases have been examined by
exhumation many years later.
> You've posted about exhumation before and seem to be forgetting about
> the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS' part of our Constitution; the IMPORTANT PART.
> And I'll be honest, I am most concerned with my individual rights as a
> private citizen. When JFK died, he relinquished the office and became
> a PRIVATE CITIZEN once again. For many reasons, I like being a private
> citizen and strive to protect my individual rights against public and
> government intrusions .
>
Are you claiming that private rights forbid exhumations?
>
> My question to you is...
>
> Exactly what obligation do you think Ted and Caroline have to statisfy
> a personal need of others, such as yourself?
>
History.
> Just Curious,
>
> GS
>
>
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
That hairline fracture is the reason why you insist that the back wound was
there and not T3?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:H_idnewxlN8FHZLa...@comcast.com...
thali...@hotmail.com
> Apparently it is not difficult to have a relative's body exhumed. Why
> won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
> speculation?
>
>
> JB
This is just a personal opinion, but it seems to me that if the
authorities think that exhuming JFK's body would definitely indicate
one shooter, then they would have done it by now. There has been two
inquiries (coming to two different conclusions) and one impacting
movie indicating conspiracy, as well as the Shaw trial, and many of
the public are not/ were not convinced of the official version. This
is obviously an issue that has political and historical significance
to the country. It will probrably happen in 100 years when we are all
dead, and so are most of the people who are implacted/affected. Unless
Caroline and other family members like his son had stated that they
did not want his body disturbed, the govt would have just done it.
I wonder what the Kennedy family really thinks. It would be more
comforting to them to go along with the lone nutter theory, as they
might not want certain things about JFK to come out. let sleeping dogs
lie, but RFK apprently was interested in researching his brother's
death more. Jackie Kennedy married Onassis partly because she thought
there were forces out to get the Kennedy's. Makes sense - what are the
chances that two lone nutters happened to kill two politicians in the
same decade who are brothers? It seems to me the same forces that got
rid of Jack Kennedy would not have been happy when younger brother
looks like becoming president. But they were saved by another lone
nut! Lucky coincidence.
John Blubaugh
wrote:
I was growing up when JFK was President and his election and assassination
were the most important events when I was becoming aware of the world. I
think many baby boomers share this with me. I do not think the Kennedys
have any obligation to me or others in any way. Their family has made
great sacrifices for our country. I would honor any decision they have
made. I would encourage them to do it because many of us believe we have
been lied to by the government for 44 years and some of us who are older
than I am may not have a lot of time left to finally learn the truth. If
they do not agree to this it will be done eventually when they are gone.
Why not do it now if for no other reason than respect for the people who
have raised hell for all of these years and that have refused to let the
issue just fade away? Killers or conspirators may still be walking free on
the earth. How about seeking justice for a truly tragic event?
JB
robc...@netscape.com
> Apparently it is not difficult to have a relative's body exhumed. Why
> won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
> speculation?
>
>
> JB
The body at this point in time will not solve any of the main issues by
itself. Why? All the flesh, ligaments, tendons and muscle are gone due
to decaying. Even if he was put in an airtight casket, we already know
about the body wounds to the lower right back (not the back of the neck as
Ford lied about to make the fairy tale of the magic bullet work) and the
wound at the front of the neck (Parkland personnel say it is an entry
wound with a traechanotomy (SIC) performed and the Bethesda personnel
ruled it was an exit wound). Based on the fact that Ford/Specter lied
about a wound to the back of the neck there is no doubt the frontal neck
would is an entry wound. This is the key to the whole magic bullet fairy
tale and yet no major media has reported that Ford admitted before his
death that the famous line in the WC report was changed by him to show a
wound were it did not exist to prove the LHO version of the story!!!
Hmm.
Furthermore, the brain has been missing for a long time and this would
really show the trajectory of the bullet(s) to determine which direction
they came from. Due to the fact that is was never allowed to be examined
and subsequently went among the missing, one of a reasonable mind would
have to assume the shot(s) struck the president from the front and not the
back as the WC said. Why? If the brain could have shown for a fact that
it came from the direction of the TSBD where LHO was supposedly firing
from, why not show this to the world to prove your case? The only
possible way digging up JFK may help is the occibital area of the head may
be missing, but call me a skeptic, they have had nearly 44 years to fix
that wound so it probably would only help the official theory buffs
anyway.
Robert
Anthony Marsh
> Yes, I forgot about forensic archaeology.
>
> That hairline fracture is the reason why you insist that the back wound was
> there and not T3?
>
One reason. And T3 is too low so that the bullet would hit the manubrium.
Anthony Marsh
Bones do not always show you were exactly the entrance and exit wounds
were. Especially when the experts are not qualified to interpret them.
> JB
>
>
Anthony Marsh
That's what I was asking you. Is that what the law states and can you
cite the specific law?
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***I am looking at page 125, TKOAP. Spector is holding a rod above the
person sitting in the Secret Service limo. The man has a mark on his
jacket, signifying the entrance wound on JFK's back. Spector has not
placed the mark on the person's neck.
Whether Ford lied or not, the Warren Report placed the back wound near the
base of the neck. Near the base of the neck is the lower part of the neck
or the upper part of the back. The autopsy report gave distances from
known body landmarks, which placed the wound in the back, not the neck.
The autopsy report was printed in the WR.
The front of JFK's shirt has a torn slit. An entering bullet would have
made a rounded hole as it would have punched through the shirt against the
skin. The hole in the back of the shirt was rounded, indicating that the
bullet punched through the shirt and into the back.
***Ron Judge
yeuhd
> Based on the fact that Ford/Specter lied
> about a wound to the back of the neck there is no doubt the frontal neck
> would is an entry wound. This is the key to the whole magic bullet fairy
> tale and yet no major media has reported that Ford admitted before his
> death that the famous line in the WC report was changed by him to show a
> wound were it did not exist to prove the LHO version of the story!!!
Not at all what Gerald Ford said. Here is what Ford wrote in 2004 in a
preface to a new edition of the Warren Commission Report:
-------------------------------------
I have been accused of changing some wording on the Warren Commission
Report to favor the lone-assassin conclusion. That is absurd. Here is
what the draft said: "A bullet had entered his back at a point
slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." To any
reasonable person, "above the shoulder and to the right" sounds very
high and way off the side - and that's what it sounded like to me.
That would have given the totally wrong impression. Technically, from
a medical perspective, the bullet entered just to the right at the
base of the neck, so my recommendation to the other members was to
change it to say, "A bullet had entered the back of his neck, slightly
to the right of the spine." After further investigation, we then
unanimously agreed that it should read, "A bullet had entered the base
of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." As with any report,
there were many clarifications and language changes suggested by
several of us.
-------------------------------------
Ford's description matched a drawing prepared for the Commission under
the direction of Dr. James J. Humes, supervisor of Kennedy's autopsy,
who in his testimony to the Commission said three times that the
entrance wound was in the "low neck." (The Commission was not shown
the autopsy photographs.)
>From Humes's testimony (2 H 348):
Commander HUMES. These exhibits again are schematic representations of
what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late
President. Exhibit 385 shows in the LOW NECK an oval wound ... The wound
in the LOW NECK of which I had previously begun to speak is now
posteriorly - is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388 ... You will
note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit
388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not
yet discussed in the LOW NECK ...
yeuhd
> That's what I was asking you. Is that what the law states and can you
> cite the specific law?
DC ST § 3-413, Claim of human remains - Order of priority of next of
kin.
(a) Unless other directions have been given by the decedent, the right
to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person, the
location and conditions of interment, and arrangements for funeral
goods and services shall vest in the following in the order of
priority named:
(1) The competent surviving spouse, or domestic partner, as defined
under § 32-701(3);
(2) The sole surviving competent adult child of the decedent, or if
there is more than one competent child of the decedent, the majority
of the surviving competent adult children; provided, that less than a
majority of the surviving competent adult children shall be vested
with the rights and duties under this section if they have used
reasonable efforts to notify all other surviving competent adult
children of their instructions and are not aware of any opposition to
those instructions by more than a majority of all surviving competent
adult children;
(3) The surviving competent parent or parents of the decedent;
provided, that if one of the surviving competent parents is absent,
the remaining competent parent shall be vested with the rights and
duties under this section if reasonable efforts to locate the other
parent are unsuccessful;
(4) The surviving competent adult person in the next degrees of
kindred; provided, that if there is more than one surviving competent
adult person of the same degree of kindred, the rights and duties
under this section shall be vested in the majority of those persons;
provided further, that less than the majority of surviving competent
adult persons of the same degree of kindred shall be vested with the
rights and duties of this section if those persons have used
reasonable efforts to notify all other surviving competent adult
persons of the same degree of kindred of their instructions and are
not aware of any opposition to those instructions by more than a
majority of all surviving competent adult persons of the same degree
of kindred; and
(5) An adult friend or volunteer.
yeuhd
examination of decedent's body
Any of the following persons, in order of priority stated, may
authorize and consent to a postmortem examination and autopsy on a
decedent's body for the purpose of determining the cause of death of
the decedent, for the advancement of medical or dental education and
research, or for the general advancement of medical or dental science,
if: (i) no person in a higher class exists or no person in a higher
class is available at the time authorization or consent is given, (ii)
there is no actual notice of contrary indications by the decedent, and
(iii) there is no actual notice of opposition by a member of the same
or a prior class.
The order of priority shall be as follows: (1) any person designated
to make arrangements for the disposition of the decedent's remains
upon his death pursuant to § 54.1-2825; (2) the spouse; (3) an adult
son or daughter; (4) either parent; (5) an adult brother or sister;
(6) a guardian of the person of the decedent at the time of his death;
or (7) any other person authorized or under legal obligation to
dispose of the body.
tomnln
Read the c xecutive Sessions of Dec. 16, 1964. Page 12.
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:1192252067.0...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Sure appears lower than T1 though on the back autopsy photo (My quick look
at a skeletal diagram shows T1 ABOVE the scapula - but we see that bullet
hole is beside the right shoulder blade near the top of it).
What if it wasn't thru and thru? T3 could still be viable (wouldn't hit
the manubrium if shallow) but then my problem is where did the bullet go
if we can say that the x-rays prove that there was no such bullet left in
the body. (External cardiac massage forced it out?)
Are you suggesting then that the bullet went thru the body?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HfydnShYMrVtb5La...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Who knows, maybe after Caroline dies, her will may authorize an exhumation
by non-partisan forensic pathologists who are the top in their field,
which will be many years from now.
Only our children might know the answer to that one.
"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192209395.8...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
I don't see grandchildren listed. So after Caroline it would be Teddy.
We assume Arlington National Cemetery falls under Virginia laws rather
than federal regulations?
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/symbols/cemetery.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DB1331F93BA35756C0A96E958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>
Anthony Marsh
No, he lied. The original wording said BACK and the WC knew that was too
low for the SBT. So he changed BACK to the back of the neck. Why do you
support the cover-up?
> Ford's description matched a drawing prepared for the Commission under
> the direction of Dr. James J. Humes, supervisor of Kennedy's autopsy,
> who in his testimony to the Commission said three times that the
> entrance wound was in the "low neck." (The Commission was not shown
> the autopsy photographs.)
>>From Humes's testimony (2 H 348):
>
You are talking about the Rydberg drawing? Everyone knows that is a
misrepresentation.
> Commander HUMES. These exhibits again are schematic representations of
> what we observed at the time of examining the body of the late
> President. Exhibit 385 shows in the LOW NECK an oval wound ... The wound
> in the LOW NECK of which I had previously begun to speak is now
> posteriorly - is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388 ... You will
> note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit
> 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not
> yet discussed in the LOW NECK ...
>
>
The original autopsy report says UPPER BACK.
yeuhd
only if they outlived Caroline. Not likely - they're 75, 79, and 86.
Assuming JFK's siblings die before Caroline does, the "right of
sepulchre", as it is called, would switch from a statutory definition
(which had reached its limit) to a common law definition. Under common
law it would devolve to Caroline's children.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 11, 12:58 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Apparently it is not difficult to have a relative's body exhumed. Why
>> won't the Kennedy family ask for this to put an end to all of the
>> speculation?
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071011/ap_on_sp_co_ne/fbc_gipper_s_body_...
>>
>> JB
>
> The body at this point in time will not solve any of the main issues by
> itself. Why? All the flesh, ligaments, tendons and muscle are gone due
> to decaying. Even if he was put in an airtight casket, we already know
Well, you don't know that for sure. When Lincoln's body was examined it
was in perfect condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln's_burial_and_exhumation
> about the body wounds to the lower right back (not the back of the neck as
> Ford lied about to make the fairy tale of the magic bullet work) and the
> wound at the front of the neck (Parkland personnel say it is an entry
> wound with a traechanotomy (SIC) performed and the Bethesda personnel
Most of my questions would be answered just from the bones.
> ruled it was an exit wound). Based on the fact that Ford/Specter lied
> about a wound to the back of the neck there is no doubt the frontal neck
> would is an entry wound. This is the key to the whole magic bullet fairy
That does not follow. Just because the WC was stumped by the low back
wound does not mean that we have to be stumped.
> tale and yet no major media has reported that Ford admitted before his
> death that the famous line in the WC report was changed by him to show a
> wound were it did not exist to prove the LHO version of the story!!!
> Hmm.
>
He moved the wound specifically to support the SBT.
> Furthermore, the brain has been missing for a long time and this would
> really show the trajectory of the bullet(s) to determine which direction
> they came from. Due to the fact that is was never allowed to be examined
> and subsequently went among the missing, one of a reasonable mind would
> have to assume the shot(s) struck the president from the front and not the
> back as the WC said. Why? If the brain could have shown for a fact that
> it came from the direction of the TSBD where LHO was supposedly firing
> from, why not show this to the world to prove your case? The only
> possible way digging up JFK may help is the occibital area of the head may
> be missing, but call me a skeptic, they have had nearly 44 years to fix
> that wound so it probably would only help the official theory buffs
> anyway.
>
You do not need the occipital area to be missing to indicate that the
shot came from the front.
> Robert
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Nice try, but I specified that AFTER Caroline it would be Teddy. You
can't dispute that.
Anthony Marsh
> OK, I can see your logic after familiarizing myself with the manubrium.
>
> Sure appears lower than T1 though on the back autopsy photo (My quick look
> at a skeletal diagram shows T1 ABOVE the scapula - but we see that bullet
> hole is beside the right shoulder blade near the top of it).
>
You are basing that on one skeletal diagram. But you are forgetting two
factors. JFK's shoulders were exceptionally high as compared to most
people. And JFK's right shoulder was elevated at the time of the shot
because his right arm was over the side of the car.
> What if it wasn't thru and thru? T3 could still be viable (wouldn't hit
> the manubrium if shallow) but then my problem is where did the bullet go
> if we can say that the x-rays prove that there was no such bullet left in
> the body. (External cardiac massage forced it out?)
>
The shot HAD to be through and through. A Mannlicher-Carcano bullet with a
muzzle velocity of 2,165 fps can not stop within a couple of inches of
flesh. It is physically impossible.
Humes was an idiot to make that assumption about a shallow wound.
> Are you suggesting then that the bullet went thru the body?
>
More than suggesting. Proving.
yeuhd
> You are talking about the Rydberg drawing? Everyone knows that is a
> misrepresentation.
We know that now, but that was the best visual evidence the Warren
Commission had, since they did not have access to the autopsy photos
or X-rays, and were relying instead on that drawing and Dr. Humes's
testimony.
At some point, this lower neck/upper back debate becomes niggling, as
the vertebrae of the lower neck extend down into the what the
layperson would consider the upper back.
yeuhd
> Nice try, but I specified that AFTER Caroline it would be Teddy. You
> can't dispute that.
Actually, we're both wrong. I consulted an expert in this area of law, and
she said that the Virginia statute I quoted was for control of the body
*before* burial, during which the family - specifically, the next of kin -
determines what happens. After burial, the courts disfavor disinterment.
The controlling state law for exhumations in Virginia:
Va. Code Ann. 32.1-286. Exhumations.
A. In any case of death described in subsection A of § 32.1-283, where
the body is buried without investigation by a medical examiner as to the
cause and manner of death or where sufficient cause develops for further
investigation after a body is buried, the Chief Medical Examiner shall
authorize such investigation and shall send a copy of the report to the
appropriate attorney for the Commonwealth who shall communicate such
report to a judge of the appropriate circuit court. Such judge may order
that the body be exhumed and an autopsy performed thereon by the Chief
Medical Examiner or by an Assistant Chief Medical Examiner. The pertinent
facts disclosed by the autopsy shall be communicated to the judge who
ordered it.
In any case of death in which a private person has an interest, such
person may petition the judge of the circuit court exercising jurisdiction
over the place of interment and, upon proper showing of sufficient cause,
such judge may order the body exhumed. Such petition or exhumation or both
shall not require the participation of the Chief Medical Examiner or his
Assistant Chief Medical Examiners. Costs shall be paid by the party
requesting the exhumation.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <wal...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:1192396984.8...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 14, 8:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Nice try, but I specified that AFTER Caroline it would be Teddy. You
>> can't dispute that.
>
> Actually, we're both wrong. I consulted an expert in this area of law, and
> she said that the Virginia statute I quoted was for control of the body
> *before* burial, during which the family - specifically, the next of kin -
> determines what happens. After burial, the courts disfavor disinterment.
> The controlling state law for exhumations in Virginia:
>
> Va. Code Ann. 32.1-286. Exhumations.
>
That law does not apply, because a legal autopsy was done. Keep guessing.
> A. In any case of death described in subsection A of § 32.1-283, where
> the body is buried without investigation by a medical examiner as to the
> cause and manner of death or where sufficient cause develops for further
> investigation after a body is buried, the Chief Medical Examiner shall
> authorize such investigation and shall send a copy of the report to the
> appropriate attorney for the Commonwealth who shall communicate such
> report to a judge of the appropriate circuit court. Such judge may order
> that the body be exhumed and an autopsy performed thereon by the Chief
> Medical Examiner or by an Assistant Chief Medical Examiner. The pertinent
> facts disclosed by the autopsy shall be communicated to the judge who
> ordered it.
>
> In any case of death in which a private person has an interest, such
> person may petition the judge of the circuit court exercising jurisdiction
> over the place of interment and, upon proper showing of sufficient cause,
> such judge may order the body exhumed. Such petition or exhumation or both
> shall not require the participation of the Chief Medical Examiner or his
> Assistant Chief Medical Examiners. Costs shall be paid by the party
> requesting the exhumation.
>
Again, I suspect that US law governs Arlington National Cemetery.
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 13, 11:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> You are talking about the Rydberg drawing? Everyone knows that is a
>> misrepresentation.
>
> We know that now, but that was the best visual evidence the Warren
> Commission had, since they did not have access to the autopsy photos
> or X-rays, and were relying instead on that drawing and Dr. Humes's
> testimony.
>
They COULD have had access to the autopsy photos and X-rays. They CHOSE
not to use them.
> At some point, this lower neck/upper back debate becomes niggling, as
> the vertebrae of the lower neck extend down into the what the
> layperson would consider the upper back.
>
It matters a great deal, because even the WC knew that the back wound
was lower than the throat wound. That would rule out ANY SBT.
>
yeuhd
> yeuhd wrote:
> > Actually, we're both wrong. I consulted an expert in this area of law, and
> > she said that the Virginia statute I quoted was for control of the body
> > *before* burial, during which the family - specifically, the next of kin -
> > determines what happens. After burial, the courts disfavor disinterment.
> > The controlling state law for exhumations in Virginia:
>
> > Va. Code Ann. 32.1-286. Exhumations.
>
> That law does not apply, because a legal autopsy was done. Keep guessing.
>
> > A. In any case of death described in subsection A of § 32.1-283, where
> > the body is buried without investigation by a medical examiner as to the
> > cause and manner of death or where sufficient cause develops for further
> > investigation after a body is buried, the Chief Medical Examiner shall
> > authorize such investigation and shall send a copy of the report to the
> > appropriate attorney for the Commonwealth who shall communicate such
> > report to a judge of the appropriate circuit court. Such judge may order
> > that the body be exhumed and an autopsy performed thereon by the Chief
> > Medical Examiner or by an Assistant Chief Medical Examiner. The pertinent
> > facts disclosed by the autopsy shall be communicated to the judge who
> > ordered it.
Re-read the above paragraph from the Virginia statute. It allows
disinterment for two reasons:
1) In any case of death ... where the body is buried without investigation
by a medical examiner at to the cause and manner of death,
OR
2) where sufficient cause develops for further investigation after a body
is buried
yeuhd
> Again, I suspect that US law governs Arlington National Cemetery.
>
Ok, find such a law.
yeuhd
> > At some point, this lower neck/upper back debate becomes niggling, as
> > the vertebrae of the lower neck extend down into the what the
> > layperson would consider the upper back.
>
> It matters a great deal, because even the WC knew that the back wound
> was lower than the throat wound. That would rule out ANY SBT.
>
The HSCA covered this issue. It depends entirely on JFK's posture.
Sitting bolt upright, JFK's back wound would indeed be lower than the
front throat wound. Sitting hunched forward just 11 to 18 degrees, as
the HSCA determined from photos, JFK's back wound is higher than the
front throat wound.
Illustration of the different trajectories, depending on JFK's posture
(HSCA volume 7, p. 100):
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.htm
The downward tilt of his head is incorrect in that drawing, but the
back and neck posture can be seen in Croft photo of JFK (corresponding
to Z-161), showing JFK sitting hunched forward:
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/croft3.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 15, 8:33 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> At some point, this lower neck/upper back debate becomes niggling, as
>>> the vertebrae of the lower neck extend down into the what the
>>> layperson would consider the upper back.
>> It matters a great deal, because even the WC knew that the back wound
>> was lower than the throat wound. That would rule out ANY SBT.
>>
>
> The HSCA covered this issue. It depends entirely on JFK's posture.
Not entirely. Only slightly. Posture moves the wound up less than a 1/2
inch. The WC lied by a couple of inches, too much for posture to make
the difference.
> Sitting bolt upright, JFK's back wound would indeed be lower than the
> front throat wound. Sitting hunched forward just 11 to 18 degrees, as
> the HSCA determined from photos, JFK's back wound is higher than the
> front throat wound.
>
No, the HSCA did not determine from photos and their Canning drawings do
not show JFK leaning over at all. Unfortunately the HSCA was stuck with
frame 190 from the acoustical evidence for its SBT and even you can see
that JFK was sitting bolt upright at 190.
> Illustration of the different trajectories, depending on JFK's posture
> (HSCA volume 7, p. 100):
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.htm
>
The HSCA simply lied. Baden lied.
> The downward tilt of his head is incorrect in that drawing, but the
> back and neck posture can be seen in Croft photo of JFK (corresponding
> to Z-161), showing JFK sitting hunched forward:
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/croft3.jpg
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm
>
No, not leaning over by 18 degrees.
>
Anthony Marsh
Take any photo you want. Place a dot at the knot in the tie. Then draw a
line backwards at 18 degrees. Show me where the line crosses his back.
Anthony Marsh
robc...@netscape.com
> person sitting in the Secret Service limo. The man has a mark on his
> jacket, signifying the entrance wound on JFK's back. Spector has not
> placed the mark on the person's neck.
>
> Whether Ford lied or not, the Warren Report placed the back wound near the
> base of the neck. Near the base of the neck is the lower part of the neck
> or the upper part of the back. The autopsy report gave distances from
> known body landmarks, which placed the wound in the back, not the neck.
> The autopsy report was printed in the WR.
Sorry, the base of the neck and the upper right side of the back are
not the same thing. The base of the neck was important to show how
the bullet exited from the front of JFK's neck and entered JC's back.
Any alteration, even slight, destroys this theory. Case closed.
JFK's clothes correspond with upper right back wound and not base of
neck...also they said his tie showed the bullet exited through his
throat because it was "nicked", but the doctors at Parkland all said
the nick/fray was from them cutting the tie loose to perform the
tracheatomy (sic).
>
> The front of JFK's shirt has a torn slit. An entering bullet would have
> made a rounded hole as it would have punched through the shirt against the
> skin. The hole in the back of the shirt was rounded, indicating that the
> bullet punched through the shirt and into the back.
The bullet entered the throat above the shirt/tie line. The marks on
the tie are from the doctors cutting it loose. The shirt and jacket
show a clean entry hole in the upper right back - not base of neck -
so we know this is where the one shot hit. Shot two is the head.
Shot three missed. It's is funny to see the LNers argue that there
was a miss on another post when even the WC admitted this fact - that
is why the magic bullet fairy tale was needed in the first place. 3
shots/two hits.
Robert
tomnln
See third photo from the top of Arlen (Felon) Specter.
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:1192558805.7...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
>> ***I am looking at page 125, TKOAP. Spector is holding a rod above the
>> person sitting in the Secret Service limo. The man has a mark on his
>> jacket, signifying the entrance wound on JFK's back. Spector has not
>> placed the mark on the person's neck.
>>
>> Whether Ford lied or not, the Warren Report placed the back wound near the
>> base of the neck. Near the base of the neck is the lower part of the neck
>> or the upper part of the back. The autopsy report gave distances from
>> known body landmarks, which placed the wound in the back, not the neck.
>> The autopsy report was printed in the WR.
>
> Sorry, the base of the neck and the upper right side of the back are
> not the same thing. The base of the neck was important to show how
> the bullet exited from the front of JFK's neck and entered JC's back.
> Any alteration, even slight, destroys this theory. Case closed.
> JFK's clothes correspond with upper right back wound and not base of
> neck...also they said his tie showed the bullet exited through his
> throat because it was "nicked", but the doctors at Parkland all said
> the nick/fray was from them cutting the tie loose to perform the
> tracheatomy (sic).
Please source, cite and quote where ALL the doctors at Parkland said the
nick was caused by the nurse cutting away the tie. And they did not cut
away the tie in order to perform the tracheotomy. That was not the
purpose. Clothing is always removed to allow them access to the body and
to assess wounds. It would still have been removed even if they had not
needed to do a tracheotomy.
>> The front of JFK's shirt has a torn slit. An entering bullet would have
>> made a rounded hole as it would have punched through the shirt against the
>> skin. The hole in the back of the shirt was rounded, indicating that the
>> bullet punched through the shirt and into the back.
>
> The bullet entered the throat above the shirt/tie line. The marks on
> the tie are from the doctors cutting it loose. The shirt and jacket
Maybe, but we don't know that for sure. And what about the tears in the
shirt collar? If those were from a bullet, the bullet could not miss the
tie.
> show a clean entry hole in the upper right back - not base of neck -
> so we know this is where the one shot hit. Shot two is the head.
> Shot three missed. It's is funny to see the LNers argue that there
> was a miss on another post when even the WC admitted this fact - that
> is why the magic bullet fairy tale was needed in the first place. 3
> shots/two hits.
>
The other reason they invented the SBT was because the two men were hit
too closely in time for Oswald's rifle to have fired both shots.
> Robert
>
>
yeuhd
Oh, I already looked at the U.S. Code. Nothing about disinterment or
exhumation from a national cemetery except in the case of errors. There is
a federal law on forensic pathology examinations of military personnel (10
U.S.C. § 1471) that waives federal jurisdiction to the applicable state
jurisdiction. That of course does not apply in the case of JFK, but may
indicate the drift of federal thought on the matter of disinterment.
But since you think there is probably something federal law about
disinterment at national cemeteries - as you have stated twice - the
burden is on you, not me, to find it. You could start with the links you
gave above. Suggestions:
· U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 75 - Deceased
personnel.
· U.S. Code, Title 38, Part II, Chapter 24 - National cemeteries and
memorials.
CAMPBE...@yahoo.com
that two different people,working alone would kill two brothers.