TESTIMONY OF DR. CHARLES PETTY
Baron Wrangle
brief. It is so brief, in fact, that it does not include his reasons
for concluding that the wound in Kennedy's throat was higher than the
one in his upper back. They appear in the report of the forensic
pathology panel, volume VII of the appendix to the hearings, p. 87:
"Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of
these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic
position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of
the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward,
inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin was abraded in an upward
direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be
tunneled from below upward."
I would appreciate it if David von Pein would now state whether he
believes Dr. Petty on this point. Not that it matters to the rest of
us. Who would you believe: a forensic pathologist testifying under
oath, or David von Pein?
Bud
David Von Pein
>>> "I would appreciate it if David von Pein would now state whether he believes Dr. Petty on this point." <<<
No, I do not (and cannot) believe Dr. Charles Petty on that point
regarding the President's back wound. And I stated my reason why I
cannot believe him in my 2009 post that Bud has linked above:
"The only portion of Dr. Petty's testimony that I firmly
disagree with is when Petty said this to the House Select Committee
--- "The bullet that struck the late President in the upper right back
area...was...traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically
speaking."
"It's very, very difficult for this writer to believe the above
statement uttered by Charles Petty after having taken a good look at
the two autopsy photographs of President Kennedy linked below (which
are photos that were verified by the HSCA's photographic panel as
positively depicting the deceased President on the night of 11/22/63,
and are photos that show, per the HSCA, no signs of having been
altered or faked in any way):
"The photographs linked above are pictures that (when viewed in
concert with one another) certainly would seem to strongly indicate
and suggest that the wound in JFK's upper back was located in a place
on his body that was anatomically HIGHER than the exit wound in the
President's throat (vs. the upper-back wound being anatomically LOWER
than the throat wound, which is what the HSCA's FPP concluded in
1978).
"So, unless the above two autopsy pictures of the late President
Kennedy are depicting some kind of strange "The Throat Wound Seems To
Be Lower Than The Back Wound, But It's Really Higher" anomaly when
looking at these two-dimensional photos (which I suppose is possible,
I'll admit, but I'm wondering how likely it is that the photos are
skewing perception to the large degree that would be necessary in
order for the HSCA's conclusion to be an accurate one on this
subject), then it seems glaringly obvious, after examining those
pictures in tandem with each other, that the wound in JFK's upper back
was located ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the wound in the throat." -- DVP;
May 23, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f9dca06b2b4e6206
Baron Wrangle
> >>> "I would appreciate it if David von Pein would now state whether he believes Dr. Petty on this point." <<<
>
> No, I do not (and cannot) believe Dr. Charles Petty on that point
> regarding the President's back wound. And I stated my reason why I
> cannot believe him in my 2009 post that Bud has linked above:
>
> "The only portion of Dr. Petty's testimony that I firmly
> disagree with is when Petty said this to the House Select Committee
> --- "The bullet that struck the late President in the upper right back
> area...was...traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically
> speaking."
>
> "It's very, very difficult for this writer to believe the above
> statement uttered by Charles Petty after having taken a good look at
> the two autopsy photographs of President Kennedy linked below (which
> are photos that were verified by the HSCA's photographic panel as
> positively depicting the deceased President on the night of 11/22/63,
> and are photos that show, per the HSCA, no signs of having been
> altered or faked in any way):
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...
>
> "The photographs linked above are pictures that (when viewed in
> concert with one another) certainly would seem to strongly indicate
> and suggest that the wound in JFK's upper back was located in a place
> on his body that was anatomically HIGHER than the exit wound in the
> President's throat (vs. the upper-back wound being anatomically LOWER
> than the throat wound, which is what the HSCA's FPP concluded in
> 1978).
>
> "So, unless the above two autopsy pictures of the late President
> Kennedy are depicting some kind of strange "The Throat Wound Seems To
> Be Lower Than The Back Wound, But It's Really Higher" anomaly when
> looking at these two-dimensional photos (which I suppose is possible,
> I'll admit, but I'm wondering how likely it is that the photos are
> skewing perception to the large degree that would be necessary in
> order for the HSCA's conclusion to be an accurate one on this
> subject), then it seems glaringly obvious, after examining those
> pictures in tandem with each other, that the wound in JFK's upper back
> was located ANATOMICALLY HIGHER than the wound in the throat." -- DVP;
> May 23, 2009
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f9dca06b2b4e6206
I have more bad news for David of Anguish. Here is the second page of
the death certificate for JFK made out by Admiral Burkley:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image1.htm
So, Kennedy had a wound "in the posterior back [redundant] at about
the level of the third thoracic vertebra."
Now, here is the second page of a memorandum of Dr. David O. Davis, a
radiologist, to Mark Flanagan of the HSCA staff:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image1.htm
Kennedy first thoracic vertebra, T1, had been fractured.
Can you tell me which is higher: the third thoracic vertebra or the
first thoracic vertebra? I knew you could.
mucher1
>
> So, Kennedy had a wound "in the posterior back [redundant] at about
> the level of the third thoracic vertebra."
>
> Now, here is the second page of a memorandum of Dr. David O. Davis, a
> radiologist, to Mark Flanagan of the HSCA staff:
>
>
> Kennedy first thoracic vertebra, T1, had been fractured.
>
> Can you tell me which is higher: the third thoracic vertebra or the
> first thoracic vertebra? I knew you could.
What's your point? DVP is hardly a T3 theorist.
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, his theories are remarkably free of reality. Let's see how he
deals with reality. Here is a link to page 14 of the second draft of
the autopsy report:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0035a.htm
Humes wrote, "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and
somewhat above a horizontal line to the vertical position of the body
at the moments of impact." Humes was clearly overreaching when he
wrote that both projectiles were fired from the same point. He
implied that Kennedy's body was in the same position at both moments
of impact, which is impossible, since he was in a moving car. How
something can be behind a horizontal line, I'd like to know. If we
limit this description to the shot that caused the non-fatal wound and
assume that this horizontal line crossed the body at the level of the
back wound, this sentence implies that the back wound was higher than
the throat wound when Kennedy's body was in the anatomical position.
At some point, Humes crossed out this sentence and wrote in its place,
"The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased." There is no reference to the position of
Kennedy's body. If Humes knew its position, he could have determined
whether the back wound was higher or lower than the throat wound.
Here is a link to Humes's Warren Commssion testimony:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0191a.htm
If the back wound was higher than the throat wound when Kennedy's body
was in the anatomic position, David, why did he make this change?
BW
bigdog
>
> Humes wrote, "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and
> somewhat above a horizontal line to the vertical position of the body
> at the moments of impact." Humes was clearly overreaching when he
> wrote that both projectiles were fired from the same point. He
> implied that Kennedy's body was in the same position at both moments
> of impact, which is impossible, since he was in a moving car. How
> something can be behind a horizontal line, I'd like to know. If we
> limit this description to the shot that caused the non-fatal wound and
> assume that this horizontal line crossed the body at the level of the
> back wound, this sentence implies that the back wound was higher than
> the throat wound when Kennedy's body was in the anatomical position.
> At some point, Humes crossed out this sentence and wrote in its place,
> "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
> level of the deceased." There is no reference to the position of
> Kennedy's body. If Humes knew its position, he could have determined
> whether the back wound was higher or lower than the throat wound.
> Here is a link to Humes's Warren Commssion testimony:
>
>
> If the back wound was higher than the throat wound when Kennedy's body
> was in the anatomic position, David, why did he make this change?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whether the throat wound or back wound was higher from an anatomical
standpoint is irrelevant. JFK was not in that position when he was
shot. Depending on how you position JFK, it is quite easy to make
either wound higher or lower than the other. Taken to extremes, if JFK
was face down, obviously the back wound would be higher and if he was
laying on his back, obviously the throat wound would be higher.
Somewhere between those two extremes, there is a position in which the
two wounds would be on the same level. In order for the bullet to have
transited on a downward angle, all that is necessary is for JFK's
upper back to been leaning forward from the position in which the two
wounds would be on the same level. Since JFK is not visible at the
time the bullet hit, we cannot ascertain that position precisely, but
given his last known position, it seems clear that he was. It is not
enough to judge the angle of the torso for the angle of the upper back
would be even greater if his shoulders were hunched forward, which a
person with a bad back would be prone to do in order to take pressure
off his lower back.
It's quite simple really. The back wound is unquestionably a wound of
entrance as every qualified professional who has seen the evidence
agrees. The throat wound was not examined at autopsy because it had
been obliterated by the tracheotomy. The fact that there were no
bullets in the body eliminates the possibility that the throat wound
was one of entrance. If you had two entrance wounds and no exit wound,
there should be two bullets inside the body. So we know the bullet
transited from back to front. To believe that this bullet was
traveling on an upward trajectory would require the shooter to have
fired from a position below JFK, which means he would have to have
fired from street level. Funny, but in all my viewings of the Z-film,
I have yet to see a shooter on Elm St. If he had been there, he would
have been run over by the follow up car.
Through process of elimation, we can safely say the bullet went
through JFK's body on a downward angle and that the back wound was
higher than the throat wound.
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -
David:
You didn't answer my question. Surprise, surprise! You can't.
BW
Baron Wrangle
>
> - Show quoted text -
David:
What, still no answer? Buck, buck! I'll make it easy on you: just
say why Humes changed the autopsy report, without any condition about
the position of the wound.
Notice the change in your position I've forced? At first, you scoffed
at the idea that the throat wound was higher than the back wound, in
the anatomical sense. Now, you say it doesn't matter if it was. I
may just keep up at this.
BW
bigdog
Hello.
bigdog is not David. bigdog is me.
David Von Pein
>>> "Notice the change in your position I've forced? At first, you scoffed at the idea that the throat wound was higher than the back wound, in the anatomical sense. Now, you say it doesn't matter if it was." <<<
I never said any such thing. You don't even know who you're responding
to, Anton/Baron.
Baron Wrangle
I have trouble telling you apart. You're peas in a pod.
You still haven't answered my question. I'll make it simpler, a yes
or no question: Did Humes commit perjury? If you say he changed the
autopsy report for any other reason than the one he gave in his
testimony, you're saying that he committed perjury. Answer it now.
Don't wait for the translation.
BW
I have a name, but I can't remember it at this moment.
John Cleese
David Von Pein
The Baron is confused to begin with regarding any "change" that was
made to the autopsy report.
What "change" did you have in mind, Baron?
Dr. Humes burned the first draft of the autopsy report in his home
fireplace, along with burning his original notes that were stained
with JFK's blood. But before burning the notes, Humes copied the
contents of the notes, verbatim, onto a fresh piece of paper.
The first draft of the autopsy report likely had some incorrect
information in it and/or "errors in spelling", according to Dr. Humes'
ARRB testimony, shown below:
"[The first draft of the autopsy report that was later burned in
Humes' fireplace] may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know.
I can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I apologize for that.
But that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't want anything to
remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that
they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don't
know. But it doesn't make any difference because that was my decision
and mine alone. Nobody else's." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 2/13/1996
Maybe The Baron can now tell the world why Dr. Humes would have
admitted to burning ANYTHING in his fireplace if he (Humes) had been a
part of some cover-up operation with respect to the autopsy of
President John F. Kennedy?
Any ideas, Sir Baron/Anton/John Cleese?
Baron Wrangle
> The Baron is confused to begin with regarding any "change" that was
> made to the autopsy report.
>
> What "change" did you have in mind, Baron?
>
Here is a link to the page of the second draft of the autopsy report
that contains the change:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0035a.htm
The draft originally read, "The projectiles were fired from a point
behind and
somewhat above a horizontal line to the vertical position of the body
at the moments of impact." After the change, it read, "The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased." This was not a spelling change.
Here is a link to the page of the typed and signed autopsy report
containing the changed wording:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0504a.htm
Here is a link to Humes's testimony:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0191a.htm
Here is the crucial portion of that testimony:
Mr. Specter. Now, just one point on the notes themselves. Page 14 of
your rough draft, Doctor Humes, as to the point of origin, the notes
show that there was a revision between your first draft and the final
report.
Commander Humes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter. Will you first of all read into the record the final
conclusion reflected in your final report.
Commander Humes. I would rather read it from the final report. The
final report reads:
"The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the
level of the deceased."
Mr. Specter. And what did the first draft of that sentence as shown
on page 14 of your rough draft state?
Commander Humes. It stated as follows:
"The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above a
horizonal line to the vertical position of the body at the moment of
impact."
Mr. Specter. Now would you state the reason for making that
modification between draft and final report, please?
Commander Humes. This examination, as I have indicated, was performed
by myself with my two associates. The notes which we have just
admitted as an exhibit are in my own hand and are my opinion, was my
opinion at that time, as to the best way to present the facts which we
had gleaned during this period.
Before submitting it to the tyupist, I went over this with great care
with my two associates. One or the other of them raied the point that
perhaps this sentence would state more than what was absolutely fact
based upon our observations, pointing out that we did not know
precisely at that time in what position the body of the President was
when the missiles struck, and that therefore we should be somewhat
less specific and somewhat more circumspect than the way we stated
it. When I considered this suggestion, I agreed that it would be
better to change it as noted, and accordingly, I did so.
Was this testimony truthful, David?
> Dr. Humes burned the first draft of the autopsy report in his home
> fireplace, along with burning his original notes that were stained
> with JFK's blood. But before burning the notes, Humes copied the
> contents of the notes, verbatim, onto a fresh piece of paper.
>
Here is a link to Humes's certification that he turned in the autopsy
notes and the draft of the autopsy report to his commanding officer:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0037a.htm
> The first draft of the autopsy report likely had some incorrect
> information in it and/or "errors in spelling", according to Dr. Humes'
> ARRB testimony, shown below:
>
> "[The first draft of the autopsy report that was later burned in
> Humes' fireplace] may have had errors in spelling or I don't know what
> was the matter with it, or whether I even ever did that. I don't know.
> I can't recall. I absolutely can't recall, and I apologize for that.
> But that's the way the cookie crumbles. I didn't want anything to
> remain that some squirrel would grab on and make whatever use that
> they might. Now, whether you felt that was reasonable or not, I don't
> know. But it doesn't make any difference because that was my decision
> and mine alone. Nobody else's." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 2/13/1996
>
> Maybe The Baron can now tell the world why Dr. Humes would have
> admitted to burning ANYTHING in his fireplace if he (Humes) had been a
> part of some cover-up operation with respect to the autopsy of
> President John F. Kennedy?
>
> Any ideas, Sir Baron/Anton/John Cleese?
I have no idea why Arlen Specter chose to ask Humes about the
destruction of the first draft. I do know, that with the senior
suborner from Pennsylvania in charge of the medical aspects of the
investigation, Humes would suffer no consequences for any improper
act.
The first draft probably contained the conclusions that Sibert and
O'Neill recorded in their report. Humes probably destroyed it because
he or one of his superiors realized that they could not get away with
issuing a report that omitted the wound in Kennedy's throat. It would
not have been destroyed because of any facts it contained, because
these facts would have been in the autopsy notes, which Humes did not
destroy.
BW
David Von Pein
>>> "Was this testimony truthful, David?" <<<
Yes. Of course it was.
Baron Wrangle
> >>> "Was this testimony truthful, David?" <<<
>
> Yes. Of course it was.
Then how did Humes determine that the location the shots were fired
from was above and behind Kennedy?
BW
Baron Wrangle
David:
Buck, buck, buck . . .
My Italian isn't as good as Vince's, but I'll give it a try:
Harold Weisberg Il buono
Gerald Posner Il brutto
Vincent Bugliosi Il cattivo
Jeff
> >>> "I would appreciate it if David von Pein would now state whether he believes Dr. Petty on this point." <<<
>
> No, I do not (and cannot) believe Dr. Charles Petty on that point
> regarding the President's back wound. And I stated my reason why I
> cannot believe him in my 2009 post that Bud has linked above:
>
> "The only portion of Dr. Petty's testimony that I firmly
> disagree with is when Petty said this to the House Select Committee
> --- "The bullet that struck the late President in the upper right back
> area...was...traveling in a somewhat upward direction, anatomically
> speaking."
>
My understanding / belief is Kennedy was shot in the throat from the
front.
Perhaps Badge Man fired this shot I don't know.
I think immediately after the assassination photographs were in the
public domain showing the throat wound but these were quickly
censored.
Jeff Marzano