Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Highlights From "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report" (1967 Documentary)

195 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 3:06:17โ€ฏAM4/18/07
to
LET'S EXAMINE A FEW TEXT EXCERPTS AND HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE EXCELLENT
(AND HIGHLY-RECOMMENDED) 1967 FOUR-PART CBS-TV DOCUMENTARY PROGRAM,
"THE WARREN REPORT".

SOME INTERESTING THINGS CAN BE GLEANED FROM THAT WALTER CRONKITE-
HOSTED PROGRAM......

============================

With respect to the brown paper package that Lee Harvey Oswald was
said to have carried into the Texas School Book Depository Building on
the morning of President Kennedy's assassination (November 22, 1963),
CBS-TV reporter Dan Rather performed a very interesting re-enactment
for the CBS viewing audience during the first segment of the four-hour
TV special entitled "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report".

Dan Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which
Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just
like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside
his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's
disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth
floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.

It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his
armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as
interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few
inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder
when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package
cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier
said Oswald had "cupped" the so-called "curtain rod" package in his
hand back in 1963).

Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier
testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking
above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone
unnoticed by a witness.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255b.htm

============================

Concerning the initial "Mauser" rifle identification made by the
Dallas police in 1963, Dallas Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman offers
up the following verbatim comments for the CBS cameras:

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser,
which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a
glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out
as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type
gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw,
was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement
was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8138b3000b1e18f3

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42faee01d94a58d5

============================

At the end of Part 1 of the four-part series, Walter Cronkite
summarizes for the viewing audience the conclusions of CBS News with
respect to the key questions being explored in Part 1:

CRONKITE -- "We have shown, by carefully-controlled experiments, that
a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle CAN be fired more rapidly and accurately
than the {Warren} Commission believed.

"Now these points strengthen the Warren Report's basic finding. They
make it MORE likely that Oswald shot the President. They significantly
weaken a central contention of the critics....their contention that
Oswald could NOT have done it because he did not have enough time to
fire.

"It is now reasonable to assume that the first shot, fired through a
tree, missed its mark....and that it was this shot that Governor
Connally heard. The Governor has insisted all along that he was not
struck by the first shot. It now appears he was correct. Now we can
answer all our secondary questions ---

"Did Oswald own a rifle? .... He did.

"Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository Building? .... He did.

"Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? .... In the building, on
the sixth floor.

"Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? .... It was.

"How many shots were fired? .... Three.

"How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? .... Fast enough.

"What was the time span of the shots? .... Seven or eight seconds.

"Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot President Kennedy? .... CBS News
concludes that he did."

============================

In Part 2 of the CBS "Warren Report" broadcast, famed amateur
filmmaker Abraham Zapruder was interviewed from Dealey Plaza. Mr.
Zapruder offered up these comments:

ZAPRUDER -- "I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were
shots that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different
sound. I heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to
say--but it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all
sounded alike; there was no different sound at all."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder.htm

============================

Dr. Cyril Wecht is also interviewed during Part 2, and somewhat
surprisingly provides these remarks regarding President Kennedy's head
movement after the fatal shot struck JFK:

DR. WECHT -- "I have seen too many biological and physical variations
occur in forensic pathology to say that it would have been impossible.
I say that it is quite unlikely; I say that it is difficult for me to
accept....but I would have to admit that it is a possibility that his
body could have moved in that direction after having been struck by a
bullet that hit him in the back of the head."

============================

In his first interview since his 1964 Warren Commission testimony,
JFK's primary autopsy physician, Dr. James J. Humes, vividly describes
President Kennedy's head wounds to Dan Rather and the CBS audience:

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5

============================

Regarding the controversial Single-Bullet Theory, Walter Cronkite
provides these words of logic and common sense:

CRONKITE -- "If all three shots hit, then one of them would have had
to pass through the President's neck, emerge at 1,800 feet per second,
headed on a downward path toward the midst of the Presidential car and
the six people in it, and vanish in mid-air, hitting nothing, and
leaving no mark. Well, this was more than the Commission could
stomach. Despite its own words, the Single-Bullet Theory IS essential
to its findings."

Mr. Cronkite later adds these comments:

CRONKITE -- "Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to
believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories
is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a
separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the
President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking
it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished
without a trace.

"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a
second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose
bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and
that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to
be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.

"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single
bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7

============================

The man who first discovered the "Stretcher Bullet" at Parkland
Memorial Hospital (Bullet "CE399"), Darrell Tomlinson, was interviewed
by CBS. Tomlinson said the following:

QUESTION -- "As you think back, is there any doubt in your mind today
that the stretcher on which you found that bullet was the stretcher
that came off of the elevator?"

DARRELL C. TOMLINSON -- "Well, I know that. THAT I know. I just don't
know who was on that stretcher."

QUESTION -- "But the stretcher WAS on the elevator?"

TOMLINSON -- "Right."

QUESTION -- "And this was the elevator that Governor Connally would
have been placed on to go to the operating room?"

TOMLINSON -- "Yes, sir; that's the one he went up on."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68

============================

Governor John Connally was interviewed by Eddie Barker about the
events in Dallas:

GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my
memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-
Bullet Theory is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit
us both."

EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first
bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the
third one hit President Kennedy?"

CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe

============================

With respect to the 11/22/63 murder of policeman J.D. Tippit in the
Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff, witness Domingo Benavides was interviewed
by Eddie Barker at the Tippit murder site on Tenth Street during Part
3 of the CBS broadcast. Benavides, in this 1967 interview, now seemed
absolutely certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was Tippit's killer:

EDDIE BARKER -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that Oswald was the
man you had seen shoot Tippit?"

DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and
what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face, I
could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like
that."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90

============================

In the 4th and final segment of "The Warren Report", we're treated to
these delightful comments by Walter Cronkite concerning lawyer and
"Rush To Judgment" author Mark Lane (which are remarks that always
make me smile, as Walter tells it like it is):

CRONKITE -- "Well, Mr. Lane, who accuses the {Warren} Commission of
playing fast and loose with the evidence does not always allow facts
to get in the way of his own theories. In 'Rush To Judgment', for
example, he writes, 'The statements of eyewitnesses close to the
President tended to confirm the likelihood that the shot came from the
right and not from the rear'.

"Well, Lane then quotes Associated Press photographer James Altgens
and another eyewitness, Charles Brehm, as giving testimony that would
support the idea of a killer on the Grassy Knoll.

"Yet Mr. Altgens, as we saw Monday night, is entirely certain that all
the shots came from behind, a fact that Mr. Lane does not mention. As
for Mr. Brehm, Eddie Barker discovered that he holds no brief either
for the Grassy Knoll theory or for the use of his words by Mark
Lane." ....

CHARLES BREHM -- "Mark Lane takes very great liberties with adding to
my quotation. I never said that any shot came from here [pointing
toward the Grassy Knoll] like I was quoted by Mr. Lane. Mr. Lane would
like me to have positively identified what I saw fly over here as
skull....although I told him I could not {identify it}....I did not
examine {it}....I thought it was....but I could not. So, he has added
his interpretations to what I said, and consequently that's where the
story comes from that I said that a shot come [sic] from up there
[pointing toward the Knoll again]. No shot came from up there [the
Knoll] at any time during the whole fiasco that afternoon."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85d4d330812f3728

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f

============================

Eric Sevareid of CBS News provided a very interesting and insightful
commentary near the end of Part 4 of "The Warren Report" documentary:

ERIC SEVAREID -- "What fed the conspiracy notion about the Kennedy
assassination among many Americans was the sheer incongruity of the
affair. All that power and majesty wiped out in an instant by one
skinny, weak-chinned little character. It was like believing that the
Queen Mary had sunk without a trace because of a log floating
somewhere in the Atlantic. Or that AT&T stock had fallen to zero
because a drunk somewhere tore out his telephone wires. ....

"And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still
think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts
the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill
Mr. Kennedy.

"These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-
discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint
of suspicion to anyone else.

"And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful
and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to
the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a
consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably
plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged.
There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy
to cover up something.

"In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American
arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a
conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.

"In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice
Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political
party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place
in history. That is all they live for in their later years.

"If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about
such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear
their cursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing
is idiotic."

Well said, Mr. Sevareid. Very well said.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0bc26b9288c1ccd5

================================================

SOME MORE RELATED ARTICLES......

THE WARREN COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4b8dae7b150da043

THE WARREN COMMISSION GOT IT RIGHT (PART 2):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e2a229774508e859

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT -- POINT-BY-POINT:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c

A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05

WHAT ARE THE ODDS...?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7e70b829247b4a49

================================================

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 3:08:40โ€ฏAM4/18/07
to
WORTH A REPLAY..........

"If they {the 7 Warren Commissioners} knowingly suppressed or


distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential
murder, their descendants would bear their cursed names forever. The

notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic." -- Eric Sevareid;
1967

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 4:07:49โ€ฏAM4/18/07
to
As usual Excellent David!
I especially enjoyed and
sincerely hope others will
read this link you posted:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41

Regards,
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 0308Apr1807

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...

> read more ยป...


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 10:15:37โ€ฏPM4/18/07
to
Thanks, Ed.

And allow me to repeat the following segment from the '67 CBS Special,
involving Dr. Humes. These few words do a great deal to dispel the
idea that there was any kind of "LGBOH" wound......

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."

Can anybody tell me WHY Dr. James J. Humes would voluntarily go on
national TV in 1967 and utter the above words if Humes was a liar and
totally misrepresented the true nature of JFK's wounds in the autopsy
report and in front of the Warren Commission?

Humes didn't have any choice when it came to testifying in front of
the WC; he had to do that. But he certainly didn't have to go on CBS-
TV in '67 and say the following things (which are things that
virtually all CTers think are nothing but 100% lies).....

"And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and

right side of the President's head. ... The missile traversed the skin

aeffects

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 10:34:43โ€ฏPM4/18/07
to


my-oh-my... this is turning into a Lone Nutter Theater for the
Absurd...

-- perhaps ole Eric should of reviewed documents concerning J. Edgar
Hoover and his position concerning a Lone Nut shooter

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 18, 2007, 10:48:24โ€ฏPM4/18/07
to
Mr. Sevareid's comments re. the 7 top WC members make perfect sense.
(Except to a rabid CTer...naturally.)

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 20, 2007, 12:50:45โ€ฏAM4/20/07
to
>>> "Ahh, but David, HUMES DID LIE." <<<

No, he didn't.

And why do you think that the back wound in CE385 is so far afield
from reality (i.e., far afield from the autopsy photo of the back
wound)? It isn't far off at all. The Rydberg drawing that is skewed
with respect to JFK's entry wounds is CE386. But 385 looks pretty
close. .....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501a.htm

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/BE5_HI.jpg


The problem, IMO, with the Rydberg drawings is the stretched neck used
in the drawings. But the "wound" looks just about 14 cm. south of the
proverbial mastoid in 385, IMO. Why do you think it's way off? Again,
it isn't. And, again, it's just a reference DRAWING...which was not
drawn to EXACT JOHN KENNEDY SCALE.


>>> "As to why he would go on TV and tell this lie, maybe it had something to do with the letter from the Justice Department giving him "permission" to make his appearance, or the "talking points" provided by them telling him what to say." <<<

It'd be nice to see some documentation proving that bold claim please
(i.e., something that verifies that Humes had words put in his mouth
for the 1967 CBS broadcast). Any verification available on that at
all?

So, Humes was FORCED to go on national TV and lie his ass off, huh?

That's just silly. Why would he want to voluntarily go on TV and start
lying all over again (per CTers)? Just for the fun of it? That's nuts.

Humes went on TV in '67 and told the truth. Period. If he was a liar
in '63, there's no way you could have dragged him into that TV studio
in '67. No way.


>>> "Can you really be this naive?" <<<

And can you really be this paranoid?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 6:43:36โ€ฏAM4/22/07
to
MORE "BOH" TALK:

=========================

>>> "Read carefully what Humes said {during the 1967 CBS Special}. All that he said is that there was only one entrance wound (which, BTW, I've noticed you've been careful all along not to commit yourself on where in the BOH that entry was...cowlick or near-EOP)." <<<

You're right, I haven't committed to an exact location. Mainly because
I truly don't think it matters a darn bit.

The key fact is that all the doctors agree that there was ONLY ONE
entry wound at the back of the head (regardless of the exact square
inch on the head). This fact proves that the one and only head shot
had to have come from the REAR, not from the front (knoll).


>>> "David, read the WC testimony and the autopsy report...they avoided any mention of the BOH...except for the entry." <<<

Yes, and there's a very good reason for that, IMO. And that reason is:
Because there was no real REASON to mention the "BOH" except with
respect to the one small entry wound in the BOH.

IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
the body?

The whole argument over any potential "Large BOH" wound is really
pretty much a moot point altogether, due to the undeniable FACT that
President Kennedy sustained just the ONE gunshot wound to his head,
and that shot definitely came from the rear (consistent with having
come from the TSBD and Oswald's rifle, given the bullet fragment taken
from JFK's head that was determined via NAA to have come from Rifle
C2766).

The large exit wound on JFK's head covered a decent-sized area of the
right side of the head, but it was "chiefly parietal", per the autopsy
report and the words of the autopsy doctors.

But the autopsy report includes the words "occipital" and "temporal"
as well, but the word "somewhat" is also used in the report, just
preceding the references to those locations.....

FROM JFK'S AUTOPSY REPORT -- "There is a large irregular defect of the
scalp and skull on the right, involving chiefly the parietal bone but
extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions."

Now, my next question would be this -- Since the autopsy report and
doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND
ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively
consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of
exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the
President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the
slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any
"BOH" wound (large or small)?

You said that the doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound
they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK
had been shot from the front.

But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've
described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the
head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head
came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.

There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even
WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere
to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger
BOH hole.

Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet
striking JFK's head from the rear (which was also in the BOH), could
obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the
extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet
which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after
entering the skull.

Jackie Kennedy's handling of the President's head during the ride to
Parkland could also have been a partial explanation for any such large
BOH wound. Jackie later confirmed that she was "trying to hold his
head on".

These doctors weren't stupid. One BEVELLED-INWARD entry hole in the
BOH (which we definitely have in this case) and no other signs of ANY
other entry hole anyplace else on the head HAS to mean just what it
does mean -- John Kennedy was shot just once in the head from behind.
Period. No obfuscation required, regardless of where the larger
exiting hole(s) are located.

Now, Vincent Bugliosi, in his upcoming book, could have a different
view than I have regarding all of this "BOH" talk. But one thing's for
certain--Vince will certainly be talking about the one bevelled-in
entry hole at the back of JFK's head, and the total lack of any other
entry wounds on the President's head.

That fact is key and should be placed atop all other "head wound"
facts, and Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly (as I have done in my forum
posts) be greatly emphasizing that fact re. the SINGLE entry hole in
JFK's cranium....which, as I said, pretty much makes all of the "Large
BOH" wound talk a meaningless and moot endeavor altogether.

In fact, Mr. Bugliosi has already talked about that very thing, during
the 1986 TV Docu-Trial.....

"The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.

"If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?

"Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?" -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; 1986

~~~~~~

There's also this interesting portion of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition
(re. the cerebellum)....

DR. BOSWELL (1996; ARRB) -- "In Dallas, they had said that the
cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But
they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of
compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut
the dura around, and then you--that's the only hard part about getting
the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both the
cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
really very simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

~~~~~~

To summarize:

In my opinion, there was no "large BOH" wound in President Kennedy's
head. The sum total of hard, verifiable evidence just does not support
such a massive "BOH" wound.

1.) The autopsy report doesn't support such a large BOH wound.

2.) The autopsy doctors' statements do not support such a BOH wound
(and Boswell's statements to the ARRB seem quite confused and muddled,
IMO; lots of confusion there, as he tries to remember exactly what
happened, in perfect sequence, 33 years after the events took place).

3.) The autopsy photos do not support such a large BOH wound.

4.) And the Zapruder Film does not support a large BOH wound.

The Parkland witnesses do tend to support such a large BOH wound,
granted. And those witnesses have bothered me greatly over the years.
I cannot deny that fact.

But I also think there could be a reasonable explanation for those
witnesses claiming to see what they said they saw at Parkland Hospital
(while never turning the body over, of course).

More about that subject in this review of Jim Moore's book (Moore,
btw, has a very silly explanation to explain away all of the Parkland
witnesses).....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000HMSIBE&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=ROEPV7B8GNG96&displayType=ReviewDetail

Now, I suppose it's possible that I'm dead-wrong, and I suppose it's
possible that a large BOH wound did exist on JFK's head on 11/22/63.

But even WITH such a wound present on JFK's head, conspiracy theorists
who think such a wound at the FAR RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head was
caused by a FRONTAL gunshot still have a huge hurdle to overcome --
that hurdle being: Where is the ENTRY wound for any such frontal shot?

Do CTers think the parietal exit wound that resulted from Oswald's
from-the-rear head shot miraculously masked the entry hole for a
frontal shot?

Did the plotters truly get THAT lucky, yet again? Much in the same way
those same Patsy-Framers got incredibly lucky (per many CTers'
beliefs) when two or THREE different bullets caused wounds that just
happened to line themselves up on two victims in a manner that could
even begin to suggest the "SBT"??

Boy, did those conspirators have Lady Luck shining on them that
Friday, if conspiracists want to believe all of that crazy stuff.

Plus: WHERE could a frontal gunman have possibly been located to have
caused only the FAR RIGHT-REAR portion of Kennedy's head to be blown
out by the bullet? Why isn't ANY of the LEFT hemisphere of JFK's head
affected by a shot coming from (per most CTers) the "Badge Man"/Grassy
Knoll area of Dealey Plaza?

That bullet sure did some crazy zig-zagging inside Kennedy's head, it
would seem, if CTers want a wound caused by "Badge Man" to be present
in THIS part of Mr. Kennedy's head.....

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3334.jpg

David Von Pein
April 2007

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 22, 2007, 11:44:08โ€ฏPM4/22/07
to
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3

DVP SAID:

"IOW, why bring up a wound that never existed? There was no mention of
JFK's left foot being an area of concern with respect to bullet holes
either. Same logic applies there, in my view. JFK didn't have a bullet
hole in his foot, so why bother asking the doctors about that area of
the body?"

JOHN CANAL SAID:

"Because a BOH wound that could have been interpreted as being an exit
wound (and an assassination conspiracy) was reported by at least the
Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland Hospital even before the
autopsy started. IOW, the autopsy doctors, IMO and in the opinion of
many others, should have addressed this rear exit wound
possibility....and they didn't."

DVP NOW SAYS:

Good point (and it's a point that I knew full well was coming shortly
after I wrote my "left foot" analogy above). ;)

My "left foot" comparison isn't quite as compelling as it could have
been under other circumstances, because the "feet" of JFK are, indeed,
far removed from the HEAD, where the President's fatal wounds were
located.

And you're correct....my analogy isn't as persuasive in this (JFK)
case due to the Parkland doctors who saw something that the Bethesda
doctors failed to see (or note).

So, on this point, I tend to agree with you....SOME explanation needed
to be put forth on the Bethesda end of the line regarding the Parkland
witnesses' BOH observations. (Okay, so I backpedaled a tad bit on this
point. Maybe I stuck JFK's "left foot" in my own mouth. If somebody
wants to sue me, they'll probably win.)

But in a case as important as the murder of a U.S. President, where
two sets of medical professionals are seeing totally-different things
in Dallas and Washington/(Maryland) on the head of the very same
victim....yes, I think that discrepancy NEEDS and DESERVES to be
cleared up as much as it possibly can be.


>>> "If the BOH wound was mostly enlarged because of Jackie's actions (your own suggestion) or because someone held him by the BOH as he was transferred to the gurney from the limo, the Z-film would have not been revealing." <<<


Another good point indeed. I fully agree. We, obviously, can only see
Z-Film frames that precede any "Jackie handling" of her husband's
head.

Of course, as you also know, there are multiple other very good
indicators on the Z-Film that the head shot came from the rear --
e.g., the initial forward movement of the head from Z312-313....and
the tell-tale signs of that blood spray ALL TO THE FRONT of JFK's head
on the film.

This slo-mo Z-Film clip is the best I've ever seen at showing the
undeniable forward head movement at the impact frames....

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/Headshot-large.gif

Sorry, I got slightly off-topic I know. But I wanted to add in those Z-
Film facts just for the record, Your Honor. (Will I be sued a second
time now?) ~grin~


>>> "Your last transmissions, if they were addressed to me, constitute "preaching to the choir"." <<<


Yes, I realize that. I, again, got slightly off-topic during those
wrap-up "transmissions" in my last post. But when I get wound up in
one of my "This Multi-Gun Patsy Plot Purported By Oliver Stone And
Others Is Utter Nonsense" modes....I just can't stop until the essay
reaches its logical (LN) conclusion.

(A third lawsuit will commence now. I'll be bankrupt at this rate!) ;)

Thanks for the engaging "BOH" conversation, John. I've enjoyed it.
And, as I've stated before, I'm very much looking forward to what
Vince Bugliosi has in store in the BOH regard in his book "Reclaiming
History".

Because, in my view, if VB explains those troubling Parkland BOH
witnesses in a reasonable/logical "LN" manner (and he will, of that I
have little doubt), then the rest of the LN case is a literal walk in
the park by comparison.

Regards,
DVP

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 2:04:45โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
I will (again) admit that the BOH situation is my #1 snafu (if I may
be allowed to call it that) in the whole case. And I don't have all
the answers (quite obviously). It's a toughie, no doubt.

But John Canal said something the other day that makes me curious
too.....

He said that he'd be willing to accept the idea that a larger-sized
(non-entry) BOH wound at the back of JFK's head was only about the
size of a "quarter". But how would a small BOH wound of that
particular size equate to a much-larger wound that so many Parkland
witnesses claim they saw?

Seems to me there's still a large gap between Parkland and Bethesda if
you (John) are willing to accept merely a "quarter"-sized BOH (non-
entry) wound.

So I'm just wondering how John can reconcile (in his mind) a "quarter"-
sized BOH wound AND the Parkland witnesses who saw nothing nearly that
tiny (per their accounts of the wound)?

I'm still leaning toward the scenario I put on the table earlier (and
has probably been postulated over the years by many other people too
that I am unaware of) -- and that is the very real possibility that
the Parkland witnesses equated the blood and gore that was pooling to
the back of JFK's head to there being a "wound" in that BOH area of
the head.

Now, given that scenario, we're still left to ask another very
important question, and that is this -- Why in the world didn't any of
those Parkland witnesses ALSO see the ACTUAL large "chiefly parietal"
exit wound on the FRONT/RIGHT/TOP of the President's head?

How could every Parkland witness totally MISS seeing the actual exit
wound that we can easily see here?.....

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg

How could some PH witnesses possibly NOT comment on that obvious
disruption at the right/front of JFK's head? It just doesn't make
sense.

UNLESS -- As fate would have it, the rather-incredible scenario
occurred that was outlined previously, i.e., Jackie Kennedy literally
DID PIECE JFK'S HEAD BACK TOGETHER (temporarily anyway, using that
"hinged" flap we can see in some of the autopsy pictures) during the
drive to Parkland Hospital, thereby re-arranging the way the right/
front exit wound appeared to the witnesses inside the Parkland
emergency room....in essence, masking the wound's existence entirely.

I'll admit, that explanation doesn't fully satisfy me either, just as
it probably won't satisfy anyone else. Because even if Jackie DID
"piece" the head back together again in some jimmy-rigged fashion (as
she did say she attempted to do), I'd STILL think that the disruption
of the skull would have been noticed by at least a few Parkland
witnesses on November 22...even WITH the "hinged flap" put back in its
proper place on the head.

But, since we weren't in that Parkland emergency room that day, it's
impossible to know for sure just exactly what JFK's head looked like
to the witnesses who were there.

I'm just trying to use the physical evidence of the President's body
and the autopsy photos (and Jackie's own words as well) to piece
together some kind of logical explanation where, in effect, EVERYBODY
CAN BE RIGHT -- from Parkland to Bethesda.

Walt

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 3:19:11โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...

>
> ============================
>
> Concerning the initial "Mauser" rifle identification made by the
> Dallas police in 1963, Dallas Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman offers
> up the following verbatim comments for the CBS cameras:
>
> SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
> my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
> it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

ATTENTION---- ATTENTION---- NOW READ THIS!

I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there it was. And he, in
turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

Didn't the Warren Commission say that Oswald ran by and tossed the
rifle down BEHIND the boxes as he fled??

It very clear that Weitzman and Boone had to MOVE boxes before the
rifle was visible......

Pea Brain ..... Get in here and explain this!!

Walt

> memory of what happened and ...
>
> read more ยป


David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 4:49:01โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
>>> "Didn't the Warren Commission say that Oswald ran by and tossed the rifle down BEHIND the boxes as he fled?? It very clear that Weitzman and Boone had to MOVE boxes before the rifle was visible. ... Get in here and explain this!" <<<

Only a kook like you would need something so simple "explained" to
you.

Oswald obviously made SOME (partial) attempt to hide the rifle behind/
between some boxes near the stairway. And the rifle was NOT out in
PLAIN SIGHT (otherwise I think it's reasonable to think that some
officer would have spied the gun before 1:22, which is when it was
discovered by Boone and Weitzman).

Therefore, when Weitzman/Boone moved a couple of boxes...voila!

Big deal.

Now, Walt, let's hear you mangle the evidence yet again and let's hear
your made-up theory re. how Weitzman/Boone/& the WC lied their asses
off in order to paint your hero as the guilty party.

It shouldn't be too difficult for a good, experienced evidence-mangler
like you, Walt. After all, via my '67 CBS-TV excerpt that I dumped in
your evidence-skewing lap, you've got Weitzman confirming that a
couple of boxes were moved prior to the police finding the rifle....so
that fact (alone) MUST mean conspiracy! How can it mean ANYTHING ELSE
to a kook like you?! Right?

So, I want your full theory about this terrible WC/Weitzman/box-moving
episode on my desk by noon tomorrow...or else I'm kicking you out of
the "Anybody But Oswald" club. 10-4?

Walt

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 7:22:45โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
On 23 Apr, 15:49, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Didn't the Warren Commission say that Oswald ran by and tossed the rifle down BEHIND the boxes as he fled?? It very clear that Weitzman and Boone had to MOVE boxes before the rifle was visible. ... Get in here and explain this!" <<<
>
> Only a kook like you would need something so simple "explained" to
> you.
>
> Oswald obviously made SOME (partial) attempt to hide the rifle behind/
> between some boxes near the stairway. And the rifle was NOT out in
> PLAIN SIGHT (otherwise I think it's reasonable to think that some
> officer would have spied the gun before 1:22, which is when it was
> discovered by Boone and Weitzman).
>
> Therefore, when Weitzman/Boone moved a couple of boxes...voila!

Let me see if I understand you.... You proposing that Oswald ran from
the SN and tossed the rifle down in a canyon of boxes then stacked
some boxes over the top to hide the rifle?? And he did all this
without making any noise that Jack Dougerty heard on the 5th floor
immediately below the spot when you think Oswald tossed the 8 pound
rifle onto the wooden floor??
And none Of the three stooges heard any loud clatter of a rifle being
tossed on the floor although they did hear tiny brass shells falling
on the floor.

I gotta tell ya Pea Brain.... Yer theory ain't cuttin it.

Walt

Walt

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 7:31:46โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
On 23 Apr, 15:49, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Didn't the Warren Commission say that Oswald ran by and tossed the rifle down BEHIND the boxes as he fled?? It very clear that Weitzman and Boone had to MOVE boxes before the rifle was visible. ... Get in here and explain this!" <<<
>
> Only a kook like you would need something so simple "explained" to
> you.
>
> Oswald obviously made SOME (partial) attempt to hide the rifle behind/
> between some boxes near the stairway. And the rifle was NOT out in
> PLAIN SIGHT (otherwise I think it's reasonable to think that some
> officer would have spied the gun before 1:22, which is when it was
> discovered by Boone and Weitzman).
>
> Therefore, when Weitzman/Boone moved a couple of boxes...voila!
>
> Big deal.
Pea Brain ....Are you aware that in re-enacting the THEORY that Oswald
ran from the window and down the stairs the Warren Commission merely
similated the tossing of the rifle . Howlett didn't even slow down as
he similated tossinf the rifle behind the boxes. And he arrived at the
lunchroom only a couple of seconds ahead of Baker who was moving
SLOWER than he moved at 12:30 11 /22/63. Now you are faced with
having to stop for 20 - 30 seconds to move some boxes over the
rifle.

I believe yer between a rock and hard place....

Walt

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 7:34:12โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
On Apr 23, 7:22 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 15:49, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Didn't the Warren Commission say that Oswald ran by and tossed the rifle down BEHIND the boxes as he fled?? It very clear that Weitzman and Boone had to MOVE boxes before the rifle was visible. ... Get in here and explain this!" <<<
>
> > Only a kook like you would need something so simple "explained" to
> > you.
>
> > Oswald obviously made SOME (partial) attempt to hide the rifle behind/
> > between some boxes near the stairway. And the rifle was NOT out in
> > PLAIN SIGHT (otherwise I think it's reasonable to think that some
> > officer would have spied the gun before 1:22, which is when it was
> > discovered by Boone and Weitzman).
>
> > Therefore, when Weitzman/Boone moved a couple of boxes...voila!
>
> Let me see if I understand you.... You proposing that Oswald ran from
> the SN and tossed the rifle down in a canyon of boxes then stacked
> some boxes over the top to hide the rifle?? And he did all this
> without making any noise that Jack Dougerty heard on the 5th floor
> immediately below the spot when you think Oswald tossed the 8 pound
> rifle onto the wooden floor??
> And none Of the three stooges heard any loud clatter of a rifle being
> tossed on the floor although they did hear tiny brass shells falling
> on the floor.

Walt

That's my Walter, one dimensional thinking, as always.

Some years ago another researcher and I built a scale mock up of the
boxes where the rifle was found. Armed with a Mannlicher Carcano
carried in our right hands, we found that it would have been a very
simple matter for Oswald to have leaned over the north-most low stack
of boxes and set the rifle down on the floor, upright between two rows
of boxes. No need for tossing or throwing here.

Then it was just a simple matter of sliding a box or two from the
north-most low stack of boxes a few inches to the south, and the whole
set-up was exactly as it was when found.

All this took less about 5 seconds, no more, and made very little
noise.

You claim to have a Carcano, Walt. You never thought to do a test like
this for yourself?

Todd


>
> I gotta tell ya Pea Brain.... Yer theory ain't cuttin it.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
>
> > Big deal.
>
> > Now, Walt, let's hear you mangle the evidence yet again and let's hear
> > your made-up theory re. how Weitzman/Boone/& the WC lied their asses
> > off in order to paint your hero as the guilty party.
>
> > It shouldn't be too difficult for a good, experienced evidence-mangler
> > like you, Walt. After all, via my '67 CBS-TV excerpt that I dumped in
> > your evidence-skewing lap, you've got Weitzman confirming that a
> > couple of boxes were moved prior to the police finding the rifle....so
> > that fact (alone) MUST mean conspiracy! How can it mean ANYTHING ELSE
> > to a kook like you?! Right?
>
> > So, I want your full theory about this terrible WC/Weitzman/box-moving
> > episode on my desk by noon tomorrow...or else I'm kicking you out of

> > the "Anybody But Oswald" club. 10-4?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Message has been deleted

Walt

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 9:26:18โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to

I'm sure you'll understand, If I say I don't believe you....
Considering your record of mendacity.

Walt

> You claim to have a Carcano, Walt. You never thought to do a test like
> this for yourself?
>
> Todd
>
>
>
>
>
> > I gotta tell ya Pea Brain.... Yer theory ain't cuttin it.
>
> > Walt
>
> > > Big deal.
>
> > > Now, Walt, let's hear you mangle the evidence yet again and let's hear
> > > your made-up theory re. how Weitzman/Boone/& the WC lied their asses
> > > off in order to paint your hero as the guilty party.
>
> > > It shouldn't be too difficult for a good, experienced evidence-mangler
> > > like you, Walt. After all, via my '67 CBS-TV excerpt that I dumped in
> > > your evidence-skewing lap, you've got Weitzman confirming that a
> > > couple of boxes were moved prior to the police finding the rifle....so
> > > that fact (alone) MUST mean conspiracy! How can it mean ANYTHING ELSE
> > > to a kook like you?! Right?
>
> > > So, I want your full theory about this terrible WC/Weitzman/box-moving
> > > episode on my desk by noon tomorrow...or else I'm kicking you out of
> > > the "Anybody But Oswald" club. 10-4?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 9:29:43โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to
"BOH" FOLLOW-UP STUFF...........

==================================

>>> "But what you can take to the bank is that, besides the entry hole, there was a visible larger BOH wound." <<<

I'm still quite dubious about taking that particular information to my
bank, John C.

For one thing -- How could the Parkland people have possibly even seen
such a larger BOH wound at the far-right-rear of the head if the ONLY
WAY TO HAVE SEEN IT WOULD BE TO REFLECT THE SCALP OF THE PRESIDENT
*VERY FAR* BACK ON HIS HEAD TO MAKE SUCH A FAR-RIGHT-REAR HOLE VISIBLE
AT ALL?

The Parkland personnel didn't peel back the President's scalp. Or are
you of the opinion they did do this? Or that the scalp reflected
itself back somehow to reveal the larger BOH hole to the many
witnesses?

If JFK's scalp totally covered that BOH wound in this picture.....

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/autop04.jpg

....How can it be that this same area of scalp didn't totally MASK the
hole underneath it while the President was in the Parkland emergency
room?


>>> "SO ARE YOU REALLY SAYING THAT WHEN BOSWELL SAID HE REPLACED PIECES OF REAR SKULL SHORTLY AFTER THE BODY ARRIVED...THE REAR SKULL WAS REALLY UNDAMAGED...HE JUST IMAGINED THAT REAR SKULL PIECES NEEDED TO BE REPLACED???" <<<


I just now went through all of Dr. Boswell's 1996 ARRB testimony/
deposition, and I failed to see any definitive testimony from the lips
of Dr. Boswell that indicates he "REPLACED PIECES OF REAR SKULL" on
the head of President Kennedy.

Perhaps you can lead me to such a definitive hunk of Boswell's ARRB
testimony that I might have missed. ....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

Excerpts from Boswell's ARRB session:

Q. During the course of the autopsy, did any skull fragments, in
addition to the three that you've already shown on the X-ray drawing,
come to the autopsy room?

A. No.

Q. Just those three?

A. Well, I'm not sure all of them came in that night. Probably just
this one. And then the other two I think came later. I know we had
them by the time we examined the brain.

Q. When you say "just this one," you're referring to the drawing on
the bottom of Exhibit 1; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have skull fragments with you at the time of the
supplementary examination of the brain?

A. Yes.

Q. How many fragments did you have, as best you recall?

A. I think there were three.

Q. Do you know whether those fragments were X-rayed at about the time
of the supplementary examination?

A. I'm sure they were.

Q. Did you see them being X-rayed during the supplementary
examination?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you see any X-rays of the three fragments during the time of
the autopsy?

A. One.

==============

Q. Were any skull fragments put back into place before photographs or
before X-rays?

A. I think before we took the--the ones that came from Dallas were
never put back in except to try and approximate them to the ones that
were present. But I think all the others were left intact.

Q. So, for example, was there a fragment that had fallen out at any
point that you then put back into its place before a photograph or X-
ray was taken?

A. Yes.

Q. What size fragments and where did you place them at the--

A. Well, the one that's in the diagram on Exhibit 1, that 10-
centimeter piece I'm sure was out at one time or another. And I think
maybe some of these smaller fragments down at the base of that diagram
also were out at one time or another. But those were all put back.

==============

Q. Do you remember in terms of the general chronology of events when
the skull fragment or fragments arrived? Was that very late in the
autopsy? Do you recall?

A. I think like midway. The one. I think the others came after we had
finished.

==============

John, is it your contention that Boswell put the three fragments that
were transported from Dallas back into place on JFK's head BEFORE the
X-rays were taken?

If that's your contention, you are positively incorrect, given
Boswell's testimony that the X-rays were taken at the very start of
the autopsy....and that only ONE Dallas fragment arrived "midway"
through the autopsy, with the other two fragments (per Boswell)
arriving only "after we had finished" (and obviously well after the X-
rays were taken).


>>> "You want reconciliation, i.e. hardly any liars or hallucinators among the eyewitnesses?" <<<

Yes. Exactly. And that includes Dr. Humes and the Bethesda autopsy
team. (Except for the fact that the word "hallucinators" could easily
be described more fairly as people who truthfully believed they saw
something that probably wasn't there at all. Perhaps a better term for
the Parkland witnesses would be "misrepresenters"...but "truthful
misrepresenters" to be sure, i.e., not "liars".)

There was simply no logical reason, IMO, for the Bethesda doctors to
want to HIDE or mask info re. JFK's wounds (BOH or otherwise),
especially in light of the fact that the autopsy report that all three
of the doctors will be affixing their signatures to will be declaring
in bright, bold, unambiguous-as-can-be letters that President Kennedy
was struck by ONLY TWO BULLETS THAT BOTH CAME FROM ABOVE AND BEHIND
THE LEVEL OF THE DECEASED.

There is/was NO REASON for the Bethesda doctors to hide the existence
of even a larger "BOH" wound given the above "Only From Behind"
autopsy conclusions.

Todd W. Vaughan

unread,
Apr 23, 2007, 9:34:13โ€ฏPM4/23/07
to


Say what you want...believe what you want. I don't really care.

You claim to have a Carcano. Get the crime scene photos. Get the scale
drawings. Get some boxes. Do the reconstruction yourself. I'm mildly
surprised that you didn't think to do it on your own before now. But
you have that one dimensional pea brain of yours to deal with on a
daily basis. Must be tough.

David Von Pein

unread,
Apr 24, 2007, 5:13:13โ€ฏPM4/24/07
to
VIA DOCTOR BOSWELL'S ARRB TESTIMONY (1996):

===========================================

QUESTION -- "So would it be fair to say that although Sibert and
O'Neill's statement that the doctors believed that there may have been
an entrance wound in the back and the bullet worked itself out during
the course of treatment, that although that may have been speculation
at one point during the autopsy, that was abandoned by the conclusion
of the autopsy?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "True. That's true."

QUESTION -- "So this would be almost as if the agents were present at
one point, they left the room, and that that was their conclusion
based upon something that had occurred partway through the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes. They were reporting this stuff by telephone at the
time we were talking."

Walt

unread,
Apr 25, 2007, 9:35:46โ€ฏPM4/25/07
to

How the hell do you know that it was.... "exactly as it was when
found." Apparently you built a mockup based on inaccurate
information. Because Weitzman and Boone had to MOVE boxes before
the rifle was visible, therefore any photos that you may have used to
build a mock up did NOT show the scene as it was BEFORE Boone and
Weitzmam MOVED some boxes.
How did you know what the weight of the boxes were that Oswald could
have "simply slide over the rifle"
Vaugh....Yer a damned fool.

Walt

0 new messages